Honest question. It seems to bother some of you that people have faith why?
Honest answer: I'm not bothered in the least by the faithful. I despise hypocrite Bible thumpers who feel the need to push their beliefs on others.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
No. I simply want you to provide the “actual evidence” and “facts” that you said existed, specifically the ones that substantiate that everything came into being without a creator. And while you’re at it, go ahead and show where I ever said I had “hard factual evidence” of God’s existence.
Are you saying you don't have “hard factual evidence” of God’s existence?
I choose to believe what I do.
Do you have “hard factual evidence” of God’s non-existence…?
There you go again, "shifting the burden of proof" because you have no good evidence.
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
His main example was the unicorn. If you tell me there were in fact unicorns I would certainly say there is no evidence that is true, but I sure cannot prove there were/are no such thing.
That article would seem to buttress the atheist position more than take away from it.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
His main example was the unicorn. If you tell me there were in fact unicorns I would certainly say there is no evidence that is true, but I sure cannot prove there were/are no such thing.
That article would seem to buttress the atheist position more than take away from it.
Hasting, it's an issues of definitions. The religion are careful to insure the gods are unfalsifiable. In other words, constructed in such a way they cannot be disproven. It's a dishonest trick, and I suspect most Christians here know it's dishonest, but they persist anyway.
Bertrand Russell used the example of a China tea pot between Earth and Mars in 1953:
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.
And his further comments from 1958:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 01/07/22.
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
The atheists think that by dismantling the Bible, they can dismantle the faith of Christianity. It’s a tactic that is employed over and over again by the same atheists on this board.
But the Bible didn’t even exist when Christianity was launched. And for those who choose to believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, then their whole faith comes tumbling down like a house of cards…which is what the atheists want…when it’s proven, for example, that the literal account of creation in Genesis is simply not true.
I believe that the faith of Christianity is much stronger than that. I believe that the foundation of the faith of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus, as did His earliest followers, hundreds of years before the Bible ever came into existence.
Christianity began when Jesus rose from the dead, and His followers recognized that He was who He claimed to be. People followed Jesus after the resurrection because of the resurrection. That’s how Christianity got started. It’s not near as fragile as many think; it doesn’t hang by a thread of some passage in the Old Testament, it’s much more sturdier than that. If it was that fragile, Christianity would have never survived the 1st century.
Honest question. It seems to bother some of you that people have faith why?
Does it bother you that the 9/11 Hijackers murdered over 3,000 Americans and plunged us into a 20 year long war?
Yes…
Actions are manifest from beliefs. So actions based on accurate beliefs congruent with the objective reality yield better outcomes. As beliefs deviate from objective reality, so do the quality of the actions based upon those bad believes and the worse the outcomes.
Unfortunately the bad impacts of those bad actions are not always limited to those holding the objectively wrong beliefs. Combine bad fanaticism with objectively bad believes and you get very bad outcomes, like 9/11, half million "witches" burned at the stake, modern science deniers who attempt to substitute religions classes for science class, trillion is economic damage fighting the evils of modern progress, and 100 million dead under Mao.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 01/07/22.
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
Honest question. It seems to bother some of you that people have faith why?
Does it bother you that the 9/11 Hijackers murdered over 3,000 Americans and plunged us into a 20 year long war?
Yes…
Actions are manifest from beliefs. So actions based on accurate beliefs congruent with the objective reality yield better outcomes. As beliefs deviate from objective reality, so do the quality of the actions based upon those bad believes and the worse the outcomes.
Unfortunately the bad impacts of those bad actions are not always limited to those holding the objectively wrong beliefs. Combine bad fanaticism with objectively bad believes and you get very bad outcomes, like 9/11, half million "witches" burned at the stake, modern science deniers who attempt to substitute religions classes for science class, trillion is economic damage fighting the evils of modern progress, and 100 million dead under Mao.
Different beliefs have lead to every war in the history of man. I’m not here to argue how someone believes. I’m just trying to understand why some have an issue in how I believe. I have no issue with people who don’t share my beliefs because that is their choice. I have made mine and you have made yours and I respect that.
My friend and hunting partner of more than 30 years is agnostic/atheist I’m actually not sure. I just know he doesn’t share my beliefs but it hasn’t affected are friendship because of it.
People like the OP do a disservice to a lot of Christians and that is unfortunate.
His main example was the unicorn. If you tell me there were in fact unicorns I would certainly say there is no evidence that is true, but I sure cannot prove there were/are no such thing. That article would seem to buttress the atheist position more than take away from it.
You can prove that you aren't nonexistent. I can prove that you aren’t non-existent. Atheists can’t prove that God is non-existent. You have evidence that you aren’t non-existent. I have evidence that you aren’t non-existent. Atheists have zero evidence that God is non-existent.
His main example was the unicorn. If you tell me there were in fact unicorns I would certainly say there is no evidence that is true, but I sure cannot prove there were/are no such thing. That article would seem to buttress the atheist position more than take away from it.
You can prove that you aren't nonexistent. I can prove that you aren’t non-existent. Atheists can’t prove that God is non-existent. You have evidence that you aren’t non-existent. I have evidence that you aren’t non-existent. Atheists have zero evidence that God is non-existent.
Hastings existence is proof that he exists. Saying that he doesn't exist is a lie. There is no proof that god/s exist, and to try and claim any evidence as something created by a god you'd have to prove his/her/its existence first.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
I choose to believe what I do. When anyone demands proof for another’s faith, or proof for the basis of another’s faith…even if proof of such were possible…the demand for more proof by the skeptics would certainly follow, as would their denial. The Pharisees had proof of Jesus’ miracles, and they did exactly the above.
It’s common on every single one of these threads for the same skeptics to demand proof of another’s faith, or proof for the basis of another’s faith. The atheists on this board do just as much proselytizing for their position as the ‘Christians’ do.
I don’t have to prove anything about what I choose to believe to the skeptics…that what I have faith in is very real to me…that I have to prove the unprovable issue of faith. I do enjoy the genuine and honest discussions on these types of threads. But I feel zero compulsion to make others see things the way that I see them.
I would encourage others…those who are interested enough in it…to do their own soul searching and investigation into these things, as opposed to having any of it dictated to them by others, whether those others are believers or skeptics. For me, it all became unquestionably real when I put forth much effort to have a personal and honest relationship with Jesus.
If you believe in an uncaused cause, you believe in God.
False Dichotomy. There are other possibilities, the universe may be cyclic, a part of a multiverse, etc, etc....it is not known.
We don't know.
We don't know, therefore God, is not an argument.
You are proposing an uncaused cause too.
Where did I do that? Saying ''I don't know'' is not a claim on how the universe came about. Saying it may be cyclic, a part of a greater system, etc, is not a conclusion. Proposing various possible models based on physics is not a conclusion. Religion offers conclusions, not science.
If you believe in an uncaused cause, you believe in God.
False Dichotomy. There are other possibilities, the universe may be cyclic, a part of a multiverse, etc, etc....it is not known. We don't know. We don't know, therefore God, is not an argument.
Would you at least say the super natural is a possibility?
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by antlers
As opposed to “you guys” pointing out that life on earth and all of creation can come from nothing, but then exempting God from that same logic.
We're not saying it came from nothing, we say we don't know yet. You say it was a creator and then don't (can't) provide any evidence. The former position is accurate and honest, the latter is dishonest - asserting something to be true without knowing it to be true.
In your mind is the concept of a creator a possibility?
I don't know whether it is possible or not. There is no evidence that there is a Creator. The evidence supports natural processes at work.
I choose to believe what I do. When anyone demands proof for another’s faith, or proof for the basis of another’s faith…even if proof of such were possible…the demand for more proof by the skeptics would certainly follow, as would their denial. The Pharisees had proof of Jesus’ miracles, and they did exactly the above.
You didn't address the question:
Can you choose to disbelieve whatever it is you do believe is true? Being convinced that something is true, are you able to switch off your conviction as a matter of choice? In other words, being convinced in the existence of God, can you decide that now you are an atheist?
