CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Atheist lack understanding of atheism.
"Technically atheists just lack a belief in god, they don't necessarily believe in the non-existence of god." Qoute from a debate here.
The trouble is that atheist don't just use this meaning, they act upon it. They attack God and religion, making atheism a religion. They don't lack a belief, they just have a different one.
You have to consider the nature of what beliefs are. Beliefs are more or less dynamically changing structures that form as we encounter patterns in reality. The difference between belief and knowledge can be measured in degrees of certainty.
I'm an atheist who doesn't hate religious people or think they are of inferior intellectual ability. I can by no means speak for the "atheist" religious sect that you suppose exists. I do though, see how it can seem ironic how we atheists have so many beliefs about a being that we don't believe exists. I CAN explain some of how I Think about it, even more if provoked. I'll have you thinking I'm a kook in no time :)
I am willing to admit that god exists as a term. This term god seems inexorably involved with the practice of worship. Worship is a term involved with the placing of extreme trust in a being that is esteemed absolutely "superior". The extreme level of trust that I associate with the practice of worship, is appropriate only for very young children. Their parents should teach them to doubt and question everything as soon as is safely possible. Teachers should be more forthright about where their understanding ends because we need more minds on these problems, not more people looking to higher thans for answers and solutions.
Well I agree with most of what your post says. Beliefs make up our worldview and our worldview is how we see the truth. The truth for me is Christ Jesus, so whatever He commands I believe. Those that reject God live by another set of rules or laws. They make themselves the god of the universe they believe in.
I appreciate that you don't hate or treat people of faith as inferior people. We have our kooks just like any other faith, but for the most part those whose lives reject Christ, treat and honor people as they want to be treated. I work with many atheists, especially at Right to Life events...they are wonderful people.
What you said about its ironic that so many atheists talk about God so much, when they say no god exists. It is funny in a way...so true.
You are willing to admit to god on paper, an object an idea not reality....you deny that he exists as a living entity. I believe in that supreme God of the universe who is the first cause, the creator of everything. I believe by faith in the things I have experiences and seen in my life. Can I prove it? No. But can the atheist deny the possibility that just might exist? NO He too has faith in his experiences and what he has seen. So the term atheist is false to describe someone who has no belief in a god. They would have to have all the knowledge in the world and beyond. This is impossible. I think you are agnostic.
I belief children need all the facts, as much as we can provide. But they should know more than that...they need to know theories as well. I believe in questioning. I have a lot of things I don't understand things I question...things I would love to ask God. I am constantly learning new things in the Word. And as I get older, more mature...I am more content to live with the things that will never be answered on earth. I simply have faith that what I believe is true...and I am not alone. Kids should not be kept from the truth however...and this truth would be the POSSIBILITY of things unseen. This should be taught at school along with all the rest of the theories. And until the first cause can be proven.....why we are here, how did we get here......everything should be examined, especially the idea of an intelligent designer. I totally agree with you that teachers should be honest, they should not campaign for their beleifs but put all on the table. It is not right that our public schools eliminate God as an intelligent creator as one possiblity.
This implies that there are portions you don't agree with. Be bold enough to point them out and debate might ensue. :)
The truth for me is Christ Jesus
That comes across to me as plainly illogical. If you had said: "I think Christ Jesus always told the truth, so any statements attributed to him, I believe" it would at least make enough sense for me to ask "How can you be sure Jesus said X?"
, so whatever He commands I believe.
Don't you mean "obey" instead of believe? I mean statements are to be believed or disbelieved, and commands are to be obeyed or disobeyed right?
Those that reject God live by another set of rules or laws.
Who doesn't live by the set of rules or laws that they themselves have determined to be wisest? And who isn't susceptible to profound error? I think that those who believe that they receive instructions from on high are even more susceptible.
They make themselves the god of the universe they believe in.
When it comes to placing trust, there is no higher authority than the person who places it.
You are willing to admit to god on paper, an object an idea not reality
Language and ideas are part of reality.
you deny that he exists as a living entity.
Not necessarily. It would depend on how "living" and "entity" are interpreted. I do think of language and ideas as somewhat "living" things.
So the term atheist is false to describe someone who has no belief in a god.
That doesn't logically follow from what you typed immediately preceding. I am comfortable admitting that I have beliefs about god. Depending on how you define god, I might even admit that god exists. But the statement "I believe in god" doesn't even make sense to me.
They would have to have all the knowledge in the world and beyond.
You are atheist in regards to Zeus are you not? When you understand why you dismiss Zeus, you will understand why I dismiss the other deities.
I think you are agnostic.
You are right, I am. But I understand it as a philosophical position and not necessarily a theological one. Chew on that :)
I belief children need all the facts
I believe that there are no facts, only interpretations.
I have a lot of things I don't understand things I question...things I would love to ask God.
Why don't you ask through prayer?
And as I get older, more mature...I am more content to live with the things that will never be answered on earth.
So your faith in god helps suppress your curiosity does it? That god suppresses curiosity and encourages people to be satisfied with their understanding is something I have noticed, and you are confirming.
Kids should not be kept from the truth however...and this truth would be the POSSIBILITY of things unseen.
If kids are taught by their teachers that everything they are being taught might be in many important respects wrong, including teachings about god, I'd say we were on to something.
It is not right that our public schools eliminate God as an intelligent creator as one possiblity.
Who determines what gets included in the curriculum of public schools?
Jesus is the Truth, no other way to put it. It is not illogical. You said something that I said......If Jesus is the truth, then He always told the truth. Do you want me to mention everything He ever said? Everything He said, did was the truth. Of course you can and would probably deny anything I would throw at you...so would it matter? I mean I could go on and on and on...about the facts my feelings on this....but this is about atheism....you want to debate Christ....then start something.
I am a Christian...I believe I obey......thats it. I obey what I believe..........I believe what i obey...however you want to see it.
Why am I susceptable? God has my back. I accept the morals He determined were right for me. Christians all share the same moral system that comes from the scriptures. They might not put it into practice...but they should. I believe this is the truth.
For someone who rejects God...WHO MAKES UP THE RULES, MORALS THEY LIVE BY? Its a crap shoot...everything goes, morality is arbitrary. There is no right or wrong, only what they see.
I disagree...You said.....when it comes to placing trust there is no higher authority than the person who places it. That is because you take the role of god in your life. I don't. The highest authority in my life is God, Christ, the Holy Spirit. I am just a sinner saved by grace.
You said, "You are atheist in regards to Zeus are you not? When you understand why you dismiss Zeus, you will understand why I dismiss the other deities."
But my answer is no. So where does that leave you? I believe that Christ is the Truth, the only truth. But I can't prove it and don't try. Zeus..might just have existed...in the larger scheme of things...that does not mean that my God is not the first cause. People have been worshipping things they see as gods since the beginning of time. I do not dismiss Zeus.
"You are right, I am. But I understand it as a philosophical position and not necessarily a theological one. Chew on that :)"
Well think of it however you wish...you either accept Christ as the truth or you dont. You either believe or you dont. You are so into terms...you lose the entire thought on this. You seem to be going around in circles.......and thats what people do who try to live without god...
Of course I ask God things through prayer. I talk to Him like I talk to anyone else. I get mad at Him...He is my heavenly Father. I don't like when He spanks me. I have had a lot of health issues the past few years....I don't get it. But the scriptures say suffering develops perserverance. It certainly brings me close to HIm. I have seen so many miracles in my life...
About maturing....of course I am more content. I am 55 years old. I am still curious but certainly not like I was when I was 25. I have been a Christian for so many years that....I understand the important stuff. You see my life on earth is only temporary....when I die...my life will start. So I am content.
As for the schools and what is taught. I believe kids should be seekers of knowledge, that nothing should be kept from their journey. Of course it should be age appropriate...but nevertheless they should know about all world religions...the truth about them. But atheism should be included.
Who determines what gets included in the curriculum of public schools?
For the most part the state school boards also local school boards who are controlled by the NEA. They are the largest union in the country and they swing left. The also are in bed with the Democratic pParty. States that accept national money or federal funds which most do are obligated to Washington.
To say that Jesus tells the truth is a logical use of words, to say that he is the truth is illogical and makes no sense.
If Jesus is the truth, then He always told the truth.
If someone always tells the truth it doesn't make them the truth, it makes what they say the truth. Can you at least understand how it comes across as illogical?
Do you want me to mention everything He ever said?
You could only mention what's recorded in the Bible. That is unless you want to divulge things he's said to you during conversations you've had, in the personal relationship you (probably)claim to have with him. I predict silence on that.
Of course you can and would probably deny anything I would throw at you
It is my MO to accept some and object to some. I fancy myself as being able to admire without worshiping and criticize without condemning.
you want to debate Christ....then start something.
How do you know that this isn't a mistaken understanding?
Christians all share the same moral system that comes from the scriptures.
I think that the moral system that Christians and everyone else shares predates any scriptures.
For someone who rejects God...WHO MAKES UP THE RULES, MORALS THEY LIVE BY? Its a crap shoot...everything goes, morality is arbitrary. There is no right or wrong, only what they see.
Everyone atheist or not chooses what to accept or reject regarding morality.
You said.....when it comes to placing trust there is no higher authority than the person who places it. That is because you take the role of god in your life.
I try not to worship at all. For me that includes self worship, which I do recognize as the hardest type to avoid.
If you claim to trust god, you must first trust that you are perceiving god correctly. Sorry that's self trust. Do you think it's a good idea for a person to strongly doubt their ability to determine the ultimate source of messages and commands they hear? I do. People have been commanded to do some pretty evil things by beings they thought were almighty.
But my answer is no. So where does that leave you?
It leaves me thinking either you are dishonest, or didn't know what I meant by dismiss.
you either accept Christ as the truth or you dont.
I accept that Christ was a bearer of a number of truths.
You are so into terms...
Thanks for noticing :)
you lose the entire thought on this.
If the statement that Christ is the truth just means Christ told the truth then I will drop this contention I have with you and move on. If not please help me to see what I am missing.
You seem to be going around in circles.......and thats what people do who try to live without god...
Alas it's the fate of us earthlings. :)
Of course I ask God things through prayer. I talk to Him like I talk to anyone else.
Why are you being so disrespectful to him then? :)
I have had a lot of health issues the past few years....I don't get it. But the scriptures say suffering develops perserverance.
Well I hope your experience with god is one of love and healing. Best wishes from an atheist who is not your enemy.
I have seen so many miracles in my life...
Have you smelled any lately? I think some are nearby :)
Well it is logical for me. You do tolerate other opinions don't you? Or are you an intolerant atheist?
It is illogical to someone who does not believe it. The BBang is illogical for me. You probably think something all of a sudden came from nothing. Now how logical is that?
You know, this is why someone started a thread and called atheists mean people. You mock and you joke...and you slam...why?. You are not interested in debating, yours is a deep seated hatred for people who believe in god. You look down on beleivers....you think they are illogical and irrational people. Well I am comfortable knowing that I am with the majority who believe in God. You on the other hand are in the minority. You are doing your best to live without God.
You say you criticize without condemning.......not so. Your tone speaks volumes. You are very judgemental.
How do I know God has my back? For you this could only be head knowledge, so you could never ever understand where I am coming from. You need heart knowledge to be able to understand. You are not a beleiver and the Holy Spirit is not in you. You see through a different lense than I do.
You said, "If you claim to trust god, you must first trust that you are perceiving god correctly. Sorry that's self trust. Do you think it's a good idea for a person to strongly doubt their ability to determine the ultimate source of messages and commands they hear? I do. People have been commanded to do some pretty evil things by beings they thought were almighty."
I do trust my ability to interpret the scriptures. Jesus said LOVE THY ENEMY. That eliminates all forms of violence, except self defense or defending the righteous. He said love........is the second greatest commandment. If you love...you do not hate. That means if a man loves his wife and a wife loves her husband...there is no infidelity, no abuse of any kind. That means children love and respect authority. That means we do not steal, lie, covet what is not ours.....etc. Anything less that this is not commanded by Christ. He is the model of perfectness and who believers should mirror their life after. So that means we stand up and accept responsiblities for our own actions...that we support widows, children who have no homes. That means we give selflessly to the poor, and the hungry.
If people do evil things they do it by their own free will. Christ would never tell someone to hurt a person.
Ok to explain about Jesus the Truth.
Jesus stated plainly that He had come into the world to testify to the truth. (John 18:37) So what is truth? God is the ultimate source of Truth. (Colossians 2:2-3)
So in our discussion we are going head to head because we believe the complete opposite of something, in this case the truth. The truth claims of God in direct opposition to what I see are the lies of the world. IMO truth is what is really real and our actions reflect what we believe to be really real. Our worldviews are polls apart so lies a cosmic battle. The truth claims that paint a picture of my reality really the framework from which I view reality, how I make sense of life and the world are in direct opposition to yours.
I think many people reject the idea of a sovereign God because they want to control their own destiny. That is why they are opposed to such basic social institutions as marriage, family and especially church. They reject the order that bears the imprint of God.
Have I smelled any miracles? And your point is what? Another slam I would suppose.
I mean on one hand you seem so nice...really, then you come back with slams.....what gives?
I respect and don't think ill of you because you reject Christ. Many of my family members reject the Word and I love them. My husband is not a believer and my kids don't at the moment put their faith first. They say they are believers...(daughter is 29, married son is 26) but they certainly are not walking right. I never have ever pressured them. They grew up going to church...so they know what the truth is. But one thing I have learned. I am NOT responsible for anyone elses salvation. So if my faith in Christ ends up being right, which I believe it is....they will suffer I won't. Each one of us are responsible for our own beliefs. I continue however living a life reflecting Christ although I am certainly not perfect and my flaws are revealed quite often to my family and friends...they watch my every word and action however.
My father in law who was born Jewish says he was an atheist and lived that way. So I have lived intimately with people who do not share my belief system. I will say this then move on.......you seem defensive a bit...and so do they when the subject of religion comes up.
If I have come across in a mean way I apologize. I do not think poorly of people who reject God...but I do feel sorry for them....I have to be honest. And my heart aches knowing that if my loved ones do not change...they will suffer for all eternity. That hurts me because I love so much....and want everyone to feel what I feel. I know you probably think this is stupid...but I am being honest.
It's a disagreement between you and I. You think that someone can BE the truth, I only think what they say can be the truth. We'll just leave it at an articulated disagreement.
You do tolerate other opinions don't you? Or are you an intolerant atheist?
If I challenge you, does that make me intolerant? I am not telling you anything I don't really think.
It is illogical to someone who does not believe it.
Please feel free to interpret me stating that X is illogical as: X seems illogical TO ME, if it will help you think I'm less of an prick. I am trying to be challenging, which is a little hard to do while tip toeing.
You probably think something all of a sudden came from nothing. Now how logical is that?
On the contrary, we agree here that it is illogical to think that something can come from nothing.
You know, this is why someone started a thread and called atheists mean people. You mock and you joke...and you slam...why?
It is quite common for professed atheists to behave as you describe. But anyone who takes the time to examine my history will know better in regards to me. I am respectful.
Well I am comfortable knowing that I am with the majority who believe in God.
Comfort is overrated. Here's a haiku I wrote of questionable relevance:
"make an oath that you
do not understand and you
will not be alone." ~ atypican
You on the other hand are in the minority.
I'll take that as a compliment. I proudly stray from the herd. Even the herd of professed atheists.
You are doing your best to live without God.
If I thought "living with god" (whatever that means) would be worthwhile, I would start right away.
You say you criticize without condemning.......not so. Your tone speaks volumes. You are very judgemental.
I'll note here your judgment of me, that appears to be based on very little interaction with me.
For you this could only be head knowledge, so you could never ever understand where I am coming from. You need heart knowledge to be able to understand.
That's what you think according to the hasty JUDGEMENTS you make about me. I am a bit slower to form an opinion of someone than you are..I think
You are not a beleiver and the Holy Spirit is not in you.
I am too a believer. I believe that you have a poorly informed opinion about me. I believe you are one to quickly jump to conclusions. I also believe that according to scriptures considered very sacred by you, the holy spirit moves in unexpected places.
You see through a different lense than I do.
We agree here too, but perhaps your perspective is more valued by me than mine is by you.
The truth claims that paint a picture of my reality really the framework from which I view reality, how I make sense of life and the world are in direct opposition to yours.
I think it just seems that way. I think our differences are mostly superfluous.
Have I smelled any miracles? And your point is what? Another slam I would suppose.
I mean on one hand you seem so nice...really, then you come back with slams.....what gives?
Well right before I typed that I was thinking "everything is a miracle" then I thought of a biblical verse....something about being able to appreciate the miracle of a single flower. I was just trying to play....You took it as a slam. I think you flipped the script.
I respect and don't think ill of you because you reject Christ.
Who said I reject Christ!? I just reject statements that don't make sense to me. I reject much of what is said about Christ.
But one thing I have learned. I am NOT responsible for anyone elses salvation.
In any way? are you sure? Did god tell you that?
they watch my every word and action however.
Being looked to as an example is a responsibility that isn't comforting. I can speak from experience too.:) my sympathies.
.......you seem defensive a bit...and so do they when the subject of religion comes up.
I am happy to have a religious discussion that doesn't turn into fiasco of people shouting past one another, or getting all hateful. I am fascinated by religion and it is the topic I most prefer to debate.
I know you probably think this is stupid...but I am being honest.
I think you are open and sincere. I hope you get a nice visit from what you call the holy spirit, and I hope your soul is stirred as opposed to comforted :)
The Holy Spirit came upon me when I accepted Christ.
I said, "But one thing I have learned. I am NOT responsible for anyone elses salvation."
You said, "In any way? are you sure? Did god tell you that?"
I said, "they watch my every word and action however."
You said, "Being looked to as an example is a responsibility that isn't comforting. I can speak from experience too.:) my sympathies."
I am not responsible for someones salvation. Everyone is responsible for their own. I am commanded to spread the Word in love..that is what the Great Commission says in the scriptures. I can't force someone to accept Christ. And someone can say they have accepted Him and not really mean it. God knows who accepts with the heart. I have nothing to do with this action.
I am proud to have them look at my actions to see if they are genuine. They must align with Gods Word.....If I went to an R-rated movie, went to a strip bar etc..this would not be living how God wants me to live. If my mouth is filthy and I take the Lords name in vain....if a gossip.....all do not show mature Christian actions. I have done several things they have questioned me on. I am glad...they are watching and hopefully they will want the joy I have in my heart for God one day.
They have seen me fail and fall down...they see my faith however and how I treat people, what I do with my money. I am not perfect but I usually put words into action.
Well scripturally if you don't accept Christ, who He said He was...then you reject who Christ is. He was more than a human being.
... True. I don't think anybody ever really thinks of it that way. We DO sorta just group it all up together becasue the terms are all thrown around too much. Isn't the correct term for those who are against it Anti-theist? So yes. I think that a lot of us are ignorant sometimes >___<
You can't define something really well until it is down with stiffness. If you are an Atheist, you understand the non-existence of God. Giving it a different meaning especially the kind where criticizing faith is just out of the line!
They are people who deny who state...factually that THERE IS NO GOD. They do not say, I don't think there is a God.....that would make them agnostics.
They however can't make a statement like this because in order to do it, they would have to possess ALL KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE. This is impossible to do. No one can make a statement of fact like they do.
It is a religion, a faith religion. They have a worldview and it shapes everything they believe. Our government even classified atheism as a religion. They can meet as a community whether on a computer or in another gathering place, to address issues. They have organizations where they share their faith.
I can't tell if it is funny or sad that you carry on with this tosh even though you proved yourself wrong with your own links a while ago. You remember that post where you asked What then is the difference between an agnostic and atheist?, and then went on to provide four links to supposedly support your claim. Well, churchmouse, here are some excerpts from those links.
"The atheist may be a weak atheist or strong atheist. The weak atheist may say, “I’m not sure whether gods exist so I don’t worship any. “ The strong atheist comments: “There is no God or gods.”"
The article goes on to identify that the primary difference has to do with the acceptance of spirituality, or the self-ascribed assessment of their likelihood to be convinced. But it clearly states that atheists are capable of not believing without stating that Gods definitely do not exist.
"As with anything practiced by human beings, there is division within the ranks. A strong Atheist might state flat out that no god exists and that nothing will sway him from his position. A so-called weak Atheist will deny the existence of god based on a lack of evidence. Following that logic, one could say that presentation of new evidence might sway the weak but not the strong. Among Agnostics, the "weak" position allows for the faith of others, in essence stating that faith is a reasonable form of belief, but not for this fella. A "strong" agnostic believes categorically that no human being can reasonably claim to know that a supreme being exists."
Next you used a wikiAnswer site which is spurious support at best. But the hilarious thing is that all three of the answers there refute the point you were trying to make.
from Answer 1: "An atheist on the other hand, while they wouldn't deny the statistical possibility of a existing God, believes that mankind's knowledge of the observable world and universe is adequate enough to determine that the existence of God is an extreme statistical improbability."
There is a difference between identifying something as an "extreme statistical improbability", and saying that thing definitely does not exist.
From answer 2: "In his book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins invents a scale from 1 to 7, 1 being people who claim to "know" there is no God and 7 being those skeptics who claim to "know" there is no God. Dawkins himself is a 6, claiming that while it is highly unlikely that there is a God, he does not believe in one."
That's right, even Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous and outspoken atheists at the moment admits to the possibility, albeit small, that God exists.
And, from answer 3: "The term agnostic was coined so that the unbelivers would have an socialy easier accepted name and position. If one looks at the difintions and statements from both agnostics and atheists, they are virtually undistinguable."
As far as the fourth link, I won't quote from it, but the author makes it very clear that the definition of the word "Atheist" is changing, and that there is now considerable overlap between that term and agnostic.
Not at all. There are various shades of gray...on the definition. I gave you the links to prove it. IMO however an atheist is someone who says.....there is no god. The atheist that says...they dont know....is more aligned with an agnostic.
There are differences in that religion as there are in other religions. Christians differ on baptism...calvanism....the sacraments....even who Christ is. Atheists differ as well....it is a religion.
I provided links that showed....as you pointed out....atheists...can say....THERE IS NO GOD. I don't think it makes sense for one to say...I am not sure.....that would make them an agnostic.
IMO however an atheist is someone who says.....there is no god.
So now you can just form your own definitions based on your opinion? Must be nice to live in your world. Meanwhile, out here in the real world, most modern atheists do not say that. Most famous atheist authors don't say that. Most of the atheists on this site don't say that.
The atheist that says...they dont know....is more aligned with an agnostic.
Hence the term agnostic atheist.
Atheists differ as well
Yes! Now we are getting somewhere. If you realize that we differ, why do you keep lumping us all in the same category? Is it because your snappy come backs and easy-to-remember slogans don't work with any other definition?
atheists...can say....THERE IS NO GOD.
Sure they can. But not very many do.
I don't think it makes sense for one to say...I am not sure.....that would make them an agnostic.
THESE TERMS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Agnosticism refers to knowledge or the ability to have the knowledge. Atheism refers to a lack of belief. You really have a hard time with concepts that require mental flexibility don't you?
The atheist that does not want to make the factual statement there is no god..........does not want anyone to come back like I have and call them on it...because they know their beliefs can not be proven. No way can someone prove there is NO GOD. So they sorta like to sit the fence in a way by not taking a factual stance they can't prove.
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist"
The atheist that does not want to make the factual statement there is no god..........does not want anyone to come back like I have and call them on it.
Are you kidding me? Many atheists love a good religious debate. Several of us are seasoned veterans at it. We have heard what you have to say and we have rebuttals at the ready. The reason that many of us "do not want to make a factual statement" is because that we don't BELIEVE THAT ONE CAN BE MADE. If you want to say god exists, all you have to do is give some good evidence and let us evaluate your claim. That's how trials work, how the scientific method works, how you find out if your applicant will be a good employee. THAT IS HOW THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH WORKS. We aren't sitting on the fence, we are waiting to be convinced. And we won't come over to your side unless you succeed at convincing us.
Now here is a question for you: Why do you value faith?
an atheist is someone who says.....there is no god. The atheist that says...they dont know....is more aligned with an agnostic.
I'm calling you out.
You've made a statement similar to this several times, and each time I've corrected you. I've give sources and links. Each time you completely ignore my refutation only to make the same claim a few posts later as if I hadn't just refuted it moments before.
This is a pattern I've noticed in the most zealous of debaters whose method of belief reinforcement is to simply rehearse what they believe and to ignore all contradictory evidence.
Respond to my posts coward.
ag·nos·tic
[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
World English Dictionary
agnostic (æɡˈnɒstɪk) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. atheist Compare theist... a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty
A strong atheist....a not so strong atheist....a semi strong atheist........a semi weak atheist.........an almost weak atheist.......an almost agnostic athiest.......a bold atheist.......
I mean come on....quit making excuses. You go to most websites and the definition they use is a person who says there is no God. Not I don't know, I highly doubt, not I dont think so....
An atheist says.......there is no god. An agnostic says, I do not know. They take totally different stances.
This from American Atheists....who do not talk about weak, strong atheists.
They say...........
What is Atheism?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
Here is another huge organization and how they define atheism. Atheist Alliance International says,
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
Kind of funny to hear you say after you went on for several sentences about how not all people who claim to be Christian are Christian.
oh yeah, you are doing it again...AND it just keeps getting funnier.
The American Atheists post (which, by the way, that group holds little sway in our "community") starts out completely correct. The problem that you and they seem to have in common is distinguishing between the word IMPLY and the word PROVES. The second half is more or less how we operate, but not necessarily how we believe.
As far as the AAI site, did you happen to notice how that is the EXACT SAME OPENING PARAGRAPH THAT THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY YOU LINKED TO USES? So I reiterate, ahem:
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. "
These are huge organizations that meet get together like people of faith do. They are examples of why our government said that atheism is a religion.
It is rather funny, actually. There didn't used to be atheist organizations, at least none of note. This is kind of a new phenomena, one that only occurred around the time of Reagan, when we first realized, much to our astonishment, that creationists could...Lo and Behold...become president! We started taking you more seriously after that. So...congrats!?
Well of course you will ditch any website I might give that would define an atheist differernt from your definition. They are atheists that aren't atheists right? LOL
Whats funny is your denial of an atheistic community with a membership.
And I went on about people who claim they are Christian who are not really Christian based on the scriptures.
And this goes to show that atheism as a worldview is similar to that of Christianity as a worldview. People believe, they meet, they spread their faith. You hate religionists so much that you don't want the term associated with anything that you would do.
Someone lacks an understanding of atheism here... but somehow I doubt it's the atheists themselves.
The statement you quoted is correct. Atheism is the LACK OF belief in the existence of a deity. That category includes, but is not limited to, people who state flat out that such deities do not exist (sometimes referred to as "strong atheism".)
That you seem to think a proper explanation of the meaning of atheism represents a misunderstanding of atheism would indicate you yourself are ignorant of what atheism is.
I do not believe anyone can be an atheist because no one can prove that God does not exist. To do so someone would need all the knowledge in the universe. This is impossible. The best they can be.......is an agnostic, who doubts, is skeptical but does not know for sure.
An atheist says.......there is no God.....anything weaker and they are agnostic.
I do not believe anyone can be an atheist because no one can prove that God does not exist. To do so someone would need all the knowledge in the universe.
Based on your logic, someone cannot be religious either since a large amount believe their deity to be the only truth. You have said God definitely exists multiple times on CD.
"Religion is defined as: 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam-Webster)"
And thus, atheism is not a religion. Lacking religion does not imply holding to a belief in no deities with ardor. It just means there has been insufficient evidence for that person to claim a belief in a deity. At least, atheism in its truest sense; of course, there's always douchebag atheists who will actively defend there being no god (just as there are douchebag theists who will actively defend there being a god). Lacking a belief in a god does not imply a belief in no god. Don't confuse the two.
state:noun: The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
NOT possessing a belief is a STATE of existence. It is not a principle, or a belief in itself, or a cause. And that's not true just "because I say so", it is rather easily demonstrated.
Do you currently hold the belief that there is a rainbow colored unicorn orbiting Jupiter riding in a teacup? Is that something you currently believe to be the case? Yes or no?
All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
You have committed the Converse Error aka Affirming the Consequent which is an invalid form of reasoning and a formal logical fallacy. If the school you went to teaches that this is an acceptable form of reasoning then I would highly recommend that you find a new school.
Bohemian, All you do is say lier. Where is the proof of such? If you must subscribe to a website that has a word for the day, learn to use it. Provide proof that any of the words you search endlessly for, have merit.
Nothing else is required. A fallacy by definition is an invalid argument. If I point out that you've committed a fallacy, then I have shown your argument to be invalid. I almost always provide a link to the fallacy, so observers can see for themselves that you have in fact committed that fallacy.
If this was the case, then calling you lier would be all I need to do. I do not need any other proof according to what you just stated. Why not just say somebody is wrong and leave it that? Proof is not not required for all the excuses you come up with and yet you demand proof from opposing arguments. One can conclude you have no evidence only excuses. Do the words two faced and hypocrite, ring a bell?
If this was the case, then calling you lier would be all I need to do.
If you provided a link to where I said something opposite to what I am currently saying, then yes. Just as I typically supply a link to the fallacy that I accuse you of committing.
The evidence is that your statements reflect the fallacy. I'm not sure what more evidence you require. Should I juxtapose your statements with the fallacy, would that satisfy you?
Unfortunately for you this isn't a math debate. You were trying to use fallacious logical argumentation. Premise and conclusion mustn't always be inversely true, which is what you are arguing.
An example of a converse error is; Man evolved over thousands of years, so evolution must be the origin of man.
This is not even remotely close to what a converse error is, nor any other fallacy for that matter. You are completely missing a conditional statement. In your example you have only stated X therefor Y.
The converse error goes as follows:
If P then Q
Q Therefore P
Your example only states Q therefore P which by itself is not fallacious. Only when it is used in conjunction with a converse statement does it then become fallacious.
Maybe I should state the obvious once more: Sarcasm is not a substitute for an argument, you are simply trying to sidetrack the conversation so that we will stop talking about your mistake. You were wrong, clearly. The question is whether you will admit your error or not.
Atheism is a person who states that there is no god. Therefore they do not belief because none exists. This is a statement said as a fact.
They assert that Gods existence is rationally improvable and is therefore at best a meaningless proposition. But its not...it is a rational proposition.
There is no way to prove this the statement.....THERE IS NO GOD......to be able to say it...they would need to prove it 100%...which would take all the knowledge the world has....since the beginning, since the first cause. Atheists are finite human beings....they have limited knowledge just like the rest of us. They have faith....even if it is in themselves.
Have you ever heard of Isaac Asimov? He signed the Humanist Manifesto ll. He said, "Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
And he is right, science can not disprove that there might be an intelligant designer. The idea repulses people like Asimov....that is why science does not even want to look into this....they do not want to admit to some moral entity, that would control their actions.
To say..........there is no God.....is unproveable. It is impossible to be an atheist.
At first glance, they may look like they say the same thing, but they don't.
Statement 1 is your definition of atheism - believing that God doesn't exist for sure. Some atheists think this way, but not all.
Statement 2 means simply not having the belief that God exists. It doesn't mean that you think he doesn't exist, or that you have proof he doesn't exist. It just means you don't have this particular belief regarding his existence. Someone who says they don't know whether or not God exists would not believe that he exists, and at the same time not believe that he doesn't exist.
Both of these statements are classified as "atheism". Plenty of atheists, I included, hold to statement 2.
Do you want me to quote from the multiple times you have said God is definitely real or Jesus definitely spoke the truth? Even though you have no proof.
You say you believe in God through faith. But faith isn't proven.
Why should it be different for an Atheist who doesn't believe in God because he favors logic and science even if it's not proven?
You cannot prove either way. So don't assume that your beliefs have any more validity than someone who does not believe.
For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralist. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”. What they like, they cling to and shove down others throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently. I believe 'There is no Religion Higher than Truth.
Certain Atheists only lack the understanding of Humanity and human emotions. They understand quiet well that they disbelieve and criticize the believes that they term blind. They hope to see a betterment in the light of something different. That isn't wrong. It is how they get people against them instead of making a point. It is how some of them mock the believes and underestimate and not care of indifference.
Your tactic is simple: let somebody else give you a quick quip, and then repeat it ad nauseum as some quote from the opposition that the opposition itself doesn't actually say.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to the last question I asked you:
Everyone has faith, even if its in themselves. Faith for me is security. The love I have for Christ...the faith in the things promised........gives me hope and love and security.
It also gives me strength to face lifes challenges. Can you imagine if you didn't even have faith in your family? Or if you did not have friends that you had faith in? To not have confidence in anything.....well it would be a sad existence.
Are you saying that you have no faith, that it isn't important?
I do agree with you that everybody has some degree of faith, and I'll get to that momentarily. But just because everyone has faith, it does not follow that everybody has faith in everything. Let's look at the origin of the universe:
I don't have faith in any explanation for the origin of the universe because I don't claim to know how it started. I certainly don't claim that it came from nothing, I claim that whatever the something was has not yet presented itself, and until we have some good conclusive evidence, I won't be satisfied by any answer. The fact is, the Genesis account isn't the only origin story out there. There are hundreds of other religious accounts that vary significantly in detail and specifics. Probably thousands if you include every religion that has come and gone in humankind's history. Then there are the people who believe that the universe was always here, that there was never a "nothing" for it to come out of (although evidence for the Big Bang makes this stance look rather untenable at the moment.) And then there a number of scientific explanations that, while not complete, have the advantage of working with the evidence and understandings at hand, something religious understandings don't try very hard to do. The strongest of these theories involve the very real possibility that time is not necessarily as linear on the grand scale is it appears to be in our existence.
But, of course, the scientific theories are currently untestable and based on limited observations, so they should not be counted as fact at this time. In truth they are pretty much on the same level of probability as the idea that God created the Universe, or any other religious explanation. So no, I don't have faith in any of them and I don't claim that we came from nothing. I do, however, believe that the scientific explanations have a better chance at solving the riddle because they are adaptable and ongoing processes, whereas religions gave up and called it good (or God) a long time ago, and have mostly stagnated since.
As far as your answer to why faith is important to you, first: thank you for answering. Second:
The love I have for Christ...the faith in the things promised........gives me hope and love and security.
As I suspected, it is all emotional for you, isn't it. You use faith like a drug, to help you feel better, to escape from the problems in life. This isn't rare or even necessarily a universally bad thing. Life is tough and could bog us down if we let it. I think of it like alcohol: several studies have shown that some types of alcohol can actually have health benefits if used in moderation, and sometimes drinking a little extra can help take the edge off when we are starting to stress out too much. But getting drunk just to escape, and especially doing so on a regular basis is not healthy and can actually start making your life much worse. Faith can have similar effects if it blinds you to what is going on. And most importantly it can impair your judgment. Faith is an okay thing for feeling better about yourself or life, but IT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT. Logical thinking and investigative inquiry are two of the best tools humans have for making life more livable and faith can run counter to them.
Also, why would God need our faith?
Can you imagine if you didn't even have faith in your family? Or if you did not have friends that you had faith in? To not have confidence in anything.....well it would be a sad existence.
My family and friends have proven to me their quality as people many times over. They've been there for me in the past. I can't pretend to know that they always will be, but so far I see no reason why they would stop. Perhaps I do have faith in them, but they have earned it through actions that I CAN OBSERVE. I don't need faith to know that they have been there for me or that they are good people because I KNOW it. And those friends that I have had that disappointed me, that turned out to be bad people, that stabbed me in the back, well it looks as though any faith I may have had in them was unwarranted. Perhaps they can earn back my trust, but it will be through their observable actions, not through faith.
Are you saying that you have no faith, that it isn't important?
There are times when you have to have faith. Times when you need to take action or make a decision but you don't have all of the information you need to know what is going to happen. But to use faith in situations where you don't have to take action is, in my opinion, silly and unnecessary. It doesn't matter how the universe was made the fact is that it is here and we are living in it. No matter what we believe, that will continue to be the case. So why just make up an answer when we don't have all the facts? So to answer your question, I do have a little faith, but I use it only to move forward, and only when my information is not complete. And I do not have any faith that is blind; if my beliefs are shown to me to be inadequate, to continue to have faith in them would be pretty stupid.
I want to say that I don't like the set up of the debate when we are not given another option...what if you agree with most the post...but disagree with one item? Do you support....or do you dispute? I am new here really and still trying to understand how it all works..
With that said...I can agree with many of the point you make especially not having faith in everything.
As for the origin of the universe. Scientists don't know anymore today than they knew hundreds of years ago...concerning the first cause and the questions that go with it...why we are here, how did we get here.....etc. I do not claim to know either exactly how it all happened. God timetable might not be what we think in terms of seven days...but see to me it does not matter. I am not living on the edge of my seat wondering how it all went down. Scientists job is to look into the whys and the hows? It pays their bills. They enjoy their job like Tiger Woods enjoyed playing golf and making billions.
I am well aware that there have been many creation accounts. But which one...has been the most popular and why? Why is it that the Bible today is still the best selling book of all time? The creation story is part of that? ARe you saying that all the people who believe the creation story are delusional?
I believe that God is eternal...He always WAS. I believe He created earth and everything in it...as the scriptures tell me. I too have read a lot about the Big Bang. Now I am certainly not a scientist...and I took physics and biology in college...(long time ago in 1974-8) so I know a bit....but the BB to me is the most far fetched idea of all the ideas of how things science has offered us as a reason. It makes no logical sense. Neither does evolution, that we came from chimps...who today are not evolving and look like chimps. Even Darwin said that evolution was just one long argument. I do not believe that life was just the result of a process, undirected process and that NOTHING more than natural forces was sufficient to produce all the species on earth. You talk about a leap of faith....wow that one is a giant leap of faith. The peacocks tail....the egg, the eye......complicated things....just poof are here and in perfect order. Can't believe it.
This is in stark contrast to divine creation and for some that is just as tough to believe I understand that. I still don't believe in BLIND natural forces ...that a BB just created perfect order in the universe. That the cosmos and all its complexity was all created by change. ......yea right. That would headline Vegas.....wave the magic wand and wholla....everything appears in perfect order. And perfect order from where? Yea......out of NOTHING. All this came from NOTHING. And it all came about without cause. No reason...just came. I know I am going off a bit...but I read the other days about the eye. I am fascinated by how it works. Am having visions problems...hope its not macular...anyway. This from Michael Behe who is a biochemist. " One cannot explain the origin of vision without first accounting for the orgin of the enormously complex system of molecular mechanisms that make it work." He said a lot more...but the point is this....the eye...just evolving working around all these complexed systems...no, don't believe it.
Sure there is evidence for evolution but so what there is evidence for other disgarded theories as well. As for the BB.......for me it would make a great Speilberg movie and thats it.
Have to go somewhere for a bit......will address the rest of your post a bit later.....Thanks
what if you agree with most the post...but disagree with one item? Do you support....or do you dispute? I am new here really and still trying to understand how it all works..
I don't think there are any community conventions about that. I personally just tag it with whatever I feel about the majority of the argument. If I agree with most of it, I'll support but still point out whatever point I disagree with. Really, its up to you.
Scientists don't know anymore today than they knew hundreds of years ago...concerning the first cause and the questions that go with it...
Well as far as generally, we know much, much more than we did a few centuries ago. As far as first cause goes, you are right about it still being unknown. But look at the scope we are dealing with. The entire universe, billions of years worth of time. We are talking about something that happened BEFORE all of the laws of physics, before time. We're trying to apply the concepts of time and space as we currently understand them to something that occurred before there was time and space. It is the ultimate question, potentially the last one that could ever be answered. We only began mapping the human genome a few decades ago, and that is an infinitesimally simpler task. But that doesn't mean we give up. Humans existed for thousands of generations before the telescope, the microscope, the computer...and there is no telling what we will come up with next. Considering how far we've come, that we can actually study things as small as quarks and see galaxies billions of light years away, its pretty silly to discount all of that just because the most difficult question we currently know of has yet to be answered. Also, holding science accountable for not being able to prove something, and then going to another answer that science also can't prove is a double standard of severe magnitude.
Scientists job is to look into the whys and the hows? It pays their bills.
Scientists do pretty well, but there are very few truly rich scientists out there. And they have to work very, very hard to get there, often 8-12 years of grueling education, many thankless lab jobs, many ego shattering critiques of their reports before they can get any real money or notoriety. And many of them spend the rest of their lives paying back the debts they accrued in college. These are intelligent and organized people. If all they cared about was money, there would be much easier and quicker paths to take.
But which one...has been the most popular and why?
Since when did truth become a popularity contest? As far as why: here's real quick and abridged history lesson: By the time of Constantine, Christianity was spreading fairly well but was not a dominant religion just yet. Then Constantine made it the state religion of Rome. Rome went on to conquer much of Europe. The conquered regions were forced to adopt to it and eventually grew into it, largely because it was the religion of power and followers of Christ had the biggest armies and the most money. Eventually, places like France and England were able to break away, by which point most of their populations were Christian. Europe had amazing resources and developed incredible seafaring technology which allowed them to explore and colonize places everywhere. The forced Christianity on the locals where they could, sometimes quite violently. As the generations passed, Christianity became completely embedded in the ever-evolving cultures. If the Muslims had won a few more battles or had better resources, they might have become the dominant religion of the world (as it is, they are a very close second.) Or Hindus. Those who conquer spread their culture with them, and that tends to include religion.
I believe that God is eternal...He always WAS.
So there is no need to explain his origin, but if everything else isn't fully explained you call it worthless? Another double standard.
but the BB to me is the most far fetched idea of all the ideas of how things science has offered us as a reason. It makes no logical sense.
Maybe not to you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to somebody else. That's a huge mistake that anti-science folk make: "I don't get so nobody gets it." I, personally, don't get how the best muscians play their instruments with such precision and heart, but obviously they can. My lack of skill for music doesn't mean such skill doesn't exist.
Also, physicists, the people who proposed and support the Big Bang are very well-trained in logic and tend to be naturally inclined to it. To say that the BB is illogical shows that you don't really understand what physics is all about, or anything about the people who make their careers at it.
Neither does evolution, that we came from chimps...who today are not evolving and look like chimps.
We did NOT evolve from chimps, nobody who knows ANYTHING about evolution claims that. We shared a common ancestor, an ancestor that died out millions of years ago. Its not that chimps are like our parents, more like our cousins. Do you look just like your cousins?
And divergent evolution is entirely possible anyway because most of evolution is guided by environmental factors. In allopatric speciation, the population that ends up in a new environment is likely to evolve much more quickly than a population that stays in its original environment.
You talk about a leap of faith....wow that one is a giant leap of faith.
Not at all. Natural causes are well-observed and documented in every field of science. Natural forces are inevitable. They happen every time you plant a seed, every time a storm cloud gathers or an earthquake shakes. Emulation of natural forces is how we get dough to rise, how we brew alcohol and make vaccines. Not only are they observable but they are generally reproducible and controllable once we figure out how they work.
I've covered the eyes and peacock's tail with you before, multiple times if I remember correctly and you never responded, so I'm not going to waste my words on them here. In fact, this already WAY too long, and I still have another of your posts to respond to so I'll just wrap this one up here. We can get into your last few paragraphs later if you wish.
Of course I am emotional about Christ. He saved me. I make no bones that I am not emotional about this. But like Strobel did when he wrote the book, A Case for Christ..I believe that it is not only by faith...but the facts as I have witnessed in my life concerning this. I am not blind...and I read and weigh the evidence. I do not accept the theory of the BB, I do not believe in evolution, that I came from an ape. I believe history that Christ lived and died. Even secular writers wrote about His life. So for me it is not all emotional. Do you have a problem with emotions? I think you are very mean spirited when you say I use my faith, religion belief in Christ like a drug user takes drugs. I could also slam your belief, or should I say lack of belief in god....but I am not. So think whatever you want about me...You show why people have harsh feelings about pagans. Many are not nice and they simply look down on people who think different than they do. Yous ay my faith is blinding....I say your lack of compassion...makes you cold and robot like. You put yourself up on a pedestal....you think you are better than any believer. You are conceited arent you? You bash me because I cant prove anything......but you can't either. What is rational to think about creation? Is the BB rational thought.......that something can come from nothing? I mean who would believe something like this?
Darwin categorically stated in A World of Natural Selection that violence is a logically deducible path from atheism.
I believe history that Christ lived and died. Even secular writers wrote about His life.
The extra-biblical support for Christ is rather thin and questionable. That being said, I do accept that the man may have lived, that he was a great person and inspired a lot of people. There are many great people in history like that, from the Buddha to Martin Luther King. But I don't believe that he was the God, or Son of God, or truly supernatural, I doubt that he came back to life and I am quite sure that the miracles attributed to him are obvious examples of hyperbole carried over from a notoriously superstitious age.
Do you have a problem with emotions?
No, but I cannot tolerate them used as tools for which the intellect is better suited.
I think you are very mean spirited when you say I use my faith, religion belief in Christ like a drug user takes drugs.
I apologize. It seemed like the most clear way to make my point, but if I offended you I am sorry.
You show why people have harsh feelings about pagans.
I am not a pagan. Pagans are religious people, I am not.
I say your lack of compassion...makes you cold and robot like.
My favorite kind of movies are comedies. I have a very deep, emotional attachment to music.
15 days ago one of my closest friends, a woman I once was in love with and who later talked me into going back to school as well as doing countless other great things for me and most of my friends, died in a car accident. I have cried like a baby for hours three or four nights since then, and every day I find myself choking back tears because I miss her so much. But as horrible as this has been, a small ray of light has poked through the clouds. A young woman who I have always had feelings for seems to have similar feelings for me. Its difficult, with the heartache I've been suffering, to really open myself to her but...we are supposed to see each other again on Monday. I am filled with both nervousness and excitement.
There are three cats where I live. Every day I play with each of them, I smile as I skritch them behind the ears and rub their chins and hear them purr.
I am no robot, churchmouse. I have never believed in God and I have never needed to in order to feel love, to find joy in my friends, to want to help the world be healthier and happier, to find sadness in suffering, to feel that I have value and to strive to be a good person. You paint a caricature of atheists based on your own way of doing things. But faith is not the only road to happiness or meaning.
I'm not bashing emotion, I'm only saying that it doesn't find truth. Truth is truth no matter how you feel about it. Its wonderful when truth makes you happy, but you shouldn't claim something is true just because it makes you happy. Truth is found by rationality, and rationality is difficult to practice properly when overrun by emotion.
You put yourself up on a pedestal....you think you are better than any believer.
Not so. The girl I'm hoping to date is not Christian, but she is religious. I have no problems with it. But if she wants a debate, I will provide one. I'll let her make that call.
You bash me because I cant prove anything......but you can't either.
I'll admit I've been a bit harsh with you. You often fail to respond to my points, you put words in my mouth, you make accusations about people that have no validity, you are illogical and you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be your enemy. I do not find you pleasant. But I am not trying to bash you. I'm on a debate site, debating with someone who disagrees with me. You can stop throwing a pity party now.
that something can come from nothing?
For the fifth or sixth time, THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT STATE THAT SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING. IT STATES THAT WE DON"T KNOW WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS!
Darwin categorically stated in A World of Natural Selection that violence is a logically deducible path from atheism.
I've never hit anybody in my life. I also have no interest in guns or weapons.
Darnit I just wrote a long post and it got lost......darnitall.....
When I type into the box........it moves up and down.....and I lose the point where I ended. Would you know what is wrong?
Can you really compare Buddah to Christ? Martin Luther King to Christ? Buddah ran off and left his family for himself and his selfish goals. And if you read Kings biography he was certainly a wonderful man...but not perfect.
Well people of intellect use emotion so I am not alone. We are born...with emotions. People might not outwardly cry...but show it in another way. You can't stop emotion from happening. It is sad that you think they are a weakness.
I am a crier....I cry when I am happy and sad. I am to emotional I will admit that...but it is only because I love hard. The day that dang Casey Anthony verdict came down...I cried off and on all day long. I am giving up following trials and reality television. LOL
I accept your apology. I have never done drugs...dont smoke or drink...ok I smoked pot in college a few times...but it made me sleepy and I was a night owl...and was at the bar dancing to....yes disco most nights of the week. LOL Talk about a fun time in my life....wow. So I dont know what that drug addiction thing feels like. But I have seen others suffer from it. I love Christ....and well...maybe He is a drug in a way...because I feel happy and content like nothing else can make me feel. I just love Him, I can't help it. If you knew my testimony you would know why. I was suicidal at one point of my life over something I had done....and He came over me and changed me. I can't explain it. If you want to know more...can elaborate...but don't want to bore other debaters who would not understand.
Well listen to you.....see you do show emotion. I am so sorry for your loss. Gee whiz....It is so hard to lose someone who has had such a profound influence on you. Don't know what to say other than remember her...and smile. She would not want you to suffer missing her. Its ok to cry.....I think its soothing and healthy. You can't hold it in. I know this sounds stupid..but write her a letter. I do that when I miss my mom and dad. You know you don't have to feel anything when you meet this other woman. Certainly do not feel guilty...for heavens sake. It is not her fault....and maybe she can help you heal. She should understand what you are going through and if she doesnt then send her on her way. No one should deprive you of your love for something. You know rays of sunshine can appear even during a storm remember that. Being nervous is GOOD....and so is excitment. These are good human emotions. I have been married thirty years to the same man....the poor guy. LOL And i remember the pit in my stomach, that excitement when we first dated. Its different today...but memories are great arent they?
I have two dogs and a cat....and she thinks she is a dog and even sleeps with them. I rub her as well...and she barks....LOL No not really but I adore her.
Well you have never believed in God.....ok. But never close yourself off to the possibility. Things happen and people change. At least be a skeptic....with questions...at least keep seeking the truth. And who know maybe one day, you will believe in God, who knows. I was an evil horrible person at one time....I had an abortion, I killed my unborn child. Lets not get into that...this is not that debate.....its how I feel and well...its how I felt at the time. I am glad you find comfort with friends and family...everyone needs that...to live a happy life. And if I painted a picture of all athiests that are all mean...I did not mean to. Please accept my apology, as I said, I get pretty excited over topics. As I said many in my family are not beleivers and I love them.
I dont think you can find truth without emotion. It is part of all human beings. dont debate your new girl this soon.......LOL
You have not been harsh with me...no worse than I have dished out...dont worry about it. This is a debate site is it not?
If I have not answered your posts its because I cant find them. I am having a hard time...(please be nice...I am not to computer literate....) keeping up and finding things. Dont understand the points and how to find what I just post. I am slow to learn so be patient. I didnt even know I could select enemies....and have friends. I noticed it because two people on here picked me as a enemy. LOL How juvenile......
Thanks for the honesty. We can agree to disagree.....and you have been very nice...which I appreciate.
Well, psychologically, there isn't a middle ground. If someone suggests something to you, you ordinarily deny it or accept it.
However, the actual claim of Atheism is merely that there is no evidence for any sort of god-thing, and not the direct statement "there is no god."
For it is impossible to prove a negative, like "there is no god." Or, like, "there are no unicorns," or "there are no wormholes."
We might, at some point, find something which indicating, neccesarily, that there was some kind of being, some kind of intelligence, out there, that we might call a god. Or we might find a unicorn, or astrophysics might discover a wormhole (If I've kept up to date with my astrophysics), and then these things would have been proved. But you can't prove the negative of them, and until they are proved, the claims are merely indeterminate, neither true nor false.
Actually, given Quantum Mechanics, this seems to be a property of the universe. Of reality itself, that is.
Things which are unobserved have indeterminate states.
Sorry to be 'that guy', but this seems like a pointless debate. Who cares about the terminology? Is that truly what we're fightng for? It sounds to me like we're trying to hold onto a word. Come on. If we're worried people will confuse us, atheists, people who simply lack a belief in God, with the ardent New Atheists and others of that kind, then let's come up with a new term that refers to what we are. We're not going to be able to change people's viewpoint of what an atheist is simply because we deserve it, because ardent God haters use the terminology wrong. They want the term, and sociologically, they have it. Get over it. Come up with something new.