Why are some Atheist obsessed with Religion? And some Religious obsessed with Atheism? (heaven, verses)
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.
Atheist and Theist are destined to join back together in the future; its air out your obsessions now, but later it will be undefiled unity. And there are certain Atheist and Theist who have the seed of that future unity in them now. They will be the ones to move out the old school of obsession.
I had placed more stock in your reading comp. My bad.
It has little to do with reading comprehension and more to do with you refusing to acknowledge that popular opinion does not shift the onus of proof, make evidenced an un-evidenced claim, nor negate the fact that argumentum ad populum is called a fallacy for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Truth is truth. No matter what you, I, or anyone else "thinks", or assumes they "know".
My point exactly. Thanks for making it for me. The problem for you is that there is not a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasons to suggest even with a modicum of credence that there is a god or that the claim there is one is "truth".
Quite literally all you have to support that claim is the argumentum ad populum fallacy that more people think it is true than do not.
It has little to do with reading comprehension and more to do with you refusing to acknowledge that popular opinion does not shift the onus of proof, make evidenced an un-evidenced claim, nor negate the fact that argumentum ad populum is called a fallacy for a reason.
My point exactly. Thanks for making it for me. The problem for you is that there is not a shred of evidence, argument, data or reasons to suggest even with a modicum of credence that there is a god or that the claim there is one is "truth".
Quite literally all you have to support that claim is the argumentum ad populum fallacy that more people think it is true than do not.
I presented this to you many times...and you just keep coming back with the same rebuttal.
A year ago I said it would be the last time...but since you keep on with your same argument...I will keep on with mine. Thus:
This is not unlike someone that has always been blind, telling a sighted person, that, even though he/she used their sense of sight to observe something over and over again, that does not necessarily prove it is so.
Because they themselves are not capable of sight, they do not comprehend the capacity of that sense to gather data for a person that does.
They support this contention on the basis that they have never seen anything, so the fact that others have, doesn't matter...and that they don't believe in the ability of that sense to collect data and make factual determinations based on what is observed through that sense.
Furthermore...they proclaim those that attest to their visual abilities to be liars or somehow fooled into thinking they could actually see things.
Now...Would the blind persons contention make that so, even though the contention is true as far as they are concerned?
I accept the evidence obtained by the many that have the capacity to use extra sensory perception to gain information...even though I don't have a full capability of that myself. I do not discount the millions of accounts of this experience, by those who have had it, as all of them lying or being mistaken...which is what, in fact, would have to be the case for ALL of them to be wrong. Wisdom and common sense tells me otherwise.
That you, and a small minority of others, don't have the ability to "see" God, I find most unfortunate.
But even more unfortunate...is that you don't have the common sense and wisdom to figure out that 8or9 out of 10 people are NOT liars or delusional when they tell you what they KNOW through their ability to "see" (right-brain perception) something you can't.
ALSO, AGAIN---Right or Wrong, Theism is the RULING concept...and has been for thousands of years. It needs prove nothing!
It is the "incumbent position" and currently "holds office".
It is upon the weak challenger (Atheism) to prove itself against Theism, that is the current ***CHAM-PI-OOOOOOON CON-CEEEEEEEPT*** and can/will "REIGN SUPREME" on that fact and basis alone.
So, AGAIN...What objective & completely verifiable evidence do YOU have to support YOUR contention to PROVE it is a "fact"?
If you have none...The Current Incumbent Concept (Theism) Runs Unopposed and retains it's status as the "World Standard".
I presented this to you many times...and you just keep coming back with the same rebuttal.
If you say the same thing over and over then how can I reply differently? Again your whole approach on here is to try and shift the onus of proof by appeal to majority. The onus of proof does not shift based no majority therefore how can I reply any differently?
The fact is the existence of god is unevidenced. If your sole support therefore is to say "well more people believe it than not" then the existence of god is STILL unevidenced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
A year ago I said it would be the last time...
Hardly my fault if you can not stay true to your own word is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Because they themselves are not capable of sight, they do not comprehend the capacity of that sense to gather data for a person that does.
You think blind people can not comprehend the concept of sight? Wow. Clearly you know no blind people. Not only do they understand the concept, the existence and function of sight can be evidenced and demonstrated quite readily to the blind.
The existence of god however.... not. Nor have you ever tried it seems. Invariably when asked for evidence supporting the idea of a god you just retreat into quoting the numbers of people who believe it. Evidence however is not forthcoming from you. Ever.
Sight can be evidenced. ESP can not. So you are using something there is no evidence for (ESP) as evidence for something there is no evidence for (GOD). I can only imagine your evidence for ESP will also be something there is no evidence for.
If you say the same thing over and over then how can I reply differently? Again your whole approach on here is to try and shift the onus of proof by appeal to majority. The onus of proof does not shift based no majority therefore how can I reply any differently?
The fact is the existence of god is unevidenced. If your sole support therefore is to say "well more people believe it than not" then the existence of god is STILL unevidenced.
Hardly my fault if you can not stay true to your own word is it?
You think blind people can not comprehend the concept of sight? Wow. Clearly you know no blind people. Not only do they understand the concept, the existence and function of sight can be evidenced and demonstrated quite readily to the blind.
The existence of god however.... not. Nor have you ever tried it seems. Invariably when asked for evidence supporting the idea of a god you just retreat into quoting the numbers of people who believe it. Evidence however is not forthcoming from you. Ever.
Sight can be evidenced. ESP can not. So you are using something there is no evidence for (ESP) as evidence for something there is no evidence for (GOD). I can only imagine your evidence for ESP will also be something there is no evidence for.
I've given you the "evidence" many time Nozz...you just don't agree:
We DO KNOW that the mass/energy that DOES IN FACT EXIST...creates through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created through "laws", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a God.
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining happened out of what some believe to be "chaos"...and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this mass/energy has always existed and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it does exist.
And, by it's KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by labeling that which we know to exist (and has the attributes that we know to define a God) something other than the "God" that it is by definition...they then deny the existence of God.
But then they turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
Not that it matters to "The Way Of The World".
Right or wrong, true or false..."God Exists" RULES anyway.
And THAT is what REALLY counts to The Way Of The World.
I've given you the "evidence" many time Nozz...you just don't agree
No. You have not. You have given me things you CALL evidence but that is not the same thing. Evidence is a three step process as follows:
1) State a clear claim.
2) State a clear list of evidence.
3) Explain exactly how that listed in 2 supports what was claimed in 1.
You seem to think it works like this:
1) State a vague claim.
2) List some stuff and leave.
Certainly saying god exists because energy exists is not only not evidence, it is just nonsense. It does not support any of the nonsense people actually mean by god such as an intelligence, a morality, a design, souls, after lives and all that lark.
All you are doing really is saying "Something causes us to be here... I am calling that something god... therefore there is a god". This is as useful to me as saying "My kettle exists... I am calling my kettle god... therefore there is a god".
Atheists do not blame god for anything. How could we when we do not believe in any god...It's true that atheists often point out atrocities in the bible that are ordered or committed by god, but that is only because we find it incredible that anyone can believe such an entity exists and is actually worshiped by theists.
Everything, good or bad on this earth can be attributed to either natural causes, circumstance or to humans...There are no miracles, nor are there god wrought punishments.
Science shows us that there are miracles everyday, that they cannot explainbut only hypothosize. Everything has an explanation or a reasoning. You cant just write it off as "we dont Know". Lots of things are happening that science cannot and will never be able to explain, However that does not mean there is no explanations, since everything has a meaning and purpose. A miracle is not a natural cause but a phenomenon. Good and evil spirits are phenomenons along with NDE'S,etc.,etc.,,
No it does not. Also if they are happening "every day" then they are hardly miracles but the mundane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah888
You cant just write it off as "we dont Know".
We do not. We write it down as "We do not know YET... so let's try to find out". The problem is that people like you gravitate towards those gaps in our knowledge and say "You can not explain it, therefore god" which is a complete nonsense and nonsequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah888
Lots of things are happening that science cannot and will never be able to explain
You can not know the future. Nor can I. So pretending to know what science will never explain is just you having a fantasy. Neither of us know what science will, or will not, help us to explain in the future.
By all means we can talk about what science has or has not explained up to and including TODAY. Start talking about what it will or will not explain tomorrow and you are pretending to know the future, when you do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah888
since everything has a meaning and purpose.
Says you, but this is a claim you have not once evidenced. Ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah888
spirits are phenomenons along with NDE'S,etc.,etc.
In that both appear to exist solely in the heads of those claiming them and there is no evidence that they actually exist in the ways and forms you describe.
No it does not. Also if they are happening "every day" then they are hardly miracles but the mundane.
We do not. We write it down as "We do not know YET... so let's try to find out". The problem is that people like you gravitate towards those gaps in our knowledge and say "You can not explain it, therefore god" which is a complete nonsense and nonsequitur.
You can not know the future. Nor can I. So pretending to know what science will never explain is just you having a fantasy. Neither of us know what science will, or will not, help us to explain in the future.
By all means we can talk about what science has or has not explained up to and including TODAY. Start talking about what it will or will not explain tomorrow and you are pretending to know the future, when you do not.
Says you, but this is a claim you have not once evidenced. Ever.
In that both appear to exist solely in the heads of those claiming them and there is no evidence that they actually exist in the ways and forms you describe.
Medical miracles happen everyday with no explanation from your scientist.
We do not. We write it down as "We do not know YET... so let's try to find out". The problem is that people like you gravitate towards those gaps in our knowledge and say "You can not explain it, therefore god" which is a complete nonsense and nonsequitur.
Everything has a meaning and purpose. Everything has an explanation when Science does not know or have an explanation, we as creationist know why we are here. There is no gaps in knowledge just the absence of wisdom
You can not know the future. Nor can I. So pretending to know what science will never explain is just you having a fantasy. Neither of us know what science will, or will not, help us to explain in the future.
well its been thousands of years, they still cant explain Phenomenon, etc.,etc.
By all means we can talk about what science has or has not explained up to and including TODAY. Start talking about what it will or will not explain tomorrow and you are pretending to know the future, when you do not.
I dont know the future, all I know is my reason, meaning and purpose for being here. DO YOU.?
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.
