Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 01:26 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 01:45 PM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:16 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 11:12 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Yes - just like you proved that it was your god, as opposed to one of the the other 2,199 other gods that created the universe.

Oh, and I hear that you are a country member of your xtian church. And yes - they do remember.Big Grin

Dude, you have about a 1/20 ratio of posts that are worth responding to, and posts that worthless.

See ya again in 20 posts. Laugh out load

.. ah, poor little christard. It must be so annoying when you believe in something (god) and yet can't prove it. Still, that's christards for ya. Gluttons for punishment.
It must be terrible for you to want to prove god's existence and yet not have the intellect to be able to prove it. So sad. What must make it worse is that there are at least 2,199 other deities. Not knowing that you are with the right god must be so frustrating. Even on the balance of probability, there's only a 0.05% chance of being correct. Not good odds are they?

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
25-03-2016, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 01:51 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:21 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 04:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  He said he now understood & further went on to explain where his misconception of Atheism had occurred.
There was a point in his past where Gnostic Atheists were the only type of Atheists he encountered or knew of and he assumed they represented all of Atheism. When he finally encountered Agnostics his understanding of Atheism was so rooted in the Gnostic version that he could not fathom how such a distinct difference could still place both views under the same classification of Atheism.
It took a proper explanation of what an Atheist is and isn't for him to understand how both groups can be classified as atheists.
He now accepts the claim that agnostics are Atheists too & it would appear he isn't that appalled by them as he is towards Gnostic atheism.

I was also confused for a very long time as to why agnostics could be classified as atheists until I finally took the time to examine the root of the definition of Atheism. Many agnostic atheists are still confused by the terms as well so it isn't that uncommon a misunderstanding and in no way warrants this assumed uniquely uncommon title of idiot.

It may be possible there are other things he has done that warrants the negative connotations attributed to him but his misunderstanding of Atheism isn't one I think we should ridicule.
I read the same post. He didn't actually say he misunderstood. He insisted that atheists redefined terminology. Since I wasn't atheist during this (undefined) time, I don't know where he got his definitions from.

What he said was
(24-03-2016 08:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah. The definition of "atheist" has changed over the years. It used to be a person who maintained "There is no god", but after realizing the folly of such an absolute statement, they've changed it to more of what you said above.

The problem is, an agnostic is also someone that doesn't "believe" in in the existence of God or gods. So, where is the distinction??
...snip...
But based on your definition, there is no distinction necessary...because the traditional definition of atheism has been watered down...although there are still some today that maintain hard atheism, which is what it formally was.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like he insists that his definition is right, regardless of what others say and regardless of what the words mean or their etymology. I don't see where he admits he misunderstood anything or mentioned his personal experience. It was "this is what it was. Period."

I'm not starting an argument, but I think you read more into it than there actually was.
I don't see an admittance that he didn't misunderstand it and was willingly ignorant either.
I such cases I prefer to assume others aren't that secretly dishonest unless I have sufficient reason to believe that it is more than mere coincidence.
You probably know him much better than I do, but it's just not within me to follow the masses when it comes to character assassination unless I have sufficient reason to believe they are guilty.

Words aren't important if we don't know their intending meaning. If he misunderstood the intending meaning due to either a lack of willingness to understand or a lack of proper explanations presented to him is uncertain to me at this time. Outside of those two situations dishonesty would be my next best contender.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 01:32 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
More than enough evidence here http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...tual-Realm
he's a fool.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  More than enough evidence here http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...tual-Realm
he's a fool.
To believe time was created is circular logic.
To create requires the assumption that there was a beginning, which requires the existence of time for there to be a beginning. If time existed before the beginning then it was not the beginning.

I have a theory that solves this circular logic but you probably won't want to hear it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Agnostic Shane's post
25-03-2016, 01:42 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 01:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  More than enough evidence here http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...tual-Realm
he's a fool.
To believe time was created is circular logic.
To create requires the assumption that there was a beginning, which requires the existence of time for there to be a beginning. If time existed before the beginning then it was not the beginning.

I have a theory that solves this circular logic but you probably won't want to hear it.

It's not "circular", it's meaningless. Creation is an action ... requiring time a priori.

Try me.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 01:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To believe time was created is circular logic.
To create requires the assumption that there was a beginning, which requires the existence of time for there to be a beginning. If time existed before the beginning then it was not the beginning.

I have a theory that solves this circular logic but you probably won't want to hear it.

It's not "circular", it's meaningless. Creation is an action ... requiring time a priori.

Try me.
Before I start. Can you give me a better word than creation to explain what started everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Agnostic Shane's post
25-03-2016, 01:51 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 01:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To believe time was created is circular logic.
To create requires the assumption that there was a beginning, which requires the existence of time for there to be a beginning. If time existed before the beginning then it was not the beginning.

I have a theory that solves this circular logic but you probably won't want to hear it.

It's not "circular", it's meaningless. Creation is an action ... requiring time a priori.

Try me.

*Salutes Bucky Ball*

You're a braver/more patient sophont than I, Gungadin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Peebothuhul's post
25-03-2016, 01:52 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 01:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not "circular", it's meaningless. Creation is an action ... requiring time a priori.

Try me.
Before I start. Can you give me a better word than creation to explain what started everything?

Any word is better.
We don't know what the conditions were.
We don't know if anything even "started".
Roger Penrose (Hawking's friend) thinks there may be an infinite series of bangs and re-bangs.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2016, 02:00 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 12:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why does it have to be 'God'?

Um, it has to be a NECESSARY, LIVING, preexisting entity that created not only life, but DNA, consciousness, language, and the universe. It had to be an entity that had the POWER to create those things, and the WILL to create those things from nothing.

Having a "will" to create makes the being personal...and to be able to create from nothing makes the being EXTREMELY powerful. And no matter how hard you try, you can't think of a being that is more powerful than a being that can create from nothing.

This is not special pleading for God, either...those attributes are REQUIRED to produce the effects. Those attributes are REQUIRED, and they are NECESSARY.

(25-03-2016 12:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm assuming you mean your God.

The argument makes a case for a god, not necessarily MY God. In order to draw the conclusion of my God, one would have to produce further argumentation, like the Resurrection argument.

(25-03-2016 12:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  There are infinitely many possibilities for some thing or some being to create life or the conditions for life to occur.

Sure, an infinite amount of possible gods. If the argument for the Resurrection is true (which it is), then we know "which" God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(25-03-2016 01:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 01:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Before I start. Can you give me a better word than creation to explain what started everything?

Any word is better.
We don't know what the conditions were.
We don't know if anything even "started".
Roger Penrose (Hawking's friend) thinks there may be an infinite series of bangs and re-bangs.
This is the same route I took when developing my theory.
All evidence suggests that their is a cause for everything, including a cause. We cannot find evidence for causeless existence because it would require no evidence to prove and thus becomes a totally meaningless statement. Meaningless statements do not make very good logic and by extension very good discussions.
Brb... Need to go pick up the wife and kids.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: