When a baby is born, they have only the barest of instincts, they have not yet accumulated any knowledge. As a result, we know their level of knowledge regarding religion. It's zero, nada, nil. A baby cannot believe in any god because they have not concept of religion or gods. You cannot believe in some for which you have not even formed the vaguest of concepts. As a result, all babies are atheist. You care also an atheist toward all the thousands of gods you've never heard of. Since you know nothing of such gods, you cannot believe in their specific myths, an therefore are an atheist toward those gods. In addition a person proclaiming their non-belief in a god is evidence for that non-belief. Of course it must be evaluated according to the standard of evidence, but such non-belief is an ordinary claim, and as a result would only require ordinary evidence. This is very different from the person making an extraordinary supernatural claim, which would of course, require extraordinary evidence. As for your request for "proof", I've never asked you or any other theist for proof, just evidence. What you are attempting is a cheap apologetics trick of shifting the burden of proof and and the standards of evidence because you have nothing. Once again, the evidence is on our side, and you have nothing.
This is utter drivel - meaningless home-brewed "evidence" for whatever your "side" may be (lonely there?). Extraordinary wordgarbage that means zero. In the matter of any proof that there exists an atheist - you FAIL. Done with your mess and out of here.
You are "out of here" because the most likely apologetic response to my position creates even bigger theological problems for you. Face it. Your cheap trick didn't work, and you have nothing else.
Oooops - stumbled back in. No theological problems for me in this morass, and there is no available apologetic for your unstable and inconsistent "position". A challenge for you to prove the existence of an atheist is not a "cheap trick" - it is an inquiry intended to deal with a fundamental. You provide nothing. So, one must supose that you are not an atheist.
When a baby is born, they have only the barest of instincts, they have not yet accumulated any knowledge. As a result, we know their level of knowledge regarding religion. It's zero, nada, nil. A baby cannot believe in any god because they have not concept of religion or gods. You cannot believe in some for which you have not even formed the vaguest of concepts. As a result, all babies are atheist. You care also an atheist toward all the thousands of gods you've never heard of. Since you know nothing of such gods, you cannot believe in their specific myths, an therefore are an atheist toward those gods. In addition a person proclaiming their non-belief in a god is evidence for that non-belief. Of course it must be evaluated according to the standard of evidence, but such non-belief is an ordinary claim, and as a result would only require ordinary evidence. This is very different from the person making an extraordinary supernatural claim, which would of course, require extraordinary evidence. As for your request for "proof", I've never asked you or any other theist for proof, just evidence. What you are attempting is a cheap apologetics trick of shifting the burden of proof and and the standards of evidence because you have nothing. Once again, the evidence is on our side, and you have nothing.
This is utter drivel - meaningless home-brewed "evidence" for whatever your "side" may be (lonely there?). Extraordinary wordgarbage that means zero. In the matter of any proof that there exists an atheist - you FAIL. Done with your mess and out of here.
You are "out of here" because the most likely apologetic response to my position creates even bigger theological problems for you. Face it. Your cheap trick didn't work, and you have nothing else.
Oooops - stumbled back in. No theological problems for me in this morass, and there is no available apologetic for your unstable and inconsistent "position". A challenge for you to prove the existence of an atheist is not a "cheap trick" - it is an inquiry intended to deal with a fundamental. You provide nothing. So, one must supose that you are not an atheist.
With that, maybe I'm gone.
I provided evidence that atheist exist, you have yet to dispute it.
Come back when you can demonstrate that a new born has knowledge of, and a belief in a god(s).
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/23/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I read your posts too and most I agree with. I think your views on freedom are usually pretty spot-on. But your views on God leave me scratching my head about where your views on freedom come from. Freedom is natural law. God is natural law too.
I know I come off to a lot of you guys as having all the delicacy of a hammer. So don't get used to me being sucky! I'm not giving BJs!
This is utter drivel - meaningless home-brewed "evidence" for whatever your "side" may be (lonely there?). Extraordinary wordgarbage that means zero. In the matter of any proof that there exists an atheist - you FAIL. Done with your mess and out of here.
You just described all the arguments made to "prove" the existance of "God" and religions
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
I read your posts too and most I agree with. I think your views on freedom are usually pretty spot-on. But your views on God leave me scratching my head about where your views on freedom come from. Freedom is natural law. God is natural law too.
I know I come off to a lot of you guys as having all the delicacy of a hammer. So don't get used to me being sucky! I'm not giving BJs!
Barry, thank you for the compliment.
You ask a reasonable question regarding my views on the origins of our freedoms. If you pick an African country, it doesn't matter which one, just about any of them, it's pretty hard to detect any divine protection of the rights of the common man. By and large, these peoples have no rights because they are unarmed and unable to establish and protect their rights.
When I examine the origins of our rights in this country, again I do not see the hand of a divine being, but the blood of patriots. The struggles did not originate in our colonies, but go back centuries to the English Civil war, the signing of the Magna Carta after the First Baron's War, back to the early English traditions that arose from the culture implanted by the remnants of Rome.
In each of these instances, the centralized powers did not give up their power willingly. It was the monarch who believed they were God(s) representative on each and ruled with divine right, and was only through the war, toil, and blood of patriots that first the barons, and later the common man was able to wrestle a measure of freedom from the brutal, oppressive, central powers.
In the eyes of many folks from our southern states, a contra-example of this would be the American Civil War. The Southern States were not able to protect what they perceived as their rights, and were brought to heal. Since then the 10th Amendments little more then a dead letter, because it's a right we've been unable to defend.
It is for this reason I believe the Second is the most important amendment to our constitution, because without the second, there is no first, or any other for that matter. For the last 150 years, we've been able to maintain the balance of the republic, however, after this next election, it's possible that balance could be gone. When you loose the court to tyrants, you loose the republic. If this next election goes the wrong direction, we could loose the courts, and any reasonable reading of our Constitution. Perhaps we could maintain some semblance of balance by our majorities in the legislative branches, but that as well could turn at any time. Then once again, if we with to keep our rights, we may have to defend them, not with prayer, but with lead, powder, and blood.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Hell was created for the Devil and the fallen angles. Hell hath enlarged itself to receive those who reject Christ.
Again, what you call coercion...is just plain facts.
You're attempting to prove "facts" by quoting from a fairy tale.
Your insisting that it is a fairy tale does not make it so. I don't have to know you to choose scripture over your assurtions.
We may all have our own opinions. It does not follow that each of our opinions are correct.
It it not my intention to take away your choice, nor force you to agree with my arguments. They are provide for your amusement if you choose that route.
Kim Davis wants to force her opinions and religion on others, and you are defending her actions, and saying a book makes it "right" when it's not.
You are correct that my statements don't make it a fairy tale. That's what it is whether I say so or not, since none of it can be proven.
So, I'll just adress your statement which I've bolded.
FACT: The Jesus of the Biblical text existed and walked the earth. The Biblical Jesus is an historical fact, and is unrefuited.
This particular athiest takes the view of some here...that is...if the Bible says it...it is false. Period.
This particular athiest takes the view that because of his education, he has liscense to be less than honest.
Hell was created for the Devil and the fallen angles. Hell hath enlarged itself to receive those who reject Christ.
Again, what you call coercion...is just plain facts.
You're attempting to prove "facts" by quoting from a fairy tale.
Your insisting that it is a fairy tale does not make it so. I don't have to know you to choose scripture over your assurtions.
We may all have our own opinions. It does not follow that each of our opinions are correct.
It it not my intention to take away your choice, nor force you to agree with my arguments. They are provide for your amusement if you choose that route.
Kim Davis wants to force her opinions and religion on others, and you are defending her actions, and saying a book makes it "right" when it's not.
You are correct that my statements don't make it a fairy tale. That's what it is whether I say so or not, since none of it can be proven.
So, I'll just adress your statement which I've bolded.
FACT: The Jesus of the Biblical text existed and walked the earth. The Biblical Jesus is an historical fact, and is unrefuited.
This particular athiest takes the view of some here...that is...if the Bible says it...it is false. Period.
This particular athiest takes the view that because of his education, he has liscense to be less than honest.
Your blanket statement is completely false.
To say the existence of Jesus is refuted is just not true.
Of course I don't expect you to watch an hour long video, they are just posted here for reference:
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
This is utter drivel - meaningless home-brewed "evidence" for whatever your "side" may be (lonely there?). Extraordinary wordgarbage that means zero. In the matter of any proof that there exists an atheist - you FAIL. Done with your mess and out of here.
You just described all the arguments made to "prove" the existance of "God" and religions
Can't say that you are wrong or right about such a description - I have not heard/seen ALL such arguments and wonder how you have managed to obtain such a comprehensive experience. In case it has not become apparent to you, I have no interest in the human effort to prove the existence of God and do not present any arguments toward such an end.
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists. Silly folks that apparently confuse evidence with proof. Yes, like the posturing goofball who apparently thinks it important to his cause that another person be able to proove what a newborn baby thinks or knows - about God or anything. That's some major disillusionment there - a would-be atheist chasing imaginary butterflies.
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists.
Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?
It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible
You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists
Last edited by Snyper; 09/23/15.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists.
Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?
It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible
You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists
What's ironic, is that by CCCC's standards, no Christians or Theist of any strip exist either.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists.
Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?
It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible
You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists
What's ironic, is that by CCCC's standards, no Christians or Theist of any strip exist either.
This is where you are DEAD wrong. The fact that you cannot find a way to prove something to me or others does not mean that others and I do not recognize other proofs. Try to think beyond your self-set limits.
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists.
Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?
It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible
You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists
What's ironic, is that by CCCC's standards, no Christians or Theist of any strip exist either.
This is where you are DEAD wrong. The fact that you cannot find a way to prove something to me or others does not mean that others and I do not recognize other proofs. Try to think beyond your self-set limits.
But this contradicts your earlier statement that you have no proof to offer.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists.
Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?
It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible
You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists
Once again you exemplify the worst of atheist argument. Dishonesty through misrepresentation/mischaracterization.
The two video clips I provided had nothing to do with proving God exists.
Also, neither one of the clips sought to prove the historical Jesus from the Bible.
The first clip was an historian (an agnostic) professor at University of NC Chapel Hill. And the second was from the mouth of one of the world's most well know biologist and atheist.
Therefore, you prove once again, you have no credibility.
At least, AS, in this case, had the integrity to reply with a similar format from which one could listen and learn...if one so chooses.
This is where you are DEAD wrong. The fact that you cannot find a way to prove something to me or others does not mean that others and I do not recognize other proofs. Try to think beyond your self-set limits.
You've been shown absolute proof which you choose to ignore. Your refusal to acknowledge a fact doesn't change it's validity.
You're just confirming you only believe what you want to beleive,despite all evidence to the contrary
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists.
Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?
It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible
You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists
Once again you exemplify the worst of atheist argument. Dishonesty through misrepresentation/mischaracterization.
The two video clips I provided had nothing to do with proving God exists.
Also, neither one of the clips sought to prove the historical Jesus from the Bible.
The first clip was an historian (an agnostic) professor at University of NC Chapel Hill. And the second was from the mouth of one of the world's most well know biologist and atheist.
Therefore, you prove once again, you have no credibility.
At least, AS, in this case, had the integrity to reply with a similar format from which one could listen and learn...if one so chooses.
I have dial up internet, so I can't watch the videos. It really makes no difference what a couple of professors said, atheist or not.
The Bible is the only book which claims someone named "Jesus" was anything more than a man.
Nothing you've stated so far has done anything to prove the existence of "God" as anything other than a man made myth.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
Nothing I presented was intended to. So, I guess my point was missed.
I'm beginning to think you don't have a point.
You keep saying "God did this" and "God did that" while expecting everyone to assume it's real, without any proof at all.
Go back to the post I made in response to you on yesterday at 5:44.
I simply challanged a blanket statement that you made. I even bolded the point I challenged.
I offered as evidence the comments of two very well acknowledged and respected individuals who admitted that the historical record (not Biblical record) points to the fact that there was in fact a historical Jesus.
You'll also note the fact that was the only thing I offered proof of. I did not attempt in anyway to suggest that anything that the Bible says about him was true...only that secular evidence concludes that he indeed was an historical person.
Not one time since that responce to you on yesterday at 5:44 have I used the terms "God did this" or "God did that." These are figments of your imagination.
Perhaps you sould get to a computer that has capabilities other than dial-up so you can view the videos. Hopefully you posess the little bit of integrety needed to do so. Perhaps then you will catch the point.
You really need to step away from this topic for a while. You are loosing perspective...and are running different responces to different people together, and are forming disconnected conclusions.
In this case, nothing that you are running together resembles the particular responce I made toward the particular post of yours.
This is where you are DEAD wrong. The fact that you cannot find a way to prove something to me or others does not mean that others and I do not recognize other proofs. Try to think beyond your self-set limits.
You've been shown absolute proof which you choose to ignore. Your refusal to acknowledge a fact doesn't change it's validity.
You're just confirming you only believe what you want to beleive,despite all evidence to the contrary
Why not do yourself an easy favor and simply reprint (copy-and-paste) your "absolute proof" - right here/right now - your absolute proof that an atheist exists. Make it brief - the short and sweet version will do just fine.
This is where you are DEAD wrong. The fact that you cannot find a way to prove something to me or others does not mean that others and I do not recognize other proofs. Try to think beyond your self-set limits.
You've been shown absolute proof which you choose to ignore. Your refusal to acknowledge a fact doesn't change it's validity.
You're just confirming you only believe what you want to beleive,despite all evidence to the contrary
Why not do yourself an easy favor and simply reprint (copy-and-paste) your "absolute proof" - right here/right now - your absolute proof that an atheist exists. Make it brief - the short and sweet version will do just fine.
Scroll back and read it.
It's still there, and I know what I said, so I don't need to "do myself a favor"
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
So don't get used to me being sucky! I'm not giving BJs!