The issue with atheism

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

the point is not to believe in his existence, but to have faith

What's the difference?

stop fooling around

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

yes, faith, that which a lot of those who claim to be atheist ridicule as blind belief, but in reality is evidence of things unseen

How is faith "evidence of things unseen"? The definition of faith contradicts everything you are saying by the way.

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

(2) : complete trust

when a woman clinging to the faith that her missing son will one day return means it will happen.

Abraham had faith he would receive a land cause God promised him.

Hoping for something which will not come true is not faith, faith in something is being assured that that something will happen.

You might have had the experience before of having knowledge of something about to happen that made you say at that moment "I knew this would happen, I knew it would be like this", now if you had confidence it would happen, that was faith. As the bible states, Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

you can believe in God's existence and be loyal to the devil, that would still be natural, but to totally discard anything supernatural as inexistent is bluntly fooling yourself and others.

The idea of the supernatural is redundant. If something exists or a process is possible then it is every bit natural. Including the unseen such as ghosts or even god. Furthermore, if it exists then it leaves tangible evidence of its existence we can detect and quantify. So I don't see a reason to trust to things that cannot be proven.

you are rambling out of your *rs*

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But god can't be proven

And that has no bareing at all on
whether or not he does exist.
It's odd because trying to prove the
existence of God in his absence? Is the
same as trying to prove he doesn't exist.
As a believer it seems to me that atheism is
is far to opportunistic.

no, that would be the churches. exploiting human psychology for profit. opportunism at its finest.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
stop fooling around

I'm not fooling around. You are literally trying to say a core part of the definition of faith isn't part of it. So I'm confused as to what the difference would be.

when a woman clinging to the faith that her missing son will one day return means it will happen.

Abraham had faith he would receive a land cause God promised him.

Hoping for something which will not come true is not faith, faith in something is being assured that that something will happen.

You might have had the experience before of having knowledge of something about to happen that made you say at that moment "I knew this would happen, I knew it would be like this", now if you had confidence it would happen, that was faith. As the bible states, Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Looks like you are just trying to redefine words to me. Also there is a word for having knowledge of an event before it happens. It's called precognition. But usually when I say I know something is going to happen before it does it is a result of using inductive logic reasoning.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

no, that would be the churches. exploiting human psychology for profit. opportunism at its finest.

Not all churches but you know that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

yep, you have no clue

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's because theories change with new evidence collected. It puzzles me why people such as yourself try to argue that as a negative.

Yeah right, now play the innocent card. Always boosting scientific evidence until proven otherwise. Evidence doesn't change. What change is opinion. And this is what Atheist like you don't get it with scientific theory. Again what bull# evidence are you talking about?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What are you talking about? Where did my link even USE the term "unverified theory" let alone describe a scientific theory as one? Quote the text.

Playing dumb, aren't you?

If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's your problem. I can't make you open your mind to new ideas. If you want to bury your head in the sand then that is your prerogative.

I'm asking for evidence. Not opinion and assumption. Not tons of possible, maybe, could be, if etc.. Show me observable, demonstrated repeatable result. Poking a hydra is not evident. It's just plain assumption.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I CAN back it up. I just don't want to go through the effort of someone who has anchored the goal posts to the back of a rocket.

The only thing you can backup is weak conclusion based on tons of assumption. Not even a slight evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No you haven't. Souls can't even be proven to exist; let alone a link between them and consciousness.

I don't see you try to debunk them. nooonebutme, at least did try to debunk one of them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Science is a methodology to collect evidence and then use the evidence to describe a process. Once the process is described, it is put up for peer review and cross checked for validity. Then as time goes on more evidence is collected and added to the original research. This evidence is used to update the process further. Then peer review kicks in to cross check for validity. Then the process repeats itself.

So where is the evidence I am asking for? Come on. Stop dodging. Point me complete evolution timeline from protocell to human as evidence to your 3.x billions years claim.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Damn you have a thick head! Read this slowly: ALL scientific theories aren't completely verified! That's why they are able to be changed over time. It doesn't make them wrong. It is just recognizing that we don't have the full picture yet.

We can verify classic Miller–Urey experiment, hydrothermal vent life, RNA, fossil records etc. We can verify many things. What we can not verify is your stupid theory that it will take 3.x billion years for protocell to evolve into human.

Amino acids, RNA, life molecules, prokaryotic cells and many others, remain constant and provable. Your claims, however, is stupid changeable opinion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Sheesh... It's amazing you don't apply this idiotic line of reasoning to the bible. The great flood couldn't have happened; therefore the whole bible is a lie.

The Bible clearly stated faith. It didn't claim to prove anything, unlike your stupid scientific theory. Science is a fact, which people like you abuse with your stupid theory that in 3.x billion years, inorganic matter transform into living human being.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But god can't be proven.

Sheesh.. Ignorant Atheist. Why do think me and noonebutme are arguing about, using any mean we can get?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If you god could be proven then people much smarter than you or I would have done it already.

If you stop making stupid unproven claims, maybe there're more beneficial insight to discover. Instead you waste my time with your stupid poking hydra experiment just to assume that consciousness evovle. And more sprouting ad hominem attacks, yet failed to back up your claim when asked.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Furthermore, if god exists he can prove his own existence his damn self. If he's as great and powerful as you guys claim then he should know how to prove his existence to a doubter to remove the doubts.

Why would he need to prove his own existence? Your life and death is there to ponder yourself. You can't even revive dead men, let alone transform non-organic matter into complex multi-trillion blocks cell human.

You believe in evidence, yet your screwed changeable theory proved that you don't know what you are talking about, just like years ago when your hold dearly to your flaw Darwinism.

Thanks to your screwed atheism stupid changeable assumptions, we now have quantum mechanics that defy everything you know about physics.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
I don't see you try to debunk them. nooonebutme, at least did try to debunk one of them.

Correction. I succeeded.

Why would he need to prove his own existence?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone asks the world to follow them because the are the son of God, well, I want more than a verbal contract

let alone transform non-organic matter into complex multi-trillion blocks cell human.

Now now, no one said it's as simple as that. It's a process which takes billions of years and, no doubt, failed many times before the conditions were right. No, I don't know the conditions personally, before you ask.

Thanks to your screwed atheism stupid changeable assumptions, we now have quantum mechanics that defy everything you know about physics.

Quantum mechanics are not the result of people not believing in the claims of a God. They existed whether I believed in them or not. Or, if they were a result of us - damn, nice job to us atheists for extending the extent of human knowledge.

As a question to you - when did you last give thanks to Wotan? And how often do you observe reverence to him?

originally posted by: noonebutme

Now now, no one said it's as simple as that. It's a process which takes billions of years and, no doubt, failed many times before the conditions were right. No, I don't know the conditions personally, before you ask.

hilarious, like the rest of that post of yours

originally posted by: noonebutme
Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone asks the world to follow them because the are the son of God, well, I want more than a verbal contract

That someone did performed extraordinary evidence. We only lack of commercial social medias and proper mean to store information at that time.

Today we have internet and YouTube. Yet No one ever accomplish what this someone did. Why is that?

originally posted by: noonebutme
Now now, no one said it's as simple as that. It's a process which takes billions of years and, no doubt, failed many times before the conditions were right. No, I don't know the conditions personally, before you ask.

Perhaps it doesn't have to. It's my understanding that basic organic life spontenously emerged almost as soon as water become available, for example hydrothermal vent bacteria. Surely something must have trigger them.

originally posted by: noonebutme
Quantum mechanics are not the result of people not believing in the claims of a God.

Nope. I don't hint that.

originally posted by: noonebutme
They existed whether I believed in them or not. Or, if they were a result of us - damn, nice job to us atheists for extending the extent of human knowledge.

Or there is no such things as 100% true evidence. Therefore, you could not argue evidence with thesis when it's scientific theory that required more "fixes" than religion dogma. I still remember the case of The Piltdown Man. How foolish it made atheist of that time. YouTube is literally plagued by tons of atheist hoaxes, as well.

originally posted by: noonebutme
As a question to you - when did you last give thanks to Wotan? And how often do you observe reverence to him?

Lol. Still too early for that. My skeptic meter is high. And I don't revere any particular deities, beside Abrahamic God. I don't reject their existence, tho. gods are many, yet they can bear different meaning depending on what context are you using.

Nevertheless, I'm open to the world of quantum theories. All I can say, it's an interesting discovery without physics law limiting our mind.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
hilarious, like the rest of that post of yours

How so?

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Lol. Still too early for that. My skeptic meter is high. And I don't revere any particular deities, beside Abrahamic God. I don't reject their existence, tho. gods are many, yet they can bear different meaning depending on what context are you using.

So why don't you revere Wotan? Why isn't he worthy of your reverence? Why isn't he just as valid and important as your Abrahamic God? What sets your Abrahamic God apart from Wotan?

a reply to: noonebutme

ignorance at its best

I don't expect you to understand

originally posted by: noonebutme
So why don't you revere Wotan? Why isn't he worthy of your reverence? Why isn't he just as valid and important as your Abrahamic God? What sets your Abrahamic God apart from Wotan?

Easy. Familiarity.

The God of Abraham made Himself known worldwide. We know him more than any other deities. He is The Creator. He has many names. It's possible he already came to other different part of the word in pre-christian and pre-islamic era.

In ancient India, He was Brahma.
In ancient Egypt, He was Atum, Aten, Khnum, Ptah and Tefnut.
In Africa, He was Obatala, the God of peace, justice, and divine judgement.

Regardless of different culture, terminology and practise, We identify his divine Status as Chief of all gods, the Creator, Divine, Mercy and Judgement.

Wotan did not reach out for me. He's a complete stranger.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Wotan did not reach out for me. He's a complete stranger.

Right. So he isn't 'your thing'. Essentially you don't follow him or essentially 'believe' he is the one true god.

So there seems to be a plethora of Gods you do not adhere to or seem to believe exist -- I mean, how can you when you follow a monotheistic religion.

Therefore, you deny the existence or validity of those polytheistic Gods. And these are Gods who have been around a lot longer than yours too, so if you were trying to use age or history as a basis for importance or validity, then the Indian, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse and plenty of others have more validity than your single God.

And I deny them too, and also yours.

See what I'm getting at? You chose to deny Gods X, Y and Z but believe in A. How is that any different to me, apart from me just not believing in A as well?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
ignorance at its best
I don't expect you to understand

Ah, the stock religious answer. Instead of elucidating your view, you shut down and give a playground answer. Essentially you deflect because you have no actual arguments in your defence. No evidence in your favour.

Fair enough. Good game.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yep, you have no clue

Yeah. It's hard to understand someone who tries to redefine words to suit his needs. BTW, you aren't helping your argument by insulting my intelligence.

originally posted by: noonebutme
See what I'm getting at? You chose to deny Gods X, Y and Z but believe in A.

I don't deny your existence and billion other people. It doesn't mean I have to know and love each one of you. It's the same thing.

The thing is Odin/Wotan was revered by the Norse/High Germanics as the God of War. To the Norse, Odin/Wotan appear before them and became their protector. I accept that. But He doesn't make any covenant and revelation to me. Just like you don't know and make any contract with me.

Does that mean I don't believe you exist? Of course not. You reply to me prove that you exist. Just as Odin reply to the Norses prove his existence.

Being a monotheist simply mean I worship only one God.

originally posted by: noonebutme
How is that any different to me, apart from me just not believing in A as well?

I'm not sure how to put it. The difference is I open the door to the possibility of other dimensional life ( soul ), while you shut yours.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I'm done making point-by-point rebuttals to your nonsense. All you do is insult me anyways. "stupid" "ignorant atheist" blah blah blah. Your points are absurd and insulting me doesn't magically make you more correct. Get over yourself.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
ignorance at its best
I don't expect you to understand

Ah, the stock religious answer. Instead of elucidating your view, you shut down and give a playground answer. Essentially you deflect because you have no actual arguments in your defence. No evidence in your favour.

Fair enough. Good game.

Good to see you accept defeat.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yep, you have no clue

Yeah. It's hard to understand someone who tries to redefine words to suit his needs. BTW, you aren't helping your argument by insulting my intelligence.

Perhaps through the ages you redefined my words.

you're a clever girl