Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2016, 11:48 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 11:32 PM)Astreja Wrote:  At best the "sacrificed" god is analogous to a RAID 5 array wherein one of three hard drives suffered a catastrophic hardware malfunction and it took IT staff the whole weekend to order in a replacement drive and get it up and running.

So we are in the Matrix? And it's malfunctioning?

Can I get my money back? Huh

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
21-03-2016, 02:36 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 10:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What if I told you everything you said happened I believe happened in the exact same way you just described.
It's possible it matters to a lot of people, but....
Why should this matter to me? Why should I show any emotions or feelings towards God or Jesus?

Because when you sin, you offend a Holy God. You deserve to die. However, there is someone out there that really loves you, and he died in the place of you. He died so that you won't have to die...and you probably don't know anyone that will die for something that YOU'VE done...do you? Or better yet, ask anyone would they die for something that you did?

Well, Jesus died for something that you did, and you owe him your attention, your gratitude, and even your human life, should you be called upon to lay it down for him.

That is why. As far as the Father is concerned, he gave up his Son so that YOU wouldn't die. Would you give up your son to die so that another person may live? Probably not.

So therefore, just as it is with Jesus, you owe the Father your attention, gratitude, and your very life, should you be called upon to lay it down for him.

That is why you should show feelings and emotions towards God.

And you know all this because?

Because of what? Some ancient tales that got invented and passed down by word of mouth and modified to suit each generation and finally written down?

Even if your god did exist, are you seriously asking me to believe and pray to a god that is this sick. Seriously?Laughat

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 03:08 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 10:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 04:47 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  A typical christard. If you actually have evidence, then, you would have presented it instead of saying that you had some.

Dude, if you knew how much honor it is for you to call me a "Christard", you wouldn't be saying it.

I called you an (un-capitalised) christard or can't you read?

It was an insult but I guess that you are just too thick to understand.

Even as a chew stick you are useless.

We need a better class of troll. We deserve better than you.

Are you the best christard there is?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
21-03-2016, 02:50 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 10:30 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:33 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  How can the idea of god upset me? god doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist can't upset me.

How do you know that God doesn't exist? Now, that is just a simple, basic, fundamental question...

The man made a claim of knowledge, he claimed that "God doesn't exist", which is an absolute statement, isn't it? Now, since he made an absolute statement, that means that he must "know" that God doesn't exist..

Now, again...I asked him "How do you know that God doesn't exist". Pretty simple question, right? Now, lets behold his answer. Let's see..

It is for those that assert that god exists to prove that he does. Mine is merely a response to an assertion that has, after 2,000 years+, still not yet met its burden of proof.

So, go ahead. We await your response.Huh

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 03:25 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 11:32 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 11:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  But Jesus is god, the father and the holy ghost.

So with this basic tenet of Insanity, oops sorry, Xianity in mind, how could god sacrifice himself to appease himself in order to forgive his creation for his responsibility of having created it???

At best the "sacrificed" god is analogous to a RAID 5 array wherein one of three hard drives suffered a catastrophic hardware malfunction and it took IT staff the whole weekend to order in a replacement drive and get it up and running.

Should have gone to SpecSavers (does that translate?) or Raid 6 methinks.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
21-03-2016, 04:13 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 09:51 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Greetings all,

My question is for the atheists out there. This is a serious question and I'd like serious answers. Let's try to keep the bullshit to a minimum, shall we?

Now, as we all know, when you ask atheists about their lack of belief in God, they will say things like "I don't believe in God, just like I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy" (insert as many make-believe characters you'd like).

That being said, I am a Christian Theist, so I can only look through the lens of Christianity (Judeo-Christianity)..so..

My question is; Do you really believe that the Christian's belief in God is synonymous to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?? Because to me, if there was an adult that seriously and earnestly believed in Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy, I would probably think that something is wrong with him/her. I would think "I don't understand how rational human being (adult) could ever believe in such a thing".

Is that how you atheists view Christians? Do you really believe that our belief in God is similar to belief in Santa Claus..or is that just something you say to be facetious??

Is it to the extent where you pass by a Church on Sunday, and you see all of the Church attendees in the parking lot greeting each other...and you say to yourself "What a bunch of idiots..."

Is that what you think? I am just curious, as I am trying to figure out how far to the left some of you are on the "belief" line Laugh out load

I cant talk for other atheists, but that is exactly what I think Tongue
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kyx's post
21-03-2016, 05:03 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 05:27 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 11:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Bucky there is a disconnect between empirical evidence and non empirical evidence.
Once you have no direct perception of a thing it is not empirical evidence for you. It may be empirical evidence for someone else, but I am not arguing that.

A meaningless, irrational string of words. Are you drunk or on drugs ?

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The very definition of empirical evidence shows its subjective nature.

False.

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The person that has directly experienced the empirical evidence has a belief in the seen (by them).

False. It's not "belief" by definition, at that point. You have no clue what you are talking about.

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The person that has not experienced the empirical evidence but still accepts that the thing exists is believing in the unseen (by them).

So fucking what ? What EXACTLY are you even arguing about here then ?
You're basically saying, either way, one cannot know anything.
You are insane.

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you think believing in what someone else has seen and you have not is the same as believing in the seen? Is this rational? I think it might be very rational but it's not the seeing that makes it rational, it's a lot more than that.

Wrong. If it's confirmed by RELIABLE and repeatable EVIDENCE, it's reliable. You *trust* nothing and no one. You are insane. All this time you have been claiming "science this and science that". Now you are denying the very thing you claimed as reliable. You need help. Badly.

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't think believing in the existence of a God is rational but not because I don't observe God.

How nice for you. No shit, Sherlock.

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't consider belief in the unseen to be irrational & if it is then it is quite possible we are all guilty of being irrational in our beliefs.

You do not understand the very words ("empirical") you throw around.

(20-03-2016 06:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  P S. I have read the replies to my question and the above point has not been objected to are argued against. I am awaiting a response to the points raise so that I may either address it or admit my failed logic.

Is not a sentence in the English language. You have no clue what you are saying or arguing for, (or against). Get help.

You are so fucked up.
1. The point is a lack of direct emperical evidence does not make a belief irational.
There are many atheists out here that have beliefs in things whilst lacking direct emperical evidence. I don't believe their belief is irational.
2. The definition of emperical evidence requires sensual perception. How is this not subjective in nature? How are you going to dismiss this point Bucky? Just claim it's wrong, add an expletive, side step it & evade it with another unrelated point?
3. Belief is simply the acceptance of a claim. The claim can be either rational or irational dependent on all the evidence provided. Emperical Evidence is only one form of evidence & a lack of it does not automatically make a claim irational.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
"Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.[2]

In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.[citation needed]

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.

Statements and arguments depending on empirical evidence are often referred to as a posteriori ("following experience") as distinguished from a priori (preceding it). A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"), whereas a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy"). The notion of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori as tantamount to the distinction between empirical and non-empirical knowledge comes from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.[3]

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4][page needed] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently, it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[5]"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 05:03 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. The point is a lack of direct emperical evidence does not make a belief irational.


Yes, it does. Because empirical (let's review the definition of empirical right now: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) evidence is the only evidence worth a damn.



(21-03-2016 05:03 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There are many atheists out here that have beliefs in things whilst lacking direct emperical evidence. I don't believe their belief is irational.


Clearly, you either don't understand what the words 'rational' or 'empirical' actually mean, or else you're pretending not to in order to further your trollish agenda.



(21-03-2016 05:03 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  2. The definition of emperical evidence requires sensual perception. How is this not subjective in nature? How are you going to dismiss this point Bucky? Just claim it's wrong, add an expletive, side step it & evade it with another unrelated point?


Take an object and place it on a properly calibrated scale. Anybody placing that item on that scale should get the same reading, regardless of whether or not they are near-sighted, color-blind, or need to have a brail printout of the measurement.

That's why we invent measurement tools to circumvent our subjective experiences you fucking twit.



(21-03-2016 05:03 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  3. Belief is simply the acceptance of a claim. The claim can be either rational or irational dependent on all the evidence provided. Emperical Evidence is only one form of evidence & a lack of it does not automatically make a claim irational.


Please present a belief (the acceptance of a claim as 'true') that is rational without empirical evidence.


Empirical evidence is the only evidence that matters. Dreams are not empirical, but they were considered acceptable evidence in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. Fever dreams are also considered evidence in modern day Ghana, where we have modern day witch hunts.

[Image: Bridget-Bishop-Salem-83931673XC.png]

[Image: The-Witch-Hunts-of-Africa.jpg]

You credulous fuktard. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-03-2016, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 07:04 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 10:08 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And you asserting that reptiles evolved into birds also doesn't make it true.

Here you are, an apologist for Christianity, making use of a concept from an atheistic philosophy (the primacy of existence) in attempting to defend your faith. How ironic.

You've just affirmed that truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence. Therefore your religion which affirms the primacy of consciousness, is incompatible with truth. Congratulations. After all of your work here and thousands of comments, you give up the whole farm with a single thoughtless comment.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(20-03-2016 10:08 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is because you do not understand the genetic algorithm.

Still gnawing away at that bone? Didn't I already intellectually kill you?

Still dodging any point you can't actually handle, I see.

Quote:
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Asserting this does not make it true.

And you asserting that reptiles evolved into birds also doesn't make it true.

Quite right. It's a good thing that it isn't just assertion.

Quote:
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Fossil record, DNA analysis.

The nonsense "fossil record" was already destroyed via cambrian explosion...

Mmmmmnope.

Another entry on the list of scientific topics you do not understand and actively refuse to research, then.

Quote:and DNA analysis could very well mean common designer.

No.

Quote:
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

Why would I ignore the evidence when there is so much fun refuting it?

You'd best start doing that, then.

Quote:
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, it is.

So would you put your money on intelligent designers creating another Mt. Rushmore, or would you put your money on the laws of nature via erosion, water, and dirt (or whatever) carving the facial features of the Presidents? Laugh out load

(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because it is not required.

Right, because processes that can't think or see can create fully functional space shuttles, right?

(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, it is. Or, rather, it is about the theistic position's failure to meet that burden.

Scientifically explain the origins of the human eyeball.

More failure to understand the genetic algorithm, resulting in false comparison and repetition of already-refuted points. Here's a hint: rock does not reproduce with variation, and is not subject to selection pressures. Since the genetic algorithm requires both - in fact, it rather is the two of them - it does not apply.

As for the human eye, do some basic Googling. We know how the eye evolved. It's one of the most widely studied organs in evolutionary biology. Ten seconds' research would have told you this.

And, because it's painfully obvious where this is going, no, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

Quote:
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you don't.

What would convince you that you saw Big Foot? I'd still like an answer to that question...you know, the one that you keep dodging. That is my evidence of the Resurrection right there.

That is not evidence, and the question you are so preoccupied with is utterly irrelevant to the question in hand.

Quote:
(20-03-2016 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Is anyone else suddenly overwhelmed with a feeling of deja vu?

I know I am. You beat a person half to death, and they keep getting up coming back for more. Glutton for punishment, bruh?

Ask me after you've managed to land a hit.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: