Green Coffee Bean

[EasyEJL]

Are you an Atheist? If so, u just contradicted yourself LOL

By Definition: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

this i can at least agree with. An agnostic says "i don't know whether there is or isn't, and don't particularly care either" where atheists have as strong a belief in the lack of a god as religious people do of the existence.

[Roniboney]

Are you an Atheist? If so, u just contradicted yourself LOL

By Definition: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Nope.YOu can be an atheist and still logically feel that despite being nearly 100% sure that there is no God that there may indeed be a slim chance.It's illogical that it is any of the Gods mankind has creator but there is indeed the possibility of a creator.

Remember and atheist is logical.You clearly know very little on the subject if your telling me I'm not an atheist.

I cannot prove there is not a God therefore I must hold my conviction that there is no God but remain skeptical all at the same time.

[sidoious]

this i can at least agree with. An agnostic says "i don't know whether there is or isn't, and don't particularly care either" where atheists have as strong a belief in the lack of a god as religious people do of the existence.

Do I have a lack of faith, or an abundance of certainty? That's how I basically phrase these arguments.

[Roniboney]

Do I have a lack of faith, or an abundance of certainty? That's how I basically phrase these arguments.

pulling out a book with an atheist scale.I'm a 6 out of 7

De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

Therefore no matter how you try and rhetorize it I am an atheist.ITT theists have never studies atheism in depth whereas atheist have studies theism in depth.Always the trend I'm afraid to say.

[Whacked]

Remember and atheist is logical

According to who? Not a Christian

That's akin to saying my Christian views are logical and not expecting the same rebuttal.

Nope.YOu can be an atheist and still logically feel that despite being nearly 100% sure that there is no God.

Not according to Webster's Dictionary. That word "nearly" makes you a FULL-FLEDGED AGNOSTIC. Sorry

I cannot prove there is not a God therefore I must hold my conviction that there is no God but remain skeptical all at the same time.

You don't HAVE to do anything. WHO's rules are you following? Since you admittedly can't prove anything, you are faced with 3 options, not one. God exists, GOd doesnt exist, God might exist. No one's holding your hand to the fire and forcing a position of Atheism (NO POSSIBILITY OF GOD)

[Whacked]

You have an abundance of certainty? In what? The non-existence of God?

Based on WHAT?

Do I have a lack of faith, or an abundance of certainty? That's how I basically phrase these arguments.

[Geoforce]

While I can genuinely appreciate the frustration of an Atheist trying to comprehend what seems to be the incomprehensible, what you must understand is that to a Christian, our minds cannot grasp the boundadries or workings of what we consider ot be an infinte God. That said, a devout Atheist denouncing the possibility for the existence of a God MUST provide an intelligent argument based on finite wisdom since we are finite beings.

Again not a cop out, or a delflection, just framing our point of view.

This is where the whole discussion becomes circular and we are back to square one. The last couple of pages have boiled down to basically:

Believers- Prove we're wrong.

Non-believers- Prove you're right.

Neither of these are going to happen, no one's "demands" will become satisfied. We're arguing the same thing that our ancestors argued and likely what our children will argue. And it is doubtful in anyone on this boards lifetime that proof for either side becomes clear.

[Roniboney]

According to who? Not a Christian

That's akin to saying my Christian views are logical and not expecting the same rebuttal.

You believe without evidence.Not exactly logical

Not according to Webster's Dictionary. That word "nearly" makes you a FULL-FLEDGED AGNOSTIC. Sorry

I'm sorry sir but your still wrong according to my actual definition that I listed.


You don't HAVE to do anything. WHO's rules are you following? Since you admittedly can't prove anything, you are faced with 3 options, not one. God exists, GOd doesnt exist, God might exist. No one's holding your hand to the fire and forcing a position of Atheism (NO POSSIBILITY OF GOD)

Rules of logic.It's not logical to believe in a God if I have no proof.I can believe in evolution due to their being evidence.God=not a single shred.THough I cannot disprove it.

[Roniboney]

You have an abundance of certainty? In what? The non-existence of God?

Based on WHAT?

yes.Based on a lack of evidence and the many myths that man has created.

Which God do you follow?

I would wager that it's the Christian God.

You have certianty that the Roman and Grecian Gods are not the true Gods.Therefore oyu understand my point of view and accept it fully correct?

For some reason the answer is a recurring no.

[Roniboney]

This is where the whole discussion becomes circular and we are back to square one. The last couple of pages have boiled down to basically:

Believers- Prove we're wrong.

Non-believers- Prove you're right.

Neither of these are going to happen, no one's "demands" will become satisfied. We're arguing the same thing that our ancestors argued and likely what our children will argue. And it is doubtful in anyone on this boards lifetime that proof for either side becomes clear.

THe thing is the burden of proof falls to the believer as they make claims that they cannot back up with evidence,just more rhetoric as to why I believe differently.It's unprovable but fun to debate.

All believers who try and use the prove me wronbg argument look at this

[Roniboney]

Btw will a theist answer my question about their religion and the correlation to geography?Is it that hard to answer?

[saggy321]

so you had a vision. but while other peoples visions (like the son of sam, mohammed, charles manson) are delusional, yours is real. Because you know it to be real. Its all starting to make sense to me now

Nope no vision. I've never had a vision. Ironically my belief in God is based upon rational thought. Difficult maybe for you to digest, but there are many like me. Rational, scientific individuals who also believe in God!

[Roniboney]

Nope no vision. I've never had a vision. Ironically my belief in God is based upon rational thought. Difficult maybe for you to digest, but there are many like me. irRational, scientific individuals who also believe in God!

Fixed

[saggy321]

THe thing is the burden of proof falls to the believer as they make claims that they cannot back up with evidence,just more rhetoric as to why I believe differently.It's unprovable but fun to debate.

All believers who try and use the prove me wronbg argument look at this

When you are asked to prove that evolved from mere organic buildings blocks into the complex organisms that we are you too are unable to do so. You literally have nothing other than making statements like we share common DNA with the rest of the animal kingdom. That isn't an argument for evolution any more than you can say that a building has evolved from a tree because they share some common materials.

You talk about myths in the bible and forgeries...how about all the data and discoveries the scientists have forged in attempting to fill the gaping gaps in the current theory of evolution.

If you subjected your theory of evolution to the same strict empirical standards that you subject the theory of God and creationism it too would fail.

[saggy321]

Fixed

That's just childish and immature. But I should expect that kind of hysteria and ignorance from a militant atheist.

[cswalczakny]

Ever notice that creationists look really unevolved? You believe god created you in 6 days? Looks like he rushed it!

Paraphrased from bill hicks.

I kid I kid!!
:P

[Roniboney]

That's just childish and immature. But I should expect that kind of hysteria and ignorance from a militant atheist.

lol militant.By using logic I am militant and ignorant ..............mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk ay

When you are asked to prove that evolved from mere organic buildings blocks into the complex organisms that we are you too are unable to do so. You literally have nothing other than making statements like we share common DNA with the rest of the animal kingdom. That isn't an argument for evolution any more than you can say that a building has evolved from a tree because they share some common materials.

You talk about myths in the bible and forgeries...how about all the data and discoveries the scientists have forged in attempting to fill the gaping gaps in the current theory of evolution.

If you subjected your theory of evolution to the same strict empirical standards that you subject the theory of God and creationism it too would fail.

Science has forged certain things,evolution is not 100% foolproof...........therefore God.Are you ripping the piss?

[saggy321]

lol militant.By using logic I am militant..............mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmkay



Science has forged certain things,evolution is not 100% foolproof...........therefore God.Are you ripping the piss?

Geez...what is with you?! And you call yourself rational and logical. From all the contributors to this thread I have to say you are the least rational person of all. My point is this......you call theists irrational for believing in something they cannot prove, but you yourself believe in something that you cannot prove, so you by the same rationale are irrational for if you are not then neither are the theists. I'm not saying that you lack of proof for evolution proves the existence of God.

[Roniboney]

Geez...what is with you?! And you call yourself rational and logical. From all the contributors to this thread I have to say you are the least rational person of all. My point is this......you call theists irrational for believing in something they cannot prove, but you yourself believe in something that you cannot prove, so you by the same rationale are irrational for if you are not then neither are the theists. I'm not saying that you lack of proof for evolution proves the existence of God.

That is not the distinction I have made.Go back to page 7 and work your way back up to this point.Its irrational to believe without proof but also equally as irrational to discount the other side.A theist who knows there is God is as irrational as an atheist who knows there is not a God.I am neither,I merely have a very strong supposition that there is no God.

As for me being irrational,I lol'd/You very mad at my logic aren't you.I know a sh1tstrom would brew once I let loose in this thread.This insult was long coming.

There is a lack of proof is osme areas of evolution but an overwhelming amount for its general idea.

Now I ask you this seeing as you have clearly not read all of my posts as you claim.

Is it irrational to beleive without proof or to not believe but always have a logical possibility that you are wrong despite what you inherently feel?

Btw if you did read the thread you would realsie I have answered this 100 times already

[mr.cooper69]

So....have anyone's fundamental beliefs changed as a result of this thread?