Why are "atheists" offended by "G-d" ?

[daws101]

I humbly disagree. Becaues Those who have faith can have personal experiences with God. When you have a personal experience with God, you know He is there.

That's precisely why I am always encouraging people to pray. Because when they pray in faith, they can recieve a witness of the Holy Spirit. No man can know the things of the Spirit except by the Spirit.

It sounds as if you're saying that in order to have proof of God one has to believe in God. To me that is putting to cart before the horse. It seems as though one should follow wherever the evidence leads, and not jump (or leap) to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. When one is convinced of the answer already, looking for evidence to support that answer is simply confirmation bias.

Actually, belief always comes before knowledge. You have to believe you can understand calculus before you can understand it. You have to believe you can understand the laws of nature before you can learn any of the sciences. It's a natural law.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if there was a God, I could experiment on the word and He would let me know some way. He did. I know that there is a God in heaven because I was willing to experiment on belief.

But you guys don't want to do any work or experiment. Not sure why. All knowledge must be obtained by faith. Otherwise, why would anyone work to obtain it?

You don't have to be scared. You can let go. Even if all you can do is believe that it could be possible, that's enough faith to start the ball rolling.

I love it when you rationalize.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Is your belief that there isn't any creator superior to my belief that there is?

I think you misunderstand atheism, or non-theism. It isn't that atheism denies any possible existence of a higher power, its that atheists are not convinced there is a god because there is insufficient evidence supporting that conclusion. So to us, the jury is still out on this case.

Yes, there are antitheists, but they are as dogmatic in their belief that there can be no god as the religious who believe there must be a god. Neither have evidence to support their positions.

Dogma is the enemy of learning and open-mindedness.

Your attempt at explanation is heart warming, but I don't misunderstand anything. I can read with my own eyes all of the threads and posts on here made by atheists calling people of faith every perjorative relating to 'stupid' that they can find. My post was not about atheism in general, it was specifically about the people posting in this thread with ironic accusations of arrogance when they really should be looking in the mirror while giving their lecture.

Well, it was not my intention to warm your heart but to soften it. But I'm glad your heart was warmed.

And what you say is true in many cases and I hope many atheists will take it to heart that condescension does nothing to help our cause.

 

[Newby]

false! on the other hand being more intellectual then you is easy,

First you claim 'false', and then go and ruin it by making a statement afterwards that negates it. Funny stuff!!

ahh no... guess a two part answer is beyond your pay grade.
still trying to make this a competition are we.?

Yeah, two part... with 'on the other hand' in the middle... you contradicted yourself in black and white, and now you want to deny it... Whatever, dude...

Again, 'trying to make it a competition', as if it could never be, right? Arrogance, do you know what it even is? Look in the mirror to find out.

 

[Avatar4321]

People were killed in Russia because of Stalinism not religion. People were killed in China because of Maoism not atheism. People in Cuba were kille because of political dissent. And the Khmer Rouge killed millions because of anti-intellectualism and political and social dissent, not atheism. Please review all of the relevant history and facts before coming to conclusions.

All of which are atheistic idealogies. In fact, their anti-theism is a major dogma of all those idealogies.

But i understand you guys want to completely ignore that. It makes the "All religious are evil but atheism is good" nonsense you guys are trying to convince yourselves of unbelievable.

Anti-theism was part of these ideologies but not the bedrock nor were these people killed in the cause of spreading anti-theism. Stalin was insane, and arguably so was Pol Pot and Mao: and if they weren't the system of government they set up was insane. All of those people were killed or died as a result of insanity, corruption, paranoia, unethical governmental systems, inefficiency, and sadism and sociopathy. Some were killed because of religion. Some were killed because of anti-theism

But not because of atheism which is simply "not convinced there is a god"". How can one zealously kill in the name of uncertainty?

What you are describing is not atheism, but agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there is no God. Agnosticism is - I don't know if there is a God.

The problem with Atheism is it is illogical by definition. You cannot know there is no God unless you are aware of everything in the universe at all time and out of it. Otherwise, you can't say for certain there is no God unless you were a god.

Agnosticism can be logical or illogical. The logical agnostics stick with "I don't know whether there is a God, but it's possible." The illogical ones say "I don't know whether there is a God and because I don't know no one else does either, nor can they ever."

There are believers that don't know if there is a God. My guess is they would say as much. But there are also believers who have had personal experiences with God. If you hear His voice or see His Face or feel His influence and power, you've had first had experience.

If you are locked in a room and I've seen and talked to you, but Daws hasn't. Is it logical for daws to say you don't exist or that there is no evidence of your existence? is it logical for him to claim that I don't know you exist?

Experiment on the Word. The scriptures promise those who will can know for themselves that God is there and that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[daws101]

I humbly disagree. Becaues Those who have faith can have personal experiences with God. When you have a personal experience with God, you know He is there.

That's precisely why I am always encouraging people to pray. Because when they pray in faith, they can recieve a witness of the Holy Spirit. No man can know the things of the Spirit except by the Spirit.

bullshit! there 's nothing humble about it.

what you describe is completely subjective..because faith is subjective.
why is that such a tough concept for believers?

So because you declare something subjective, means it's not true?

You really don't have to be afraid. It's alright not to know everything. It's alright to believe in sound principles until you learn they are good. It's alright to learn here a little and there a little.

God really does love you. I know you don't believe in Him, but He believes in you. And when you are ready He will heal you.

FALSE! I'm not declaring anything, just stating fact.
most all if not all of your posts are declarations made on false premises.

Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective

 

[Avatar4321]

It sounds as if you're saying that in order to have proof of God one has to believe in God. To me that is putting to cart before the horse. It seems as though one should follow wherever the evidence leads, and not jump (or leap) to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. When one is convinced of the answer already, looking for evidence to support that answer is simply confirmation bias.

Actually, belief always comes before knowledge. You have to believe you can understand calculus before you can understand it. You have to believe you can understand the laws of nature before you can learn any of the sciences. It's a natural law.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if there was a God, I could experiment on the word and He would let me know some way. He did. I know that there is a God in heaven because I was willing to experiment on belief.

But you guys don't want to do any work or experiment. Not sure why. All knowledge must be obtained by faith. Otherwise, why would anyone work to obtain it?

You don't have to be scared. You can let go. Even if all you can do is believe that it could be possible, that's enough faith to start the ball rolling.

I love it when you rationalize.

I rather like being rational too.

So open up and realize there is more to this world. Why on earth should we put a limit on what we can learn?

 

[daws101]

First you claim 'false', and then go and ruin it by making a statement afterwards that negates it. Funny stuff!!

ahh no... guess a two part answer is beyond your pay grade.
still trying to make this a competition are we.?

Yeah, two part... with 'on the other hand' in the middle... you contradicted yourself in black and white, and now you want to deny it... Whatever, dude...

Again, 'trying to make it a competition', as if it could never be, right? Arrogance, do you know what it even is? Look in the mirror to find out.

sorry but no..

 

[daws101]

Actually, belief always comes before knowledge. You have to believe you can understand calculus before you can understand it. You have to believe you can understand the laws of nature before you can learn any of the sciences. It's a natural law.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if there was a God, I could experiment on the word and He would let me know some way. He did. I know that there is a God in heaven because I was willing to experiment on belief.

But you guys don't want to do any work or experiment. Not sure why. All knowledge must be obtained by faith. Otherwise, why would anyone work to obtain it?

You don't have to be scared. You can let go. Even if all you can do is believe that it could be possible, that's enough faith to start the ball rolling.

I love it when you rationalize.

I rather like being rational too.

So open up and realize there is more to this world. Why on earth should we put a limit on what we can learn?

you seem to forget I once was what you are now..and found it wanting...
btw you might want to learn the difference between "rationalizing" (a thing you do constantly ) and rational (a state of mind).

 

[Newby]

ahh no... guess a two part answer is beyond your pay grade.
still trying to make this a competition are we.?

Yeah, two part... with 'on the other hand' in the middle... you contradicted yourself in black and white, and now you want to deny it... Whatever, dude...

Again, 'trying to make it a competition', as if it could never be, right? Arrogance, do you know what it even is? Look in the mirror to find out.

sorry but no..

At least you're predictable..

 

[Newby]

I love it when you rationalize.

I rather like being rational too.

So open up and realize there is more to this world. Why on earth should we put a limit on what we can learn?

you seem to forget I once was what you are now..and found it wanting...btw you might want to learn the difference between "rationalizing" (a thing you do constantly ) and rational (a state of mind).

And what was that?

 

[daws101]

Yeah, two part... with 'on the other hand' in the middle... you contradicted yourself in black and white, and now you want to deny it... Whatever, dude...

Again, 'trying to make it a competition', as if it could never be, right? Arrogance, do you know what it even is? Look in the mirror to find out.

sorry but no..

At least you're predictable..

really? you are so predictable that even the slightest criticism of your pov drives you batshit .

 

[daws101]

I rather like being rational too.

So open up and realize there is more to this world. Why on earth should we put a limit on what we can learn?

you seem to forget I once was what you are now..and found it wanting...btw you might want to learn the difference between "rationalizing" (a thing you do constantly ) and rational (a state of mind).

And what was that?

asked and answered

 

[Avatar4321]

I love it when you rationalize.

I rather like being rational too.

So open up and realize there is more to this world. Why on earth should we put a limit on what we can learn?

you seem to forget I once was what you are now..and found it wanting...
btw you might want to learn the difference between "rationalizing" (a thing you do constantly ) and rational (a state of mind).

As far as I can tell, you've never had an experience with the Divine. If you had, you wouldn't be saying the Lord doesn't exist. So, no you haven't been what I am now. And even if you had one, I wouldn't agree. We are two different people. We have had vastly different experiences. We are not in the same place in our development. Nor would I expect us to be.

But even now with our difference, we are children of God. And we have the capacity to learn more.

Rationalize:

To remove irrational elements from
To make rational

You do realize that rationalizing is the process by which things are made rational, right?

 

[daws101]

I rather like being rational too.

So open up and realize there is more to this world. Why on earth should we put a limit on what we can learn?

you seem to forget I once was what you are now..and found it wanting...
btw you might want to learn the difference between "rationalizing" (a thing you do constantly ) and rational (a state of mind).

As far as I can tell, you've never had an experience with the Divine. If you had, you wouldn't be saying the Lord doesn't exist. So, no you haven't been what I am now. And even if you had one, I wouldn't agree. We are two different people. We have had vastly different experiences. We are not in the same place in our development. Nor would I expect us to be.
But even now with our difference, we are children of God. And we have the capacity to learn more.

Rationalize:

To remove irrational elements from
To make rational

You do realize that rationalizing is the process by which things are made rational, right?

cherry pick much?

efinition of rationalize (v)
Bing Dictionary
ra·tion·al·ize[ ráshən'l z ]
offer reasonable explanation for something: to attempt to justify behavior normally considered irrational or unacceptable by offering an apparently reasonable explanation

this :"As far as I can tell, you've never had an experience with the Divine. If you had, you wouldn't be saying the Lord doesn't exist. So, no you haven't been what I am now. And even if you had one, I wouldn't agree. We are two different people. We have had vastly different experiences. We are not in the same place in our development. Nor would I expect us to be."-Avatar4321 is classic rationalization.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Did more people die in the Crusades or in the godless Communist takoevers over the Russia (and the USSR), China, and others like Cuba (Castro), Pol Pot, and many many more.

People were killed in Russia because of Stalinism not religion. People were killed in China because of Maoism not atheism. People in Cuba were kille because of political dissent. And the Khmer Rouge killed millions because of anti-intellectualism and political and social dissent, not atheism. Please review all of the relevant history and facts before coming to conclusions.

What did they all have in common? Hmmm... Atheism??? Only the state is worthy of worship, something has to fill the gap, and make no mistake, when you take away faith, there is a gap. That's exactly why it was removed from every regime you mentioned, to specifically replace it with the state.

Sure atheism was something all of these ideologies had in common, but it wasn't atheism upon which what the ideologies were based. These socio-politico-economic ideologies.

I will agree that the state was placed in the role of an almost all powerful "deity" with altars upon which many were sacrificed in the name of the ruler (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and that kind of worship is destructive. However, atheism doesn't want the state to be worshipped. It doesn't want anyone to worship anything except knowledge, learning, human advancement, moral and ethical values, rational discourse, and a culture based upon logic and love and enlightened thought. Who could be against that?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I humbly disagree. Becaues Those who have faith can have personal experiences with God. When you have a personal experience with God, you know He is there.

That's precisely why I am always encouraging people to pray. Because when they pray in faith, they can recieve a witness of the Holy Spirit. No man can know the things of the Spirit except by the Spirit.

It sounds as if you're saying that in order to have proof of God one has to believe in God. To me that is putting to cart before the horse. It seems as though one should follow wherever the evidence leads, and not jump (or leap) to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. When one is convinced of the answer already, looking for evidence to support that answer is simply confirmation bias.

Actually, belief always comes before knowledge. You have to believe you can understand calculus before you can understand it. You have to believe you can understand the laws of nature before you can learn any of the sciences. It's a natural law.

I didn't always know there was a God. But I reasoned that if there was a God, I could experiment on the word and He would let me know some way. He did. I know that there is a God in heaven because I was willing to experiment on belief.

But you guys don't want to do any work or experiment. Not sure why. All knowledge must be obtained by faith. Otherwise, why would anyone work to obtain it?

You don't have to be scared. You can let go. Even if all you can do is believe that it could be possible, that's enough faith to start the ball rolling.

Faith in oneself is different from faith in God. You are conflating the two and making a false analogy which is a logical fallacy.

I also think the statement that all knowledge comes from faith is, and I don't mean this as an insult, patently and obviously absurd. That statement is, to me, an apparent attempt to rationalize faith as knowledge in order to make a confirmation of your bias.

When I was young I did experiment with faith. I prayed for Jesus to become my savior as sincerely as I knew how. It didn't sit right with me. Because it was making a decision and coming to a conclusion without all the information. So, I read the Bible to learn more and the information led me to the conclusion that the Christian god and the Hebrew god weren't gods that I wanted to worship and nor was there evidence sufficient enough to convince me that the god of the Bible was THE God.

So I keep learning, reading, listening, growing, and finding that remaining agnostic about whether there is or is not a god or gods or some sort of higher power is a journey worth making and seemingly one without destination.

 

[gallantwarrior]

thanks you for the fine example of forcing your belief on another..
you have no way of knowing if rightwinger or any one else's life is "miserable" you are making a judgement based on a bias that your belief is somehow superior to someone else's.
that is the essence of forcing your god or faith on another.

Is your belief that there isn't any creator superior to my belief that there is?

I think you misunderstand atheism, or non-theism. It isn't that atheism denies any possible existence of a higher power, its that atheists are not convinced there is a god because there is insufficient evidence supporting that conclusion. So to us, the jury is still out on this case.

Yes, there are antitheists, but they are as dogmatic in their belief that there can be no god as the religious who believe there must be a god. Neither have evidence to support their positions.

Dogma is the enemy of learning and open-mindedness.

I suspect you are confusing "athiest" with "agnostic".

 

[Newby]

sorry but no..

At least you're predictable..

really? you are so predictable that even the slightest criticism of your pov drives you batshit .

No, it's not criticism that you dish out, it's complete lack of respect, arrogance, and condescension. So it's not your pov that I take issue with, it's your attitude.

 

[Newby]

you seem to forget I once was what you are now..and found it wanting...btw you might want to learn the difference between "rationalizing" (a thing you do constantly ) and rational (a state of mind).

And what was that?

asked and answered

I've never seen it then..

 

[Newby]

People were killed in Russia because of Stalinism not religion. People were killed in China because of Maoism not atheism. People in Cuba were kille because of political dissent. And the Khmer Rouge killed millions because of anti-intellectualism and political and social dissent, not atheism. Please review all of the relevant history and facts before coming to conclusions.

What did they all have in common? Hmmm... Atheism??? Only the state is worthy of worship, something has to fill the gap, and make no mistake, when you take away faith, there is a gap. That's exactly why it was removed from every regime you mentioned, to specifically replace it with the state.

Sure atheism was something all of these ideologies had in common, but it wasn't atheism upon which what the ideologies were based. These socio-politico-economic ideologies.

I will agree that the state was placed in the role of an almost all powerful "deity" with altars upon which many were sacrificed in the name of the ruler (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and that kind of worship is destructive. However, atheism doesn't want the state to be worshipped. It doesn't want anyone to worship anything except knowledge, learning, human advancement, moral and ethical values, rational discourse, and a culture based upon logic and love and enlightened thought. Who could be against that?

That well may be true for a certain number of people who claim to be atheists, but that was not the reason for religion being abolished from the regimes that you mentioned. As I said, something has to fill that gap, and they intended it to be the state using the very same reasons that you listed above; knowledge, learning, blah, blah, blah... The road to hell is paved with good intentions..

And your post implies that those wonderful things that you mentioned are mutually exclusive of faith, and they are not.