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.
" a day to men is as 1000 yrs to God" or similar. The point being time for God would last an eternity
Biblical verses are like Mystic's posts. They don't make any sense at all.
A day is the time it takes planet Earth to rotate on its axis 1 time. A year is the time it takes the planet to revolve around the Sun 1 time. Such terms are the invention of humans, have to meaning otherwise or elsewhere, except some other planet revolving and rotating about some other star.
These scriptures are the work of ignorants who can't even see the stupidity of what they were writing.
A universe-creating god would have no use for them, or call to invent them.
That is NOT the question. No one gives a crap whether or not he is a God-believer. The question is what does his belief or non-belief mean about his understanding of Reality. You want to continue the ruse and pretense that a lack of belief in God does not mean your Reality does NOT contain God, i.e., You believe there is no God in your Reality, period. Lack of belief, schmack of belief. You do NOT believe God exists in your Reality or you DO or you are undecided either from ignorance or apathy or whatever. There are no other states and none of them are default.
Nonsense. Your position has been that atheism shouldn't be considered the default position of belief . The question shows that lacking a positive belief in a god, the position of having no opinion about god results in him being a person who is an atheist by default, from a lack of deciding to believe in gods.
That's the only question. Where does no opinion on gods put a person on the spectrum of belief/unbelief? You can insult all you want, it will be evident to all reading here that you don't possess the "whatevers" to actually give an answer to a simple yes or no question.
The answer that you are unwilling to give is that he is by default an atheist because he has no affirmative , positive belief in gods.
Default stance resolved. Lacking an affirmative belief in gods, it is atheism .
Last edited by NatesDude; 02-23-2021 at 05:06 PM..
That is NOT the question. No one gives a crap whether or not he is a God-believer. The question is what does his belief or non-belief mean about his understanding of Reality. You want to continue the ruse and pretense that a lack of belief in God does not mean your Reality does NOT contain God, i.e., You believe there is no God in your Reality, period. Lack of belief, schmack of belief. You do NOT believe God exists in your Reality or you DO or you are undecided either from ignorance or apathy or whatever. There are no other states and none of them are default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Nonsense. Your position has been that atheism shouldn't be considered the default position of belief . The question shows that lacking a positive belief in a god, the position of having no opinion about god results in him being a person who is an atheist by default, from a lack of deciding to believe in gods.
That's the only question. Where does no opinion on gods put a person on the spectrum of belief/unbelief? You can insult all you want, it will be evident to all reading here that you don't possess the b*lls to actually give an answer to a simple yes or no question.
The answer that you are unwilling to give is that he is by default an atheist because he has no affirmative, positive belief in gods.
Default stance resolved. Lacking an affirmative belief in gods, it is atheism.
No he is NOT an atheist because he would by default be undecided. He is NEITHER. You want to make the issue back or white when it is not. There is no need to hold EITHER belief. Your BS "God-believer" label is an attempt to force the issue as if it is somehow compulsory to be one or the other. That's what a default does, force the status.
No he is NOT an atheist because he would by default be undecided. He is NEITHER. You want to make the issue back or white when it is not. There is no need to hold EITHER belief. Your BS "God-believer" label is an attempt to force the issue as if it is somehow compulsory to be one or the other. That's what a default does, force the status.
He IS undecided, granted. What you fail to grasp , or more likely grasp but juuuusssstt can't stand to admit, is that this undecidedness puts him, in regards to the belief/unbelief position , of not believing. He doesn't believe. He is undecided, but he doesn't believe because of his undecidedness. This is Basic Logic 101, yet it escapes you for some reason.
Having you expose your failings this way is a little fun though, after all your insults, bombast and braggadocio, so I'm willing to play along a little more and let you keep showing your illogic. Let's play the "Am I going to Heaven" game, Baptist style.
In Baptist theology, the only way to get to Heaven is to believe in Christ. John is undecided. He doesn't reject the concept of god, but he doesn't really know what he believes or which sect is correct , and so just sort of goes through life in a fuzzy middle ground of not really caring to decide either way. According to Baptist belief, is John
A) Going to Heaven
B) not going to Heaven
You want there to be a third choice. As you can see, there is not. There is no third neutral place for the undecided. So, given that John is merely undecided, if we accept the Baptist way as correct, where will he end up ? Heaven, or not Heaven?
And don't use this analogy to run and hide behind claims of "This doesn't apply because we know Reality IS!". This is merely to show that being undecided doesn't leave you in some neutral middle ground when an affirmative belief is required to be a believer.
So, can you answer THIS question? Or will this be Number 2 you run and hide from?
Just curious if any theists can answer this. Any claim in science, right or wrong, has religion come up with a BETTER answer to the claim?
Science is Not the teacher of morality.
Immorality is a BIG problem which has lead to most world's troubles today.
Since science is Not the teacher of morality, then religion (morals) Golden Rule for example is a BIG part of the answer.
Jesus' NEW commandment of John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for other as he has is the BIGGER part of the answer.
A not very original excuse that means 'I have nothing to back up my Faith -claim, other than more faith claims'.
Quote:
Wow. Wish I could put up a facepalm emoji. no. It doesn't work that way. God is not a part of the universe. He is not a material object that exists along with the matter he created.
You can. Whether god is part of the universe or is outside it, it still makes no logical sense that a complex thinking being had no origin
Quote:
If you're naive enough, or headstrong enough that you want to believe it all came about naturally, then there is nothing I can do to convince you.
You mean you have no decent evidence to make a case other than to claim a creator that didn't itself need to be created. If that's possible, then an uncreated Nothing with the potential to create matter/energy is possible. In fact, a lot more possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
lol..irony!
it is ironic that you don't see that you don't see that a 'don't know' admission is honest and claim to Know on fath in the contents of an old creation myth, what the explanation is is...Ironic.
One case which is called Higgs boson particle connections which baffles science is the so-called glue that binds the particle of the like the adam together as science has called it the God Particle, as without it the elements could not come together with the electrons and the protons ..... See without this the world elements and physical properties could not slick together everything would just fall apart, like Oxygen and hydrogen could not come together to create water without this partial which science do not know how it came to be ........
so ...what? What works persists; What doesn't ceases to be. A natural physical (chemical evolutionary) process. Don't be misled (of course) by the whimsical epithet of the God -particle', which I believe was slapped on the Big - Hoedown by the media, though the science community seem willing to let it go.
It doesn't in fact make any kind of case for a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
STOP! What the hell does it mean they have no belief in it???? Translate that to its consequent. Answer my f***ing question or you will remain mired in your logic mud puddle. You are clearly not used to very deep thinking preferring to traverse the shallows of your inane logic puddle.
This is great. Seeing you pretend that you don't understand the concept of not believing (analogy - used correctly which you don't do) a claim say, that an asteroid will hit earth next week. He does not claim to know that it will not hit but (unless convincing evidence (not a feasible hypothesis about hit it's possible) there is no reason on earth why he should believe it.
Do you get this very, very, simple concept about the burden of proof? Do you? Or do you still insist that logic stand in its' head just to suit you?
Oh..and do do you get that you are once again derailing a thread to peddle your own Beliefs?
Sometimes they stretch that to 6,000 years by quoting the scripture that a day is as a thousand years. But even then . . . never equates to millions of years for sure.
I've seen it Explained by taking ..whatever the age of the universe is reckoned to be (14 billion years?) and divide it into 7 and call each a 'day' (ignoring that each were marked by light and dark; morning and evening and sun and moon were created later on to give people something to look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
He IS undecided, granted. What you fail to grasp , or more likely grasp but juuuusssstt can't stand to admit, is that this undecidedness puts him, in regards to the belief/unbelief position , of not believing. He doesn't believe. He is undecided, but he doesn't believe because of his undecidedness. This is Basic Logic 101, yet it escapes you for some reason.
Having you expose your failings this way is a little fun though, after all your insults, bombast and braggadocio, so I'm willing to play along a little more and let you keep showing your illogic. Let's play the "Am I going to Heaven" game, Baptist style.
In Baptist theology, the only way to get to Heaven is to believe in Christ. John is undecided. He doesn't reject the concept of god, but he doesn't really know what he believes or which sect is correct , and so just sort of goes through life in a fuzzy middle ground of not really caring to decide either way. According to Baptist belief, is John
A) Going to Heaven
B) not going to Heaven
You want there to be a third choice. As you can see, there is not. There is no third neutral place for the undecided. So, given that John is merely undecided, if we accept the Baptist way as correct, where will he end up ? Heaven, or not Heaven?
And don't use this analogy to run and hide behind claims of "This doesn't apply because we know Reality IS!". This is merely to show that being undecided doesn't leave you in some neutral middle ground when an affirmative belief is required to be a believer.
So, can you answer THIS question? Or will this be Number 2 you run and hide from?
Yet another one who has sussed (and debunked) Mystic's nonsensical appeal to what we don't know as though it was a gap for God, plus denying (what has been explained innumerable times) that not knowing (agnosticism) mandates (logically) non -belief (atheism) until we do know. Which means providing good evidence, not just hypotheses. And of course, he ignores or denies what we Do know (which is natural forces) as the 'default'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-23-2021 at 08:54 PM..
He IS undecided, granted. What you fail to grasp , or more likely grasp but juuuusssstt can't stand to admit, is that this undecidedness puts him, in regards to the belief/unbelief position , of not believing. He doesn't believe. He is undecided, but he doesn't believe because of his undecidedness. This is Basic Logic 101, yet it escapes you for some reason.
Having you expose your failings this way is a little fun though, after all your insults, bombast and braggadocio, so I'm willing to play along a little more and let you keep showing your illogic. Let's play the "Am I going to Heaven" game, Baptist style.
In Baptist theology, the only way to get to Heaven is to believe in Christ. John is undecided. He doesn't reject the concept of god, but he doesn't really know what he believes or which sect is correct , and so just sort of goes through life in a fuzzy middle ground of not really caring to decide either way. According to Baptist belief, is John
A) Going to Heaven
B) not going to Heaven
You want there to be a third choice. As you can see, there is not. There is no third neutral place for the undecided. So, given that John is merely undecided, if we accept the Baptist way as correct, where will he end up ? Heaven, or not Heaven?
don't use this analogy to run and hide behind claims of "This doesn't apply because we know Reality IS!". This is merely to show that being undecided doesn't leave you in some neutral middle ground when an affirmative belief is required to be a believer.
So, can you answer THIS question? Or will this be Number 2 you run and hide from?
::Sigh: you really are that dense and do not even recognize the difference between your silly ass logic puzzles and defining an EXISTING entity. It doesn't matter what the hell you call it belief or non-belief, when we are dealing with an existing entity. It either is or it isn't. Belief is irrelevant to its status. That is what you can't seem to wrap your immature mind around with these stupid logic games. When we are talking about what something that exists IS, your belief has nothing to do with its status. IF you think it is God you are a theist. If you think it is NOT God, you are an atheist. There is no other state of mind about it because it does exist. You cannot think it is nothing or doesn't exist.
Science is Not the teacher of morality.
Immorality is a BIG problem which has lead to most world's troubles today.
Since science is Not the teacher of morality, then religion (morals) Golden Rule for example is a BIG part of the answer.
Jesus' NEW commandment of John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for other as he has is the BIGGER part of the answer.
The Golden rule is a human logical conclusion that has appeared outside and before the Bible. The Gospel example is probably borrowed from the Jewish Pharisee teacher, Hillell, but even so, is reverse to be proactive, which could be seen as a green light to push your religion onto others 'In your position, I'd want you to do to me what I want to do to you - convert you to Christianity'.
I prefer the humanist version 'I won't do to you what you don't want done to you'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
::Sigh: you really are that dense and do not even recognize the difference between your silly ass logic puzzles and defining an EXISTING entity. It doesn't matter what the hell you call it belief or non-belief, when we are dealing with an existing entity. It either is or it isn't. Belief is irrelevant to its status. That is what you can't seem to wrap your immature mind around with these stupid logic games. When we are talking about what something that exists IS, your belief has nothing to do with its status. IF you think it is God you are a theist. If you think it is NOT God, you are an atheist. There is no other state of mind about it because it does exist. You cannot think it is nothing or doesn't exist.
Wonderful, Mystic. You have just conceded his case. He is an atheist because he does not believe in any god -claim, including yours that 'everything/Reality' is God. Because there is no reason why he should think it is. Your attempts to find pretexts for slapping the 'God' -label on because it is the reason we are here (evolution is the reason we are here) may be a reason for You to believe, but not for anyone else.
I'd suggest, for Nate's consideration, that proving that there was a cosmic intelligence out there would justify the 'God' -label, and in fact that is what your belief is. But you don't want to be put in the position of having to prove it. You want it to be accepted without decent evidence.
Oh..by the way, when Mystic posts a 'sigh', it is an admission that he knows he's lost.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-23-2021 at 09:06 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.
A not very original excuse that means 'I have nothing to back up my Faith -claim, other than more faith claims'.
Whether god is part of the universe or is outside it, it still makes no logical sense that a complex thinking being had no origin 
This is great. Seeing you pretend that you don't understand the concept of not believing (analogy - used correctly 
