what is the difference ???

Person A Has faith that god exists.
Person B has faith that god doesn't exist.

Prove to me that one viewpoint is more valid then the other.

You cannot do it.

Believe what you want but lets agree that we are equal in our viewpoints, so lets let the religion aspect ot ATS stop...

reply to post by drock905


There is no difference, you cant say for sure if imagined things are acctually real somewhere or not.

But to believe in imagined things is in my opinion pretty irrational, as they have no viable evidence to give credit for their existance.

a) you dont know if gods\god are real
b) we dont know if invicible pink unicorns exist
c) we dont know if there are aliens on mars

Would you still have faith that those things realy exist?



There is a difference in believing something does NOT exist and not believing in something.

I wouldnt believe in those things until hard evidence gives resason to believe in them.


So in essense, to believe in god is equally valid to believing in zeus, thor, donald duck, the invicible pink unicorn and all things you can imagine.

There are some people who believe god exists and tries to educate others on their interpretation of it. There are some atheists that believe god does not exist, and tries to educate others on this belief. I have some some atheists try brow beating people into letting go of their beliefs, just as I have seen bible thumpers try to pound their interpretation of god into someone else as well.

Both have the exact same behavior of a religion.

Personally, I believe in a live and let live ideology. Respect what I believe in, and I will respect what you believe in. If a person is open minded enough, I may even have detailed discussions on belief systems.

1. The Universe exists
2. Death is Birth

Originally posted by drock905
Person A Has faith that god exists.
Person B has faith that god doesn't exist.

Prove to me that one viewpoint is more valid then the other.

You cannot do it.

Believe what you want but lets agree that we are equal in our viewpoints, so lets let the religion aspect ot ATS stop...

I think person B has the upper hand, because when speaking of faith (necessary in conversations about the existence of lack thereof of God), we are speaking of probabilities, not certainties. I think it's pretty well established in the refutations of theism by Shaw, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett that the probability for the existence of God is much smaller than the other way around.

I suppose it really depends on your definition of evidence as well.

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by theuhstuf
1. The Universe exists
2. Death is Birth

Is this related to your OP?

Peace,
Daniel

reply to post by drock905
Depends on how you define faith. If your unbelief is a religion, then you can imagine that you have faith that God does not exist.
A person who believes in God has a spiritual gift from God to have faith, which goes beyond mere belief.
So they are not equal because the unbeliever has no god to give him faith.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by drock905

 

Depends on how you define faith. If your unbelief is a religion, then you can imagine that you have faith that God does not exist.
A person who believes in God has a spiritual gift from God to have faith, which goes beyond mere belief.
So they are not equal because the unbeliever has no god to give him faith.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by jmdewey60]

Very good answer.

People who have faith in God have it for a reason and for me it is using the gifts of the holy spirit when ministering.
I have a relationship with Jesus that makes a difference to other peoples lives.
I can see the results of my faith where as those who do not have any faith see nothing.

Originally posted by jon1

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by drock905

 

Depends on how you define faith. If your unbelief is a religion, then you can imagine that you have faith that God does not exist.
A person who believes in God has a spiritual gift from God to have faith, which goes beyond mere belief.
So they are not equal because the unbeliever has no god to give him faith.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by jmdewey60]

Very good answer.

People who have faith in God have it for a reason and for me it is using the gifts of the holy spirit when ministering.
I have a relationship with Jesus that makes a difference to other peoples lives.
I can see the results of my faith where as those who do not have any faith see nothing.

well done...but you don't need to have God in your life to make a difference in other people's lives

It isn't your relationship with Jesus that helps others in you actions. Your actions may be guided by Jesus but what about the folks who have no relationship with him and do just as good?

-Kyo

Originally posted by drock905
Person A Has faith that god exists.
Person B has faith that god doesn't exist.

Prove to me that one viewpoint is more valid then the other.

You cannot do it.

Believe what you want but lets agree that we are equal in our viewpoints, so lets let the religion aspect ot ATS stop...

its called logic and reasoning ability.

you are walking in a forest and come upon a house.

person a says that someone must have built the house.
person b says that the house wasnt built but formed randomly.

to say that one point could not be proven over the other is ignorance of the evidence.

yes, there are certain things in the universe that we dont know (most actually). however, its ignorant to claim that we cant arrive at certain conclusions that are evident.

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by drock905
Person A Has faith that god exists.
Person B has faith that god doesn't exist.

Prove to me that one viewpoint is more valid then the other.

You cannot do it.

Believe what you want but lets agree that we are equal in our viewpoints, so lets let the religion aspect ot ATS stop...

its called logic and reasoning ability.

you are walking in a forest and come upon a house.

person a says that someone must have built the house.
person b says that the house wasnt built but formed randomly.

to say that one point could not be proven over the other is ignorance of the evidence.

yes, there are certain things in the universe that we dont know (most actually). however, its ignorant to claim that we cant arrive at certain conclusions that are evident.

This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the force of natural selection.

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the force of natural selection.

fine then..

prove it.

show me how natural selection developed a complex eye. you cant. the entire "evolution" of the eye can be found in fossils that lived at the same time in the cambrian. not only did they exist at the same time, but you cant even line up the specimens to make a coherent line of development!

you argument shows a complete lack of observation

reply to post by KyoZero

well done...but you don't need to have God in your life to make a difference in other people's lives

It isn't your relationship with Jesus that helps others in you actions. Your actions may be guided by Jesus but what about the folks who have no relationship with him and do just as good?

-Kyo

Some people are compassionate by nature. But my opinion is that Jesus came into the world to make it a better place (among other things). He worked and died to gain the right to send his spirit into the world. Despite not vocalizing a belief in Jesus as a person, certain people who would love to have an inclination to do good exist, and Jesus is not going to deny them that gift.
So, a relationship? Just one that may not be identifiable as such but the Spirit is not called a spirit for no reason. If it was identifiable, it would be called something else.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the force of natural selection.

fine then..

prove it.

show me how natural selection developed a complex eye. you cant. the entire "evolution" of the eye can be found in fossils that lived at the same time in the cambrian. not only did they exist at the same time, but you cant even line up the specimens to make a coherent line of development!

you argument shows a complete lack of observation

The evolution of a complex eye is something creationists (and I include intelligent design proponents in that category) latch onto with fervor.

One of the major problems with their argument is that they assume an eye has to be complex to be useful. Wouldn't a motion-sensing organ of any kind be preferable to nothing at all? Why the focus on a complex eye? Evolution shows that simple eye systems, being better than nothing at all, gradually evolved into more complex system.

A second, and major, problem with your argument is that fossilization is extremely rare. Most living animals are not fossilized when they die.

Another problem is that though evolutionists have massive amounts of fossil evidence for transitional forms (see Transitional Fossils), the number of fossils yet to be found is surely higher than the number already found. Be patient. Evolutionary science is a work in progress, and there's absolutely no need to jump on the "God did it" bandwagon just to fill in supposed gaps.

All the evidence we have points toward evolution working over time through natural selection. Whether you like it or not, it's the best explanation we have.

Please watch Foundational Falsehood of Creationism before replying. It will be obvious if you do not, and if you don't, you can keep posting of course, but I will withhold further comment.

Peace,
Daniel

P.S. By the way, using the sentence, "Fine, then, prove it" makes you sound like a 12 year old, which for all I know, you may be.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by pdpayne0418]

reply to post by pdpayne0418


If it is DNA that makes an organism and so forth, then doesn't that mean that all the possible configurations of the DNA are already previously selected by some other force? Meaning, when a DNA strand mutates and changes the DNA, and the organism changed, that change was already pre-determined to be that.

Because wouldn't your specific DNA strand always yield your body?

I think survival of the fittest is self evident. And new species and changes will happen as the DNA changes. But evolution completely ignores that the changes in the DNA are pre-determined and has no chance of yielding anything but what it yields. What survives is another story in itself.

And there is no difference between those who believe and those who don't really. It's all based on belief for the most part.

The only true difference is between those who are agnostic and those who are gnostic. Agnostic means one simply does not know. Honest position. Gnostic means one with knowledge, and true knowledge is understanding/reasoning.

reply to post by jmdewey60


soooo tired so I may be mistaking this

Are you sayingthat my doing good despite that I renounced Jesus is still caused by Jesus?

sorry if I mistook

-Kyo

reply to post by badmedia


I think you could have shortened your post to, "DNA does what it does." The rest of your post is a metaphysical position that simply cannot be proven, at least not with the current tools of science.

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by badmedia
And there is no difference between those who believe and those who don't really. It's all based on belief for the most part.

The only true difference is between those who are agnostic and those who are gnostic. Agnostic means one simply does not know. Honest position. Gnostic means one with knowledge, and true knowledge is understanding/reasoning.

If you do not accept the premises of my first post to the OP, that's your business, but I think there is a huge difference between those who believe and those who do not. The difference lies in probabilities for the existence of God (as defined in the monotheistic religions), and there is no doubt the atheists have the upper hand.

Peace,
Daniel

reply to post by KyoZero

Are you saying that my doing good despite that I renounced Jesus is still caused by Jesus?

I think it is a possibility.
I do not think Jesus causes people to evil, unless they just want to be that way anyway. Anyone who wants to do good, I would imagine Jesus would recruit them for the cause. Jesus did not just stop healing people after he made his point of having the power of God given to him as a sign that he he had the true message. He kept on healing, sometimes all day, until he was ready to drop.