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.
I don't care about the different religious views. But even an evangelical Christian can help illustrate why God exists. It's pure arrogance and pride that would deny God:
"A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God."
Ravi Zacharias
Oh yes, it is arrogant for someone to say, "I don't believe in God because I see no proof," but not at all arrogant to say, "I believe in this specific God, and anyone who doesn't believe in my specific God is wrong."
Oh yes, it is arrogant for someone to say, "I don't believe in God because I see no proof," but not at all arrogant to say, "I believe in this specific God, and anyone who doesn't believe in my specific God is wrong."
Sure Ozzy. Sure.
First of all, it's wrong to say "specific God". The different religions are just different languages people have used to describe the same thing. Don't pretend that you can't the understand the concept.
First of all, it's wrong to say "specific God". The different religions are just different languages people have used to describe the same thing. Don't pretend that you can't the understand the concept.
Except they DON'T describe the same thing. Not at all. Maybe you should research other religions, since you obviously haven't, otherwise you wouldn't say they all describe the same thing.
To me it's strange whenever an atheist puts God in the plural or uses "gods".
Is it just a lack of simple understanding about how man has used language to describe the divine. Each culture was independent from the others, yet they each developed their own religions to help explain God.
Why is that so difficult to understand? I'll answer: It's NOT difficult to understand. So the only conclusion one can take from listening to an atheist is that he has a moral problem in accepting his need for God. Only that would cause them to say such convoluted things that you know even they couldn't believe.
That's a scientific and rational conclusion.
It 8s not scientific or rational, it 8s your bias. Did the Greeks, Romans, Norse and other Pagan beliefs have only one God? Do the religions currently agree that all their God's are the same God,many Christians don't even accept that their God and Allah is the same God.
The concept that there is only one God and all religions about him, or her as some relogins have a goddess., makes more sense that one of those God's being the correct one. But if all the religions are incorrect then it could also be that the word and concept of God is just a way of explaining the unknown and explaining how tgw universe works without knowing the laws of nature. 8f this is the case then the term God has little meaning t9 day as we no longer need a supernatural being to explain things, we now realize that we can say we don't know and then go about exploring the answers.
When you convince Christians or Hindu that their God is the exact same character and both of their religions are false then come back at you can addressusf9r being immoral because we don't accept you as the ultimate truth. Until them,you are just twisting things to make yourself feel superior and more moral.
The scientific conclusion is that we have no real evidence to believe in a God. The logical conclusion is until we have evidence for a God there is no reason to believe it.
Oh yes, it is arrogant for someone to say, "I don't believe in God because I see no proof," but not at all arrogant to say, "I believe in this specific God, and anyone who doesn't believe in my specific God is wrong."
Sure Ozzy. Sure.
actually, we all tend to state our position more straight forward after the first punch thrown. I see millimental atheist throw the first punch and when we are not afraid, of they tend to turn the retaliation into the first act. or, like they did with me, tell me I misunderstand what they said.
And yes, theist do it too.
the "One trick pony" that I repeatedly refer to.
I don't/will not follow the Fundy-think type atheist that thinks its ok to suppress "how the universe works" because of how they "FEEL" religionist will react. Nor, I don't think its healthy to suppress information about reality based on how practical it is in one's life.
Isn't that what we say fundy-theist do? and why should we accept it in our ranks?
the topics are comparing people's base claim in supporting a line of logic. the milli-atheist and fundy theist clamp down and lock out any discussion that shows how a statement of belief about god/religion isn't the best base claim(s) to form a line of logic off of. They both need us to stickly follow their dogma or we are not "real atheist", "real theist", or indeed, they make us "not real people" when confronted.
we can argue that my choice of words I use are not correct. That being "fundy atheism" and millimental atheist' "central dogma". But to dismiss the notion that we have unhealthy type atheist thinking in out ranks.
and if the heavey handed atheist are not saying that, then why the insinstant personal attacks on me when I say it?
To me it's strange whenever an atheist puts God in the plural or uses "gods".
Is it just a lack of simple understanding about how man has used language to describe the divine. Each culture was independent from the others, yet they each developed their own religions to help explain God.
Why is that so difficult to understand? I'll answer: It's NOT difficult to understand. So the only conclusion one can take from listening to an atheist is that he has a moral problem in accepting his need for God. Only that would cause them to say such convoluted things that you know even they couldn't believe.
That's a scientific and rational conclusion.
You still haven't said what that 'need' is
You have this habit of digressing or disappearing when asked some questions
It 8s not scientific or rational, it 8s your bias. Did the Greeks, Romans, Norse and other Pagan beliefs have only one God? Do the religions currently agree that all their God's are the same God,many Christians don't even accept that their God and Allah is the same God.
The concept that there is only one God and all religions about him, or her as some relogins have a goddess., makes more sense that one of those God's being the correct one. But if all the religions are incorrect then it could also be that the word and concept of God is just a way of explaining the unknown and explaining how tgw universe works without knowing the laws of nature. 8f this is the case then the term God has little meaning t9 day as we no longer need a supernatural being to explain things, we now realize that we can say we don't know and then go about exploring the answers.
When you convince Christians or Hindu that their God is the exact same character and both of their religions are false then come back at you can addressusf9r being immoral because we don't accept you as the ultimate truth. Until them,you are just twisting things to make yourself feel superior and more moral.
The scientific conclusion is that we have no real evidence to believe in a God. The logical conclusion is until we have evidence for a God there is no reason to believe it.
no, you are wrong.
its more correct to say that there is no scientific evidence for a certian types of god. some atheist label conclusion about god as "sort-a-god" and then say there is no scientific evidence for it.
or, people that openly claim "I don't know the science so its not evidence" are also a problem. If you are of the "I'll wait and see", then wait and see. Don't be ripping off about how "science has no real evidence", because thats just not true.
"science" doesn't support some religion's claims and other religion's claims it does.
It's not as facinating of subject as you may think or embrace. It sort like an unattractive person who is convinced your obsessed with them, so they position themselves around the water-cooler and want to talk ad nausem about their beauty.
Why some people have a need for there not be any God(s) varies.
Sorry I disagreed with you, I didn't realize that you are the world's authority on not only about atheists but also about my mind.
Just because you make some unfounded assertions doesn't mean you are correct. That you are basically calling us liars because we don't think in the manner that you have made up about what you think we do makes you extremely arrogant.
I have no need for a God to not exist. If satisfactory evidence for the existence of a God came to my attention I doubt it would have any more than the slightest affect on my life. I would likely then become a diest.
All attempts of yours to misrepresent what I believe or think are to pump up your ego and stroke your anti atheists prejudice. Just because you have a different belief that most others does not make you correct or superior. Or honest.
actually, we all tend to state our position more straight forward after the first punch thrown. I see millimental atheist throw the first punch and when we are not afraid, of they tend to turn the retaliation into the first act. or, like they did with me, tell me I misunderstand what they said.
And yes, theist do it too.
the "One trick pony" that I repeatedly refer to.
I don't/will not follow the Fundy-think type atheist that thinks its ok to suppress "how the universe works" because of how they "FEEL" religionist will react. Nor, I don't think its healthy to suppress information about reality based on how practical it is in one's life.
Isn't that what we say fundy-theist do? and why should we accept it in our ranks?
the topics are comparing people's base claim in supporting a line of logic. the milli-atheist and fundy theist clamp down and lock out any discussion that shows how a statement of belief about god/religion isn't the best base claim(s) to form a line of logic off of. They both need us to stickly follow their dogma or we are not "real atheist", "real theist", or indeed, they make us "not real people" when confronted.
we can argue that my choice of words I use are not correct. That being "fundy atheism" and millimental atheist' "central dogma". But to dismiss the notion that we have unhealthy type atheist thinking in out ranks.
and if the heavey handed atheist are not saying that, then why the insinstant personal attacks on me when I say it?
And what does all this "fundy-atheist" and "milli-atheist" have to do with the quoted post, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
no, you are wrong.
its more correct to say that there is no scientific evidence for a certian types of god. some atheist label conclusion about god as "sort-a-god" and then say there is no scientific evidence for it.
or, people that openly claim "I don't know the science so its not evidence" are also a problem. If you are of the "I'll wait and see", then wait and see. Don't be ripping off about how "science has no real evidence", because thats just not true.
"science" doesn't support some religion's claims and other religion's claims it does.
You may accept this "evidence" for the sort-a-god, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to. So I guess it would be more correct to say, "There is no GOOD evidence", because even if you buy into it, it doesn't mean the evidence is "good".
Sorry I disagreed with you, I didn't realize that you are the world's authority on not only about atheists but also about my mind.
Just because you make some unfounded assertions doesn't mean you are correct. That you are basically calling us liars because we don't think in the manner that you have made up about what you think we do makes you extremely arrogant.
I have no need for a God to not exist. If satisfactory evidence for the existence of a God came to my attention I doubt it would have any more than the slightest affect on my life. I would likely then become a diest.
All attempts of yours to misrepresent what I believe or think are to pump up your ego and stroke your anti atheists prejudice. Just because you have a different belief that most others does not make you correct or superior. Or honest.
he may not be. But neither are you. I don't have to play "science says there is no god" just because you don't understand what science says and you think you know whats best for atheism.
and you are not telling the truth about seeing evidence. Because you have denied every piece of evidence in describing what this god may be. because you need there not to be a god. You need "anti-god" as surely as they "my god".
and when its clear that the data does support the claim you'll whip out "I don't care, there is no god".
how do I know ... you did it before.
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.
