What if there was undeniable proof positive of no god?

:auiqs.jpg:



Screen-Shot-2017-02-26-at-1.50.06-PM.png
:cuckoo:
 
Well, I realize that I haven't been a "Deacon in church who teaches the Bible for years and years" the way you claim to, but at least I knew that there are two books of Timothy, not one. Glad to see that I was able to clarify that for you, even if you're too dishonest to admit it.

Dismissed.

Translation: I didn't know the bible states that God is the true author of the book by having chosen people to write them down.

I deliberately left out the number to see if you are by having been given clues would know the bible is from God as it makes that claim.

Quoting myself again at post 24 this massive clue which you incredibly missed:

"His book is having easy to read errors, and it claims it came from God in Timothy 3:16-17"

You have been exposed at not knowing the bible makes that claim even when I gave you the big clue and almost the entire Chapter and verse location in Timothy.

Dismissed.
 
This is a bit hard to follow but what I'm getting here is you have a dim view of the karma an atheist will accrue. Is that what u believe?
Open Bolt said he/she would laugh at the karma accruing to atheists at their death. I'm assuming Open Bolt assumes such karma will be negative
I have no idea if Karma really exists, but I can still smugly refer to it whenever I see bad things happen to bad people.
and that atheists are bad people. But I have to admit Open Bolt's statements seem inherently contradictory, so I don't really know what Open Bolt is trying to say.
 
...There is no reason to think the universe exists for any purpose. There is no reason to think you were born to fulfill some purpose (or destiny )...
Then what it sort of sounds like you're hinting (and correct me if I'm miss guessing) is that your mission in life is simply living day to day eating sleeping punching a clock --that would be your life's calling, your destiny. Did I guess right?
...Free will is interesting especially since we have learned that personality is determined by genes to a much higher degree than we used to think...
The reason I mentioned free will is that if we assume that we have choice, free will, then we're placing ourselves outside of space and time --outside the observable. That's no crime because at the very small level the observable universe becomes unobservable where physical particles loose their locality and concepts of existence. I'm assuming ur familiar w/ the nature of quarks --correct me if I err.

So the question remains, do u believe u have free will or are u one who believes we're all nuts'n'bolts determined just machines going forward?

...And I do not think we somehow live as a disembodied soul or spirit...
--so u don't believe stupid things that nobody else believes. I'm very happy for u, but let's please get back to ultimate issues that (to me at least) are far more serious.

...Personally I endeavor to make choices that at worst do not add to the suffering of others and at best reduce it. And by others I mean all living things not just people....
This would suggest that u see yourself as a separate entity that can make independant choices, that u have free will. Please correct me if I'm guessing wrong here, but this belief system would put us completely together, brothers on the same path w/ no reason to squabble.

Also, this last statement can sound like it contradicts your first statement that we have no calling or destiny. How about we agree that our common mission is as u said, to make choices that reduce the suffering of other life forms. My thinking however is that we need to primarily focus on human life forms. Animals are very nice, but they can come in many forms and when we get down to the level of an ameba I personally take a very dim view of their import.
 
Last edited:
Open Bolt said he/she would laugh at the karma accruing to atheists at their death. I'm assuming Open Bolt assumes such karma will be negative

and that atheists are bad people. But I have to admit Open Bolt's statements seem inherently contradictory, so I don't really know what Open Bolt is trying to say.
Ah, u were trying to make sense out of what was coming from someone else. At any rate, my personal experience is that there are some very good people who've adopted the "atheist" label and I wouldn't want to assume any bad things are in store for them. Naturally, I personally think we can move forward from the label but that's another issue.
 
When read without prejudice, the Scriptures have led a small handful of Christians to atheism. It is a story for, by, and about ethnic Israel.

On several occasions, the gospels remark on Jesus’ mission as Israel’s Messiah to deliver Israel from her waywardness, linking some of the parables to that mission. Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so he told the Syrophoenician woman (Mt 15:24). Redemption was not intended for all of humanity, but only for this people, who considered itself the whole of humanity, set apart from the rest of the world as the chosen of God. Jesus came into the world to deliver his people from their sins (Mt 1:21). The apostles – Jewish believers – would sit at the Lord’s table in the kingdom and judge Israel (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:29-30). Jesus told Jews that truth would set them free (Jn 8:31-32).

Jesus is Israel’s messiah who came to redeem those under the law (Gal 4:4-5). That is not the Greeks, the Romans, the Assyrians, or you or me. Jesus was born to save his people from their sins; he came for the descendants of Abraham, the people subject to the Law but whom the Law could not redeem (hence his fulfillment of the Law).

Jesus’ coming lends closure to Israel’s history, these people maintain. Both the old and new testaments offer a biographical sketch of Israel through Israel’s eyes. As Israel and Judea were losing their identities in the midst of the sea, Jesus was underpinning the spiritual implications of that loss, gathering the final remnant to God while it still existed.

I once stood on the edge of that Israel-Only cliff myself, and resigning myself to annihilation was hard to do, I must admit, but doable, I thought.
 
Then what it sort of sounds like you're hinting (and correct me if I'm miss guessing) is that your mission in life is simply living day to day eating sleeping punching a clock --that would be your life's calling, your destiny. Did I guess right?

The reason I mentioned free will is that if we assume that we have choice, free will, then we're placing ourselves outside of space and time --outside the observable. That's no crime because at the very small level the observable universe becomes unobservable where physical particles loose their locality and concepts of existence. I'm assuming ur familiar w/ the nature of quarks --correct me if I err.

So the question remains, do u believe u have free will or are u one who believes we're all nuts'n'bolts determined just machines going forward?


--so u don't believe stupid things that nobody else believes. I'm very happy for u, but let's please get back to ultimate issues that (to me at least) are far more serious.


This would suggest that u see yourself as a separate entity that can make independant choices, that u have free will. Please correct me if I'm guessing wrong here, but this belief system would put us completely together, brothers on the same path w/ no reason to squabble.

Also, this last statement can sound like it contradicts your first statement that we have no calling or destiny. How about we agree that our common mission is as u said, to make choices that reduce the suffering of other life forms. My thinking however is that we need to primarily focus on human life forms. Animals are very nice, but they can come in many forms and when we get down to the level of an ameba I personally take a very dim view of their import.
No you guessed wrong.

My mission in life is for me to define. it wasn't preplanned by some god.

And it is impossible for you to place yourself outside of space and time. And like I said our personalities and therefore the choices we make because of our psychological make up are influenced to far greater degree by genetics than we used to think so is that still free will?

We can certainly make decisions and choose between different options so there is free will to an extent. We still have yet to determine to what degree our responses to the choices presented are conditioned by our upbringing, society, and how those forces interact with our genetic predispositions.

And let me correct you.

YOU are inferring incorrectly. No one is separate from the the world and environment around them. In fact everyone is inextricably linked to the environment or universe if you prefer.

I make my choices and those are independent from yours as all the factors that influence those decisions are unique to each of us. And I'm not going to contribute to your reduction to the ridiculous with that amoeba statement.

One of the reasons humans have screwed up the environment is that they believe they are above it. That they have removed themselves from it and that it doesn't matter if we dump chemicals in rivers or billions of tons of plastic in the oceans.

Like it or not humans are dependent on a healthy biosphere.
 
No you guessed wrong.

My mission in life is for me to define. it wasn't preplanned by some god...
It's getting really hard to follow what ur saying because u keep trying to fight about beliefs to which neither of us subscribe. I'm trying to understand what ur mission is and u said "There is no reason to think you were born to fulfill some purpose (or destiny )" and now ur saying that your mission in life is for u to define. That's great & from what I gather it's the case w/ everyone I've met.

So, u've said that your mission is to act in such a way to reduce harm to others. Do you still stand by that?
 
It's getting really hard to follow what ur saying because u keep trying to fight about beliefs to which neither of us subscribe. I'm trying to understand what ur mission is and u said "There is no reason to think you were born to fulfill some purpose (or destiny )" and now ur saying that your mission in life is for u to define. That's great & from what I gather it's the case w/ everyone I've met.

So, u've said that your mission is to act in such a way to reduce harm to others. Do you still stand by that?
There is no reason to think you were born to fulfill some destiny.

That in no way means a person can't define a mission or a purpose for himself.

The two ae not mutually exclusive.

I don't see how that confuses you.

And the attempt to reduce suffering is one of the principles I try to live by. It's not a mission as much as a way of life or a path I have chosen to walk.

So I choose not to do many things that I see as increasing suffering but I have no desire to be a crusader either.
 
Funny that the atheists think anything they phrase as a question automatically deserves to be treated with gravity and an obligation to answer it seriously, simply because they said it. Or that a dismissal of a question on the grounds that it's nonsensical is somehow, "Aha! That proves I'm right!"

All this exemplifies is how desperate you are to claim a victory without the messy work of thinking about what you say first. I'd say the possible existence of God is impossible for you to consider, given the evidence that you abandon any pretense of logical thought the instant it comes up.

No one owes you answers, or a justification of their beliefs to you. Get over yourself, and come back and request nicely by asking something intelligent, and perhaps we'll be gracious.
Except you and everyone on this thread thought they should provide an answer.

They just could not answer the question properly. Instead spin spin spin.

Hence my statement. I do not think the question deserves weight, just as the 'what if there was absolute proof that God did exist' is asinine so is this one. I can answer it nonetheless though as it is obvious that if there is proof God existed I would become a believer immediately.

That is blatantly obvious. You cannot even consider the counter though as shown by this very thread.
 
Back when Russia was doing away with God in order to emphasize that the dictator was the prime decider for what goes and what does not, America emphasized that we were different. We were born with certain rights; we were not a nation under one person, we were a nation under, not man, but God.

Without God...humans will receive their rights from whomever is in power. The wealthy and the powerful...i.e., Big Business and whoever their puppets are. The ideals will be wealth, property, power.
And back when the Nazi's were putting 'God is with us' on their belt buckles they were emphasizing how they were upholding Gods order in the universe.

Natural rights do not depend on a God, I am proof of such as I recognize natural rights and understand the concept but do not need a God to justify it. The FACT is that people are pretty shitty to each other at times, particularly when those others belong to a community that can be demonized. Religion does not stop that. It certainly did not stop the fundamentalists that rammed airplanes into 3 buildings in 2000. Nor does a lack of faith stop it.

Theocracies are pretty shitty governments as well, just look to the current situation in Iran or Afghanistan for easy proof of that.
 
Except you and everyone on this thread thought they should provide an answer.

They just could not answer the question properly. Instead spin spin spin.

Hence my statement. I do not think the question deserves weight, just as the 'what if there was absolute proof that God did exist' is asinine so is this one. I can answer it nonetheless though as it is obvious that if there is proof God existed I would become a believer immediately.

That is blatantly obvious. You cannot even consider the counter though as shown by this very thread.

No, actually, I provided no answer at all. What I provided was the observation that it's a nonsensical question. Thanks for proving that you're not reading any of the posts, because you're too busy paying attention to the conversation you're imagining.
 
No, actually, I provided no answer at all. What I provided was the observation that it's a nonsensical question. Thanks for proving that you're not reading any of the posts, because you're too busy paying attention to the conversation you're imagining.
Uh huh.

Case in point.
 
How would you react if undeniable, irrefutable proof was discovered that God doesn’t exist?

View attachment 625396


Be civil now.

if it is then a free for all in the heavens both good and evil, best to join the side furthest from the desert religions that probably did in the creator they did not like.

no worries for surly the polytheistic gods do rule rule as the religion of aniquity prescribes and evil would be kept out anyway ... the desert people for sure.
 
There is no reason to think you were born to fulfill some destiny.

That in no way means a person can't define a mission or a purpose for himself...
lol!! To me, defining a mission and purpose is the same as growing to understand our nature to the extent that we develop a grasp of meaning for ourselves as to our basic ultimate goals.

However, if it's really important to u we can agree that nobody was born to fulfill a destiny and at the same time agree that we would do well to define our mission and purpose.

Are we good here?
 

Forum List

Back
Top