Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You cannot prove something's non existence and the belief in God is not rooted in evidence. Your debate should also be atheist vs theist as Christians don't have a monopoly on belief in a deity (or deities).
The debate should be what the universe is doing and how do we interact with our surroundings. Offer mechanisms for the events around us and see how well they make predictions.
warping how the universe works to fit a belief statement is deceitfulness. The claim that this region of space seems "alive", based on comparisons to a set of "accepted known values" is more valid than claiming that we must answer to atheism before anything else.
God or no god has no bearing on making a measurement for this atheist. people that follow the faith presented in atheism have alter motivations to prove other religions wrong instead of testing their own beliefs.
Possibly something from the unholy trinity worth bothering with. Gods as symbols of ...the actuality? Just a bit of fun really. Not to be taken seriously. I can live with that. But to be an "Ist" about it. Idiotic.
Matadora, what do you think? If you even think it worth bothering with.
this aint a popularity contest. If that were the case the Muslims and christians own the truth.
Hey, you ready to make the measurement to see who is more correct?
Your faith in anti-religion atheism or my "how the universe works" atheist only?
oh wait, you cant do that ... lmao ... you answer to a belief statement not observations. Are you sure you and omegaxx didn't plan this whole thing?
i wonder if that goes on the list? asking around for support so we don't look the fool?
this aint a popularity contest. If that were the case the Muslims and christians own the truth.
Hey, you ready to make the measurement to see who is more correct?
Your faith in anti-religion atheism or my "how the universe works" atheist only?
oh wait, you cant do that ... lmao ... you answer to a belief statement not observations. Are you sure you and omegaxx didn't plan this whole thing?
i wonder if that goes on the list? asking around for support so we don't look the fool?
Yes it does. Just look at the typical "rep" count of the anti-religion LOBBUNE (Lack of Belief Based Upon No Evidence) Sect of the Atheist Religion.
They love "back-slapping" and "high-fiving" each other for the pile-ons and gang-ups...and even lament in open forum they can't "rep" each other more...with lamentations of "too soon", etc. Reps for the sake of reps...not for an especially good contribution.
They have even driven some members from the board.
OTOH...I'm a twisted individual, and it is all that I find so very amusing...so I hope they never stop.
Yes it does. Just look at the typical "rep" count of the anti-religion LOBBUNE (Lack of Belief Based Upon No Evidence) Sect of the Atheist Religion.
They love "back-slapping" and "high-fiving" each other for the pile-ons and gang-ups...and even lament in open forum they can't "rep" each other more...with lamentations of "too soon", etc. Reps for the sake of reps...not for an especially good contribution.
They have even driven some members from the board.
OTOH...I'm a twisted individual, and it is all that I find so very amusing...so I hope they never stop.
all I have to do is change the word atheist in my post to theists and my reps would sore. I have rules. If the words I use can be used on me, I have to rethink my position. That's what lead me to my final measurement for a living biosphere. I knew both sides can't be that wrong, I mean minus the fundy's. There had to be a unifying theory that would fit both god/non god experiences of people, all people. And be measurable by other people that disagree with me or never heard of things like "gaia".
there is no way, that many, middle of the road people, both believer and non believers, can be that far off the mark. "alive" closes that gap using knowns, offers a mechanism, make predictions, and is not based on a belief statement. It makes no claims past what we all can see and feel.
Its surely is not the last understanding and it may be deeper than even I thought. But its rational, logical, and only requires people to use what they know. They don't have to follow a pack of dogs hunting for other beliefs to attack.
not sure why the milli mentals atheist and fundy mental theist won't just fess up to reality.
Arach, you had that right-post "Hallejujiah -Jesus is God" and you can rack up a dozen points. I'll accept that you are sincere about your views, but I 'll stick with the usual "Rhetoric" as outside the Christianity (and a bit of Muslim) debate I'm not bothered whether there is an agnostic-Pantheist sorta-god or not. And let Goldie laugh his ass of, it makes no difference tohis argument being as flat as a popped balloon. And I don't propose to discuss possible conscious-universes with someone who ignores plain statements about atheism and trots out a lot of lies (or at least illogic) about the Kind of atheists he doesn't approve of.
I am not aware of any argument for the existence of God that I find to be in any way compelling.
People often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers. When they get that promotion they have been praying for, or when their team wins the big game. Just as they prayed it would. And yet when a psycho comes into a classroom full of six year old's armed with a handgun and an intent to shooting each one in the head at point blank range, or when a tornado causes a brick church wall to collapse on and kill worshipers in the very ACT of praying to God... in other words when faith comes face to face with physical reality, physical reality inevitably prevails. And God is nowhere to be found. A God who is not there for these individuals and who does not act at a moment of extreme physical peril is in no way different from a God who never existed to begin with.
In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, make believe does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children. Piedmont Journal - Tried by Deadly Tornado, An Anchor of Faith Holds - NYTimes.com
In 2012, after shooting and killing his own mother, a mentally unstable man went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and methodically shot 20 six year olds and a teacher in the head. A Supreme Being would really have come in handy that day. Did God just sit there and watch the whole thing? Or was he distracted, too busy fulfilling the mundane prayers of others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting
The point is, in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable but assumed to exist anyway God, will invariably act in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't actually there. In fact a God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! What exactly is the difference? This is as close to an empirical test for the actual existence of God as one might reasonably hope for. And in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.
Now let me make it clear. I do not blame God for what occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, in exactly the same way that I hold no grudge against Santa for not ACTUALLY coming to my house each Christmas.
Someone on a you tube I saw recently remarked that the 'problem of Evil' wasn't actually a very good argument, but acknowledged that it was a very popular one for starting believers having doubts.
It logically correct to just say: "I don't know whether there is a god or not - persuade me", and not have to produce a shred of evidence to doubt a god, but in fact there are a good many reasons to doubt, and of course a lot of excuses, good bad and just resorting to Faith.
It logically correct to just say: "I don't know whether there is a god or not - persuade me", and not have to produce a shred of evidence to doubt a god, but in fact there are a good many reasons to doubt, and of course a lot of excuses, good bad and just resorting to Faith.
As always, you misrepresent the problem, Arq. It is NOT that we need to present evidence there IS a God. The evidence is as they might say - legion. We need to try to understand why you and others do NOT accept what IS as God, given its awesome attributes. You readily admit you do not know what our reality IS or why it is so ubiquitous, powerful, controlling and creative but you are sure it is NOT God. That is the disconnect that makes no sense whatsoever.
"The Evidence" of why Nature/Universe/All That Exists is meritoriously titled "God":
ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe) has all those attributes definitive of a God Entity.
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL
I could go on. But as Arach says, it is "what is in front of us", "what we know", "how it works", and "how it is".
These are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity.
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment...and certainly merits the title "GOD".
If THE UNIVERSE doesn't cut it as GOD, nothing would...and we may as well not even have such a word/term/title.
As always, you misrepresent the problem, Arq. It is NOT that we need to present evidence there IS a God. The evidence is as they might say - legion. We need to try to understand why you and others do NOT accept what IS as God, given its awesome attributes. You readily admit you do not know what our reality IS or why it is so ubiquitous, powerful, controlling and creative but you are sure it is NOT God. That is the disconnect that makes no sense whatsoever.
You accept that all of existence is Duz, and on that very second, I will also accept that it is God. The problem here is vagaries and relabeling what is already labeled. The reason you would be desperate or reeling to relabel something that everyone already believes in or accepts (or understands that it seems to exist in sum total), is because you want to add some qualities traditionally attributed to what the word "God" represents, rather than what the word "all" or the vague word 'Duz' or the phrase "beyond what we know" represents. So what are these things you want to add? That existence is Sentient and Conscious? That existence deserves/wants our praise? That existence deserves to be called God, because it is meritorious of such a lofty title (in terms of how the religious are brought up to perceive the title)?
Spoiler
Edit:
after writing this above post, and checking for any possible meaning to Duz, I found (along with the fact that Duz is a short hand slang for British(?) slang "durry," meaning "cigarette") that Urban Dictionary has democratically defined Duzzy as...
Quote:
Duzzy- of all creation, the one and only person God looks up to, and obeys.
giving the example of sentence of
Quote:
"duzzy is and will continue to be everything"
coincidence... I think not! More like Universal Predestination, or final destination, or whatever you want. There seems to even be people named after this Supermystical Entity
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-05-2017 at 09:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
