From a believer to the atheists.

Stop arguing with us and asking for "proof". There's no getting anything through to the head of any atheist. You must either remain a sound atheist or have some kind of awakening or realization for your self. I'm a huge skeptic just as you, and honestly I would probably be an atheist too if I hadn't been one of the blessed people that have gotten to feel, and to see supernatural things and entities right before my eyes. Where there once was only faith became personal knowledge. I also find myself chuckling at the fact that many atheist scholars, philosophers, journalists, intellectuals ect. open their own personal full blown cases on Christianity and the bible in attempt to prove them wrong, and in the end most of them convert to believers themselves. Kudos to the former atheists that set aside previous arrogant mindsets and finally accept that there are very real forces greater than them.

Just out of my own personal interest.

How do you define an atheist?

Someone who doesn't believe in God, Jesus & The Bible?

Someone who doesn't believe in religion of any kind?

Someone who doesn't believe in a creator?

Someone who believes in evolution?

I don't want to sound like a troll....I hope that I am not coming across as such and I am sorry if I offend.

I'm just interested in another's opinion.

reply to post by OccamAssassin


An atheist is someone rejects or denies the existence of any deities, spiritual or supernatural realm in general. They are for the most part opposed specifically to Christian beliefs. Most believe we are accidents of evolution, and for the most part they gravitate towards 'metaphysical naturalism' (we die and we're dead, we go into the ground and nothing else). That's just my own personal definition.

reply to post by RightInTwo


we live in a time of materislic cause and effect. Everything we see hear and do we can find the cause and effect and the science behind it . This is the time we live in thats why athiests demand proof . Its just the phae of time were in ...


perhaps down the road when the spirtual conscienceness opens up then the athiest will move past the materlistic phase of life and start asking questions about the spirtual as it will be self evident by then. But were not there yet . So you can't blame them for asking for proof.

Burdon of proof does lie on the one who has the extrodinary claims .


Weather you like it or not.


Atleast if you want athiests to take you seriously why cant all the religious leaders get together and find out who the real god is ?

instead of having all these religions tug and pull and say my god is real yours is not ?


if the religious can't even agree on a diety


how do you expect an athiest too?





if you wanna pull the "have faith card"


then they will pull the faith card?

santa claus?

unicorns?

green men with tails and cowboy hats ?

its pretty hard to get someone to believe in something our senses don't sense if you will .


but perhaps the tune will change when we enter a spirtual phase of time , but as of right now . its science time.

why?

because your ":diety" goes to great lengths to hide him self


Why go through such pains to hide your self to your "servants" . Why play such games on diety of the universe lol .


I never asked to be part of your test nor did i ask to have a conscience in this universe . I was forced into this game. and i demand to speak to the person who authorized this universe!

reply to post by RightInTwo

Stop arguing with us and asking for "proof".

Don't expect your theories to be free from the burden of proof. Your welcome to belief what ever you like inside your head, just don't claim it's true; and don't expect your extraordinary beliefs to be exempt from criticism, especially in an enlightened age where we are starting to consider physical evidence and reasoned logic of extreme importance, and of extreme value to our ongoing discovering of truth.

You can never silence our freedom of speech. Such freedom of expression is the cornerstone of liberty in any developed democratic society; that means your right to practice whatever religion you want; and i'll protect that right; just protect my right to freedom of expression too; don't try to silence us.

You really want to know why Atheists are speaking out?....

Please examine and consider points made in Russell's teapot:-

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.cfpf.org.uk...

An atheist is someone rejects or denies the existence of any deities, spiritual or supernatural realm in general.

I'll correct you: Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Sometimes it's a polar opposite, but it's not always a case of dualism. Many eskimoes don't know of God, and have never assumed a creator, or heard of religion; they are by definition; Atheists.

The definition of Atheism does not cover the rejection or denial of anything. It's simply a lack of belief in a deity.

There is nothing to stop an atheist from being "spiritual" and there's no definition of atheism that forbids investigation into the supernatural (ghosts etc)

People who believe have made the assumption that there is a God; the burden of proof rests the person making the positive claim; all we ask is that they provide us some physical evidence and/or reasoned logic, and we'll happily renounce our skeptical doubt; and thus our atheism.

Peace be with you fellow comrade.

A&A

EDIT TO ADD:

reply to post by seedofchucky

we live in a time of materislic cause and effect. Everything we see hear and do we can find the cause and effect and the science behind it

Everything you have infront of you is reasoned this way; it's the reason you have medical care; it's the reason your words can be transmitted across the internet, it's the reason we've formed language; each word having a desired effect or purpose.

And let's not forget cause and effect is the assumption that most believers are guilty of; assuming that reality or the universe has a cause, and that the cause is a deity; religions obviously take that further.

Let's also make clear the different connotations of materialism:-

a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters

(philosophy) the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

In philosophy the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance. ...

en.wikipedia.org...

So if we don't die and return to nature, being recycled into everything else over and over again through eternity, what do you suggest happens when we die? Pearly gates? Beers with Einstein? Lawn darts with Joseph Smith?

I appreciate your faith, and I understand how one could look around at this amazing, wondrous reality and choose to believe that it had to have been created by a sentient intelligence, but my experiences have taught me the opposite of yours. I like Madeline L'Engle's take, that we are perhaps the mitochondria that occupy a cell, which is one infinitely small part of an (to us) infinitely large being, perhaps a toad. Who knows?

reply to post by Backslider


Doesn't it take more faith to believe that we aren't here by intelligent design? I've imagined 'big bangs' and 'white holes' birthing life and earth and the image in my head is almost comical.

Originally posted by RightInTwo
reply to post by Backslider

 

Doesn't it take more faith to believe that we aren't here by intelligent design? I've imagined 'big bangs' and 'white holes' birthing life and earth and the image in my head is almost comical.

RiT, I'm not sure why it's comical to you. It can be reproduced, and now we're finding proof. PROOF!

io9.com...

Originally posted by RightInTwo
reply to post by Backslider

 

Doesn't it take more faith to believe that we aren't here by intelligent design? I've imagined 'big bangs' and 'white holes' birthing life and earth and the image in my head is almost comical.

Is it possible that "the big bang" and "evolution" were the tools that a "sentient being/force" used to create our existence?

reply to post by RightInTwo


You are stardust.

So am i.

This much is evident.

Why, Oh, Why?

We can only ask why, it may sound silly or unreasonable, but our lives are the result of an exploding star.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


"Everything you have infront of you is reasoned this way; it's the reason you have medical care; it's the reason your words can be transmitted across the internet, it's the reason we've formed language; each word having a desired effect or purpose"


thanks captain obvious which is why i was explaining to him the proof aspect that athiests ask for ....


if you had continued to read you would've seen that it was only the phase were in now and perhaps down the road there may be a spirtual side that science would have to step back and humble it self while the spirtual conscieness takes over reason and logic .


heance the phase were in now

and a spirtual phase....


we are in the materlistic phase right now and thats why the burdon of proof is there




"And let's not forget cause and effect is the assumption that most believers are guilty of; assuming that reality or the universe has a cause, and that the cause is a deity; religions obviously take that further."


the cause and effect was actually for more what i was talking about with the things we see in our daily lives ..

not creation of universe.


science does not hold the answers to that yet . Religion just takes a stab at it .

the cause and effect of the universe is unknown to us because what happened before the "big bang" and the reason for it is still unknown . The curcumstances around that event are unknown only speculation . But of course some die hard naturlists will tell you it doesnt matter . But it does matter for the fact that i can contemplate its reasoning has merit




"We can only ask why, it may sound silly or unreasonable, but our lives are the result of an exploding star"


who cares where the stars space vast galaxys came from ?

an exploding star is only the byproduct of another chain of events . But of course some are to scared to keep going back and back because it brings you to the road of block . But what created the ...

same with god ... but then who created god.... etc


science nor religion has all the answers today . I can confidently chose to neither accept nor dismiss both

reply to post by seedofchucky


Apologies, friend.

I didn't mean to refute your points; my comments were for the benefit of other participants or spectators. I've noticed many believers condemn materialistic philosophy. And many accuse atheists of a lack of belief in the supernatural , the numinous or even the spiritual. I've heard many acuse atheists of not being able to understand (or "believe") in love. I wanted to emphasise this is not the case; Atheism being a lack of belief in a deity only.

In other words; atheism doesn't equate to materialism, or nihilism.

Sorry again, consider my reply a compliment to your points.

reply to post by seedofchucky


Burdon of proof does lie on the one who has the extrodinary claims .

I would have to disagree when it comes to the Bible it is the accusers burden to prove it wrong as stated in

Aristotle's dictum

The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself.[1

www.conservapedia.com...

Originally posted by RightInTwo
Stop arguing with us and asking for "proof". There's no getting anything through to the head of any atheist.

That was funny! You made me laugh out loud when I read that,

It's up to you to provide the proof if you want someone to voluntarily become a slave based on your arguments.
You can worship a head of lettuce for all I care. Just realize that converting others to your views is an uphill battle and one that is not easy to win. Especially without providing proof.

You must either remain a sound atheist or have some kind of awakening or realization for your self. I'm a huge skeptic just as you, and honestly I would probably be an atheist too if I hadn't been one of the blessed people that have gotten to feel, and to see supernatural things and entities right before my eyes.

Many people have seen and experienced things that are completely unrelated to your ideas about "God". Their experiences are just as valid as yours, if not more valid. For example there are those that have had NDE's that weren't christians, and they weren't unceremoniously dropped into a "lake of fire".

Where there once was only faith became personal knowledge. I also find myself chuckling at the fact that many atheist scholars, philosophers, journalists, intellectuals ect. open their own personal full blown cases on Christianity and the bible in attempt to prove them wrong, and in the end most of them convert to believers themselves. Kudos to the former atheists that set aside previous arrogant mindsets and finally accept that there are very real forces greater than them.

I dont doubt that there are forces greater than us. I'm open to that. But then again, I don't fit the christian definition of atheist either. To a christian, an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in their 'god' as the be-all end-all grand poobah creator-of-the-universe.

I also find myself chuckling at the fact that many atheist scholars, philosophers, journalists, intellectuals ect. blah blah blah

Argument from authority. And saying that there are many? I don't think so.

I don't like how OP assumes that everyone asking for proof is an atheist. I REALLY don't like it. It's just another example of the type labeling christians try to do on anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. I know it seems unbelievable, but atheism and christianity aren't the only two belief systems in the world.

so you all see now it's just a silly game they play. Give me proof, give me proof. They just end up denying it. A very weird kind amethists are. They use their heads, see. It becomes an addiction. sick

reply to post by RightInTwo

Originally posted by RightInTwo
Stop arguing with us and asking for "proof".

Translation: I'm going to spew ignorant things about atheists soon, so I'm going to make it out that they're the aggressive party because they actually wish to engage in a discourse and ask for evidence for our claims.

There's no getting anything through to the head of any atheist.

...so we're all stubborn? I'm sorry, but I wasn't raised an atheist. That means something must have gotten through my head at some point to make me one.

You must either remain a sound atheist or have some kind of awakening or realization for your self.

Ah, so there's no real evidence to support your claims so the entirety of your claim is about as valid as "No dude, you gotta feel it!"....so it's a stupid claim. Yet you're going to claim to be a skeptic in the next line, so I'll just move on.

I'm a huge skeptic just as you,

*ahem*

Not entirely

Were you truly a skeptic you would realize that the idea of believing in something due to personal experience is not a valid reasoning nor is it sufficient to accept any claim of such magnitude as those relating to the very nature of reality.

and honestly I would probably be an atheist too if I hadn't been one of the blessed people that have gotten to feel, and to see supernatural things and entities right before my eyes.

Yep, definitely not a skeptic. You'd realize that personal experience is sort of a stupid criteria for any reality claim without verification. Your eyes? They fail you.

Where there once was only faith became personal knowledge.

So you just lied to us? You just said you'd be an atheist if you hadn't had the experience, yet you now say you had faith...which means you had a preconception that the claims you were making were true prior to having evidence.

I also find myself chuckling at the fact that many atheist scholars, philosophers, journalists, intellectuals ect. open their own personal full blown cases on Christianity and the bible in attempt to prove them wrong, and in the end most of them convert to believers themselves.

....and yet there are more that go the other way.

Kudos to the former atheists that set aside previous arrogant mindsets and finally accept that there are very real forces greater than them.

I don't think there are any atheists that don't acknowledge gravity or the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. They're a lot greater than we are.

Oh, but atheists are arrogant, silly me, I'm arguing with someone who is spouting off stupidity.

reply to post by RightInTwo


Yep, knew you were ignorant.

Atheism

A-theism

Theism: The belief in one or more deities

Atheism: the lack of belief in any deity.

It has nothing to do with any other supernatural claim.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Wow, you just cited conservapedia on philosophy? I'm sorry, but that's just idiotic.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. Atheists are people who are not theists. That makes theists the ones making a claim. An atheist may make a counter-claim, but until that actually happens they do not have the burden of proof.

Seriously, don't argue against someone who actually does philosophy with Conservapedia which has been shown to be wrong on...just...so so so so so many things. And what I find sad is that it shines a bad light on those conservatives who are actually reasonable. It also shines a bad light on nonChristian conservatives. It also shines a bad light on...well...just about any sane person who would self-identify as a conservative.

reply to post by RightInTwo


Ohhh something I can sink my teeth into while O&C is on life support!

Originally posted by RightInTwo
reply to post by Backslider

 

Doesn't it take more faith to believe that we aren't here by intelligent design?

No!

It takes zero faith to reject an unsupported hypothesis. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I've imagined 'big bangs' and 'white holes' birthing life and earth and the image in my head is almost comical.

It's also a straw man. Nobody claims that the big bang created life or that white holes did. The big bang is the origin of our universe in its present form. White holes are a concept which relates to matter and energy moving around in various ways. Neither has anything to do with life.