Discussing Atheism and atheistic beliefs

[Times Roman]

No.... He's Methuselahs cousin

poor Methuselah!

to have a dusty wind bag like that for a cousin?

[Times Roman]

ok ladies....

....I'm outta here. enough gnashing of the teeth by me for one night

See you all on the flip side

---Roman

[Metalject]

gotta love it!

so let's see, was the flood he created, was that before or after he invented the internet?

oh, that's silly, it was before.

but wait!

that would mean Al Gore is really thousands of years old. Maybe, could it be, is it possible, AL GORE is god!!!

It's really hard to say. He could be thousands of years old or maybe only a few. With the time machine at his disposal it's impossible to say which came first, the chicken or the Gore?

...then again, he may not even exist. I can see it now, in 3,000 years there will be those that refuse to believe Lord Al ever lived, that he ever invented the internet and that the prophecies from "An Inconvenient Truth" are mere twisted interpretations of his original and true word. Of course, if he can get his hands on some more weapons grade plutonium he'll simply show up 3,000 years from now and I'm sure he's thought that through. I know, I know, you'd think he would have upgraded to a time machine that runs on recycled garbage or that he'd just invent a bigger and better internet that could solve all these crucial problems, but since we're not even sure if he exists, all of this starts to get really confusing.

[Metalject]

Lol..... Made me laugh. Good point

Still tho..... There'd be some kind evidence no? When a giant chunk of ice broke off a cliff in Alaska and created a giant wave - it killed off all the trees below a certain elevation. 50 years later the tree are growing back but they are a lighter shade of green. You can see the evidence of what happened. It's still a very clear cut straight line.

It seems like everything that can be questioned has some sort of shady answer. There's not a stitch of proof. It's just all very hard to believe..... Guess that's why it's called faith

Maybe there would be physical evidence like you're talking about but maybe not. If we're talking about 4000-5000 years ago what would we look for? There have been instances of fossils found on continents where they didn't make any sense. Fossilized ocean fish have been found in high mountain ranges, and things like that. Is that enough to prove a global flood? No, but something had to have happened, something significant.

No.... He's Methuselahs cousin

Yeah, he wishes. No way Methuselah would have such a hypocrite for an ancestor.

[Tomtay79]

This is the oldest argument on earth and in this day of age it should be quashed but some ppl need to believe in something.
I think theres more chance in little green men than a god or perhaps the little green men are god.....thats another story.

[Times Roman]

This is the oldest argument on earth and in this day of age it should be quashed but some ppl need to believe in something.
I think theres more chance in little green men than a god or perhaps the little green men are god.....thats another story.

you may be right about the odds....

....but then again, imho, unless you can PROVE there is not a god, then we as a society, should allow all individuals their own personal beliefs. Unless it involves human sacrifice or involves illegal activity. And yes, again imho, inciting a riot is an illegal act.

[thisAngelBites]

some shit I ripped off from wiki:

(don't want any one to accuse me of plagiarism)

Sounds like you disagree with my view, Roman, which is cool, of course. But notice it only took one sentence to make it all clear. There is also a difference between conveying some factual information, and googling to find someone to make an argument you can't make on your own, but leaving out the fact that you're just regurgitating someone else's capacity to reason.

I've seen lots of other posts on this forum about people ripping off other people's write-ups about supplements, or medical advice. What honest reason would anyone have for posting other people's thinking verbatim as their own? Too lazy to type one sentence?


edited----> Hey Roman, I should read the comments all the way to the end before I reply, eh? Sorry.

[thisAngelBites]

The chart is fine but where is a tangible piece of evidence there was a catastrophic flood. If it was a real event that took place..... There has to be some kind of evidence right? A global flood is a huge deal..... It's not just a tsunami

Can I ask what the significance is of the evidence for the global flood idea? I could write a book full of things I made up, but if it includes one factual statement, would that then be evidence that everything else in the book is true?

I've never read anything remotely persuasive about any evidence for a "global" flood, but it seems to be this misguided journey. Even if there was a flood, there are still loads of other pieces of evidence required for the thousand or so additional claims to get from "once there was a flood" to "there are paternalistic gods who love me and I'm going to live forever."

Supposing some real evidence came to light for a more reasonable claim, such as there being a "large" flood at approximately the right time in history. Would that be evidence of the existence of gods for you?

[thisAngelBites]

Strange conclusions you reach for a book that has had a more positive influence on Western Civilization than any other text. Not to mention the very freedoms you enjoy were derived from Biblical and Jewish thought. You're like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it.

It has had a lot of influence, but I don't think truth is democratically derived concept. I think a lot of the things I enjoy were derived more from the enlightenment.

[thisAngelBites]

Your conclusions are also short sighted since the Old Testament actually speaks against witchcraft and the like.

Of COURSE the bible is going to say negative things about witchcraft - that was its greatest competitor!!

[Hazard]

Can I ask what the significance is of the evidence for the global flood idea? I could write a book full of things I made up, but if it includes one factual statement, would that then be evidence that everything else in the book is true?

I've never read anything remotely persuasive about any evidence for a "global" flood, but it seems to be this misguided journey. Even if there was a flood, there is still loads of other pieces of evidence required for the thousand or so additional claims to get from "once there was a flood" to "there are paternalistic gods who love me and I'm going to live forever."

Supposing some real evidence came to light for a more reasonable claim, such as there being a "large" flood at approximately the right time in history. Would that be evidence of the existence of gods for you?

Not a chance.....

It was mentioned so I was sticking to it. Everything is presented with such confidence but very little certainty. The flood is just one example of the many that can't be proved IMO.

[thisAngelBites]

Not a chance.....

It was mentioned so I was sticking to it. Everything is presented with such confidence but very little certainty. The flood is just one example of the many that can't be proved IMO.

I didn't think that your thought process would work that way, but you really seemed to be staying with the argument, so I thought I would just ask.

[Times Roman]

Sounds like you disagree with my view, Roman, which is cool, of course. But notice it only took one sentence to make it all clear. There is also a difference between conveying some factual information, and googling to find someone to make an argument you can't make on your own, but leaving out the fact that you're just regurgitating someone else's capacity to reason.

I've seen lots of other posts on this forum about people ripping off other people's write-ups about supplements, or medical advice. What honest reason would anyone have for posting other people's thinking verbatim as their own? Too lazy to type one sentence?


edited----> Hey Roman, I should read the comments all the way to the end before I reply, eh? Sorry.

I'm not so sure where we are disagreeing, other than I'm trying to finesse the idea of factual vs. emotional beliefs in a non judgmental way. I think we are dancing around the definition of atheist. I'm trying to say that being an atheist is cool, but one cannot say from a factual position that there is not a metaphysical entity I refer to as a prime mover. I don't know how one could prove it. And it's a very fine detail. But the reason I continue to hammer on this fine point is to illustrate that no one can know with absolute 100% certainty that one belief is right and the other wrong. THIS I feel strongly about. And you know I'm not referring to the KJ version of the metaphysical being. To be utterly frank, I'm pretty certain King James got it wrong on most of it.

I'm really trying to see if anyone that is passionate in their beliefs, if they are enlightened and willing to admit they could be wrong.

Anyone that is truly enlightened will always entertain the idea that the possibility of being wrong certainly exists.

And apparently, very few here seemed to have crossed that threshold yet.

[thisAngelBites]

I'm not so sure where we are disagreeing, other than I'm trying to finesse the idea of factual vs. emotional beliefs in a non judgmental way. I think we are dancing around the definition of atheist. I'm trying to say that being an atheist is cool, but one cannot say from a factual position that there is not a metaphysical entity I refer to as a prime mover. I don't know how one could prove it. And it's a very fine detail. But the reason I continue to hammer on this fine point is to illustrate that no one can know with absolute 100% certainty that one belief is right and the other wrong. THIS I feel strongly about. And you know I'm not referring to the KJ version of the metaphysical being. To be utterly frank, I'm pretty certain King James got it wrong on most of it.

I'm really trying to see if anyone that is passionate in their beliefs, if they are enlightened and willing to admit they could be wrong.

Anyone that is truly enlightened will always entertain the idea that the possibility of being wrong certainly exists.

And apparently, very few here seemed to have crossed that threshold yet.

I was being sorry for misunderstanding (and not reading through all the posts when I replied to you) - I thought you were being critical about my having a problem with cutting and pasting those arguments, but after I read on, it seemed you didn't have a problem with it. I think people's default understanding, when we speak or write, is that we speak for ourselves in our own words. If we are not doing that, it just really isn't onerous to say so.

There is NO way to prove some thing does not exist in the entirety of the world. It's not just that you can't think of how to do it - like I might be able to do it for one thing, but that I cannot find a way to do it for a group of gods in the universe - there is no way to do it, period. However, one can prove that things do exist, and typically the burden of proof relies on the proposer. That's why I don't bother to respond to people who think they are throwing down some kind of genius gauntlet by saying "you prove there isn't a god". It cannot be done, it is functionally impossible, just as it is functionally impossible to prove that there is no such thing as a purple apple.

[thisAngelBites]

I'm not so sure where we are disagreeing, other than I'm trying to finesse the idea of factual vs. emotional beliefs in a non judgmental way. I think we are dancing around the definition of atheist. I'm trying to say that being an atheist is cool, but one cannot say from a factual position that there is not a metaphysical entity I refer to as a prime mover. I don't know how one could prove it. And it's a very fine detail. But the reason I continue to hammer on this fine point is to illustrate that no one can know with absolute 100% certainty that one belief is right and the other wrong. THIS I feel strongly about. And you know I'm not referring to the KJ version of the metaphysical being. To be utterly frank, I'm pretty certain King James got it wrong on most of it.

I'm really trying to see if anyone that is passionate in their beliefs, if they are enlightened and willing to admit they could be wrong.

Anyone that is truly enlightened will always entertain the idea that the possibility of being wrong certainly exists.

And apparently, very few here seemed to have crossed that threshold yet.

I have said this a couple of times, but I will say it again more plainly, because what you wrote makes me think you missed my point. One cannot prove that there is no santa claus, and one cannot prove their are no gods, one cannot prove there are no unicorns. There are lots of things we don't have proof of non-existence of that we do not think exists - this is an absolutely ordinary state of affairs, and I see no reason to consider gods any differently. If proving things don't exist is the standard by which someone argues we ought to function, then we must believe in gods since we don't know, we must also believe in unicorns and santa claus. The reasoning is exactly the same. If I don't believe in santa claus, then it makes sense that I also do not believe in gods. There is no proving either.

Further, I have already said that I am open to evidence of gods. Should something persuasive come to light, I would certainly consider change my mind.

As far as I can tell, trying to find evidence of gods involves a lifetime of learning and then reading other languages, arguing about what word meant what to which translator and in which context, trying to find proof of anything factual arising out of governing texts, grasping at straws of physical evidence, trying to peel away cultural layers from writings, etc.. The only reason I can think of that someone would choose to spend their life trying to prove that gods exist is a very desperate desire for there to be gods that exist. For myself, I am indifferent to whether there are gods. If there are that's fine, if there are not, fine too.

[Bonaparte]

I have said this a couple of times, but I will say it again more plainly, because what you wrote makes me think you missed my point. One cannot prove that there is no santa claus, and one cannot prove their are no gods, one cannot prove there are no unicorns. There are lots of things we don't have proof of non-existence of that we do not think exists - this is an absolutely ordinary state of affairs, and I see no reason to consider gods any differently. If proving things don't exist is the standard by which someone argues we ought to function, then we must believe in gods since we don't know, we must also believe in unicorns and santa claus. The reasoning is exactly the same. If I don't believe in santa claus, then it makes sense that I also do not believe in gods. There is no proving either.

Further, I have already said that I am open to evidence of gods. Should something persuasive come to light, I would certainly consider change my mind.

As far as I can tell, trying to find evidence of gods involves a lifetime of learning and then reading other languages, arguing about what word meant what to which translator and in which context, trying to find proof of anything factual arising out of governing texts, grasping at straws of physical evidence, trying to peel away cultural layers from writings, etc.. The only reason I can think of that someone would choose to spend their life trying to prove that gods exist is a very desperate desire for there to be gods that exist. For myself, I am indifferent to whether there are gods. If there are that's fine, if there are not, fine too.

That was amazing. Thank you!

[Hazard]

I have said this a couple of times, but I will say it again more plainly, because what you wrote makes me think you missed my point. One cannot prove that there is no santa claus, and one cannot prove their are no gods, one cannot prove there are no unicorns. There are lots of things we don't have proof of non-existence of that we do not think exists - this is an absolutely ordinary state of affairs, and I see no reason to consider gods any differently. If proving things don't exist is the standard by which someone argues we ought to function, then we must believe in gods since we don't know, we must also believe in unicorns and santa claus. The reasoning is exactly the same. If I don't believe in santa claus, then it makes sense that I also do not believe in gods. There is no proving either.

Further, I have already said that I am open to evidence of gods. Should something persuasive come to light, I would certainly consider change my mind.

As far as I can tell, trying to find evidence of gods involves a lifetime of learning and then reading other languages, arguing about what word meant what to which translator and in which context, trying to find proof of anything factual arising out of governing texts, grasping at straws of physical evidence, trying to peel away cultural layers from writings, etc.. The only reason I can think of that someone would choose to spend their life trying to prove that gods exist is a very desperate desire for there to be gods that exist. For myself, I am indifferent to whether there are gods. If there are that's fine, if there are not, fine too.

AMEN! Lol

[Times Roman]

I have said this a couple of times, but I will say it again more plainly, because what you wrote makes me think you missed my point. One cannot prove that there is no santa claus, and one cannot prove their are no gods, one cannot prove there are no unicorns. There are lots of things we don't have proof of non-existence of that we do not think exists - this is an absolutely ordinary state of affairs, and I see no reason to consider gods any differently. If proving things don't exist is the standard by which someone argues we ought to function, then we must believe in gods since we don't know, we must also believe in unicorns and santa claus. The reasoning is exactly the same. If I don't believe in santa claus, then it makes sense that I also do not believe in gods. There is no proving either.

Further, I have already said that I am open to evidence of gods. Should something persuasive come to light, I would certainly consider change my mind.

As far as I can tell, trying to find evidence of gods involves a lifetime of learning and then reading other languages, arguing about what word meant what to which translator and in which context, trying to find proof of anything factual arising out of governing texts, grasping at straws of physical evidence, trying to peel away cultural layers from writings, etc.. The only reason I can think of that someone would choose to spend their life trying to prove that gods exist is a very desperate desire for there to be gods that exist. For myself, I am indifferent to whether there are gods. If there are that's fine, if there are not, fine too.

ok, I think we are in total agreement, and the only point left to hammer on, in my view, is that I'm saying you don't need to prove something to believe in it. BUT, I am also saying that because one's own side cannot be proven, then it would be bad form to say the other side is wrong, especially if one cannot entertain the idea that at some level, their own belief could be wrong too.

One of the tenants of enlightenment, is knowing that one really cannot know with any certainty. At some level, one should be able to admit they could be wrong. Only when you "absolutely" know a thing, is when you close your eyes on the subject and are no longer open to learning.

To say that another is wrong, one should also accept the idea they too could be wrong.

This is the only way out of our cultural stalemate. This concept of one's superior position, to the other's detriment. There is nothing but agony and death down that path. And this is the path we find ourselves on in all corners of the world. And this is why I am against any institution, religious or otherwise, that claims to have a unique and exclusive path to a better "place" than we currently find ourselves. Some call it heaven, others nirvana and still others enlightenment. By claiming superiority, it sets up an adversarial and destructive game that many are willing to fight to the death for.

Cause and effect

By saying my way is better than your way, and with many saying it from opposing view points, the result is death.

How can death be a better way?

[thisAngelBites]

ok, I think we are in total agreement, and the only point left to hammer on, in my view, is that I'm saying you don't need to prove something to believe in it. BUT, I am also saying that because one's own side cannot be proven, then it would be bad form to say the other side is wrong, especially if one cannot entertain the idea that at some level, their own belief could be wrong too.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying - these are the two options:

1) atheist - impossible to prove, therefore cannot prove

2) theist - possible to prove, but cannot prove.

And you think the positions are equivalent?

[thisAngelBites]

ok, I think we are in total agreement, and the only point left to hammer on, in my view, is that I'm saying you don't need to prove something to believe in it.

I agree that we don't need to prove something to believe in it. Of course I don't want to take away people's right to believe whatever they want, whether rational or not. Some people need their beliefs to carry them through, and they are welcome to them. But I don't think that pretending that when one makes a special case for gods that they don't make for unicorns and santa claus there isn't some incoherence, and that is worthwhile to ask why the inconsistencies are there and what motivates them. I don't think we owe it to people who find religion comforting to make sure that we don't ever point out the problem with the beliefs. That's patronising and infantilising, in my view, and the height of political correctness. But then I see the possibilities in my post above as not being equivalent - but you may not agree.

[Hazard]

Here's me in a nutshell.....


If you goto church and pray because you believe there may be an afterlife..... So be it. If it brings you comfort - more power to you.

If you believe the crazy bible stories and try to tell me dinosaurs aren't real..... I have no time for that. That's ludicrous to me.

If you don't believe in god or an afterlife..... So be it.

[Times Roman]

Let me see if I understand what you are saying - these are the two options:

1) atheist - impossible to prove, therefore cannot prove

2) theist - possible to prove, but cannot prove.

And you think the positions are equivalent?

first things first. from a factual standpoint, neither position has been proven. Therefore, neither position can discredit the other AND claim their position to be one of certainty.

It is ok to say the other side is probably wrong if you admit your position could be wrong too.

Now, the real fun part.

1) it may be possible to prove there is not a god. If we knew and were able to prove the universe as we know it came to be through non metaphysical means, then there would be no place left for a god. The only reason for a god is to explain the universe. If the need for that as an explanation were to be satisfied as I mentioned, then what else for a god to do? At it's lowest level of incarnation, a god is considered a prime mover in the creation of the universe. Take that away, and god becomes pretty bourgeois; homologous to the Queen of England. A ruler that does not rule, and a god that does not create.

2) when you cay "cannot prove" that is not entirely accurate. If god were to open up the heavens and come to earth and reveal her/him self, then the proof would be god herself. So to be accurate, it should read "has not proven" instead.

[Metalject]

first things first. from a factual standpoint, neither position has been proven. Therefore, neither position can discredit the other AND claim their position to be one of certainty.

It is ok to say the other side is probably wrong if you admit your position could be wrong too.

Now, the real fun part.

1) it may be possible to prove there is not a god. If we knew and were able to prove the universe as we know it came to be through non metaphysical means, then there would be no place left for a god. The only reason for a god is to explain the universe. If the need for that as an explanation were to be satisfied as I mentioned, then what else for a god to do? At it's lowest level of incarnation, a god is considered a prime mover in the creation of the universe. Take that away, and god becomes pretty bourgeois; homologous to the Queen of England. A ruler that does not rule, and a god that does not create.

2) when you cay "cannot prove" that is not entirely accurate. If god were to open up the heavens and come to earth and reveal her/him self, then the proof would be god herself. So to be accurate, it should read "has not proven" instead.

Would you agree that to reach the point of proving there is no god is an impossibility? No matter how far you go in the search, you're still always left with something, such as what caused this or that. Does that make sense? Not sure if I'm wording this correctly.

[Metalject]

I think the issue many christians have with atheist is the lack of respect they often show, the manner in which they often demean and mock the individual, it's insulting. They'll often carry themselves with an arrogance that's difficult to deal with - a persona of grandure due to their "enlightened" view of the world. No, not all atheist do this and I'm certain their are christians who are guilty of similar attitudes (atheist or christian or whatever else you're not free from being human). But you see the atheist mocking the christian constantly, the infuriating frustration the atheist often displays is difficult to deal with when it comes to having a simple conversation. Again, I'm not saying this is all atheist...I mentioned Penn Jillette in another post, a devout atheist who is one of the few who publicly handles this topic in a respectable way. He didn't always, at one time he was the epitome of what I'm describing here, but eventually he realized how ridiculous that was.

Just a side note, you could replace christianity with any religious view in my comments above. I simply used christianity as my basis because it's been brought up the most here and is generally the religion that is criticized the most by atheist, at least in western culture.

[Times Roman]

Would you agree that to reach the point of proving there is no god is an impossibility? No matter how far you go in the search, you're still always left with something, such as what caused this or that. Does that make sense? Not sure if I'm wording this correctly.

I have faith in the scientific process AND our ability to grasp the complex.

I feel that if the universe has non metaphysical origins, we will eventually come to understand how it occurred. it may take a very long time. It may happen after we evolve into something else. But if it was a "natural" phenomenon, we will eventually prove it.

AND if it was a natural phenomenon, then there is no need for "supernatural" beings, (a god). So I also think that proving that the universe has a "natural" origin also proves there is no god.

I believe there are only two ways to prove the existence of god:

1) to prove that the universe did not come about from a natural process, and/or...
2) god reveals herself to us

I think it will be much more difficult to prove that the universe did not come about from natural causes (as opposed to proving that it did come from natural causes). I'll have to give this one some more thought.........

[Metalject]

I have faith in the scientific process AND our ability to grasp the complex.

I feel that if the universe has non metaphysical origins, we will eventually come to understand how it occurred. it may take a very long time. It may happen after we evolve into something else. But if it was a "natural" phenomenon, we will eventually prove it.

AND if it was a natural phenomenon, then there is no need for "supernatural" beings, (a god). So I also think that proving that the universe has a "natural" origin also proves there is no god.

I believe there are only two ways to prove the existence of god:

1) to prove that the universe did not come about from a natural process, and/or...
2) god reveals herself to us

I think it will be much more difficult to prove that the universe did not come about from natural causes (as opposed to proving that it did come from natural causes). I'll have to give this one some more thought.........

If it were proven that the universe came about from natural causes, what caused the energy needed for that to occur to exist? That's what I was getting at in the prior post, no matter how far you go there is always an unanswered question. There's no absolute end in the search for proof of no god.

As for god revealing himself to us, that brings up another point. Consider this hypothetical situation:

Two individuals are born into solitary confinement. The two never see another human being and there is no evidence of life on the other side of the wall. As far as they know, there is no other side of he wall. All the evidence shows they are in a square room with no windows and doors or even a concept of windows and doors. From here the hypothetical situation can take a few different turns:


1. One night while asleep, something is revealed to individual one while individual two sleeps. He tells his friend when they awake but there is no tangible evidence in the room that the event ever occurred. Individual one now believes in life outside of the room, individual two does not, but does that make individual one wrong simply because no evidence that he can see exists in the room?

2. One night while asleep, something is revealed to both individuals that life other than theirs exist outside of the room. The event passes and they are now once again left in the room. There is no evidence in the room that such an event occurred, once it passed it was over and done. Individual one now believes in life outside of the room, individual two does not because evidence within the room doesn't support it - he chooses not to believe, he chooses to ignore what was revealed because it doesn't not make sense in terms of how he perceives or understands his world. Does this mean no life exist outside of the room?

[Times Roman]

I think the issue many christians have with atheist is the lack of respect they often show, the manner in which they often demean and mock the individual, it's insulting. They'll often carry themselves with an arrogance that's difficult to deal with - a persona of grandure due to their "enlightened" view of the world. No, not all atheist do this and I'm certain their are christians who are guilty of similar attitudes (atheist or christian or whatever else you're not free from being human). But you see the atheist mocking the christian constantly, the infuriating frustration the atheist often displays is difficult to deal with when it comes to having a simple conversation. Again, I'm not saying this is all atheist...I mentioned Penn Jillette in another post, a devout atheist who is one of the few who publicly handles this topic in a respectable way. He didn't always, at one time he was the epitome of what I'm describing here, but eventually he realized how ridiculous that was.

Just a side note, you could replace christianity with any religious view in my comments above. I simply used christianity as my basis because it's been brought up the most here and is generally the religion that is criticized the most by atheist, at least in western culture.

I've never seen or heard of an atheist burn someone at the stake. I've never known an atheist dismiss whole classes of people like the hindus do with their Dalits and Shudras as a matter of birth. I've never heard of Atheists separating their children into gender groups early on so that as they sexually mature, homosexuality is a common rite of passage.

So if "mockery" is the worst "sin" committed by an Atheist, I'd say no biggie and move on.

At it's core, the institution of religion, any religion, can be a very evil thing...........

[Times Roman]

If it were proven that the universe came about from natural causes, what caused the energy needed for that to occur to exist? That's what I was getting at in the prior post, no matter how far you go there is always an unanswered question. There's no absolute end in the search for proof of no god.

As for god revealing himself to us, that brings up another point. Consider this hypothetical situation:

Two individuals are born into solitary confinement. The two never see another human being and there is no evidence of life on the other side of the wall. As far as they know, there is no other side of he wall. All the evidence shows they are in a square room with no windows and doors or even a concept of windows and doors. From here the hypothetical situation can take a few different turns:


1. One night while asleep, something is revealed to individual one while individual two sleeps. He tells his friend when they awake but there is no tangible evidence in the room that the event ever occurred. Individual one now believes in life outside of the room, individual two does not, but does that make individual one wrong simply because no evidence that he can see exists in the room?

2. One night while asleep, something is revealed to both individuals that life other than theirs exist outside of the room. The event passes and they are now once again left in the room. There is no evidence in the room that such an event occurred, once it passed it was over and done. Individual one now believes in life outside of the room, individual two does not because evidence within the room doesn't support it - he chooses not to believe, he chooses to ignore what was revealed because it doesn't not make sense in terms of how he perceives or understands his world. Does this mean no life exist outside of the room?

so your argument is it is hard for you to understand the "something from nothing" concept? Join the club. But, at the quantum scale, this is the norm. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. So the idea of a universe arising where none existed before is along the same lines.

#1) no, that does not make him wrong, but it also does not make him right either. So, who/what is the revealer, and what is revealed? We would need to understand the nature of revelation and define it precisely to answer the question. In this scenario, it is quite possible that what is revealed is a natural phenomenon that the first individual doesn't understand in his limited state. What would happen if for a brief moment due to a rock slide that it was the sun that was revealed? Does this sun now "prove" there is life outside the cave? We would both agree it does not, yet individual one would still aggressively defend his belief, would he not?

#2) two independent situations are now present. person number two's choice not to believe has no impact on whether or not there is life outside the cave. Now, we would need to define this "something" again, wouldn't we. And also the word "revealed" again too. Because our whole conversation would hinge on what these two words mean. if by the word "revealed" you mean that this revelation somehow proves there IS life outside the cave, then at that particular point in time, there IS life outside the cave, even if just for that particular moment in time. After the event passes, there are no further assurances that life continues to exist beyond that point in time, and so therefore, once again, there may be no life beyond the cave walls other than theirs.

make sense?

[Metalject]

I've never seen or heard of an atheist burn someone at the stake. I've never known an atheist dismiss whole classes of people like the hindus do with their Dalits and Shudras as a matter of birth. I've never heard of Atheists separating their children into gender groups early on so that as they sexually mature, homosexuality is a common rite of passage.

So if "mockery" is the worst "sin" committed by an Atheist, I'd say no biggie and move on.

At it's core, the institution of religion, any religion, can be a very evil thing...........

I would disagree. Atheist are every bit as guilty of mass murder as many religious groups. My argument above had more to do with the attitude many atheist hold presently...take for example Bill Maher, that's the type of attitude I'm referring to. Although I will give him credit for having this attitude about all religious groups rather than just one or two or just christianity and judiasm. His hate and arrogance is evenly spread, which is rare.

But on the topic of mass murder and things like that, it's a bit difficult to compare, let's just say christianity and atheism, let's just focus on two to keep it simple. The difficulty lies in christians who are guilty of this perform these acts in the name of something, therefore it's easy to define and label. Atheist obviously do not do this since there's nothing they would kill in the name of. Now consider atheistic communism, one of the most brutal categories that's ever existed.

"It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]" -Gregory Koukl

"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined." - Vox Day

Full article: Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia

None of this excuses christian behavior that's similar, although I personally cannot think of examples in christianity that are anywhere equivalent and based on the topic at hand.

[Metalject]

so your argument is it is hard for you to understand the "something from nothing" concept? Join the club. But, at the quantum scale, this is the norm. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. So the idea of a universe arising where none existed before is along the same lines.

#1) no, that does not make him wrong, but it also does not make him right either. So, who/what is the revealer, and what is revealed? We would need to understand the nature of revelation and define it precisely to answer the question. In this scenario, it is quite possible that what is revealed is a natural phenomenon that the first individual doesn't understand in his limited state. What would happen if for a brief moment due to a rock slide that it was the sun that was revealed? Does this sun now "prove" there is life outside the cave? We would both agree it does not, yet individual one would still aggressively defend his belief, would he not?

#2) two independent situations are now present. person number two's choice not to believe has no impact on whether or not there is life outside the cave. Now, we would need to define this "something" again, wouldn't we. And also the word "revealed" again too. Because our whole conversation would hinge on what these two words mean. if by the word "revealed" you mean that this revelation somehow proves there IS life outside the cave, then at that particular point in time, there IS life outside the cave, even if just for that particular moment in time. After the event passes, there are no further assurances that life continues to exist beyond that point in time, and so therefore, once again, there may be no life beyond the cave walls other than theirs.

make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. However, my overall point was some choosing to ignore things that are revealed because they do not make sense in terms of the world as they know it. Obviously I cannot prove this, it's just a thought, theory or whatever else you'd like to call it - but I'm convinced that if God opened the heavens and came to earth for all to see, there are many who would still deny his existence. The sky being ripped open, the universe being torn apart from the outside and a figure emerging, this makes no sense in terms of how we see, view and understand the world, science or reality. Therefore, many, on that basis, would still deny the existence of God.

[Times Roman]

I would disagree. Atheist are every bit as guilty of mass murder as many religious groups. My argument above had more to do with the attitude many atheist hold presently...take for example Bill Maher, that's the type of attitude I'm referring to. Although I will give him credit for having this attitude about all religious groups rather than just one or two or just christianity and judiasm. His hate and arrogance is evenly spread, which is rare.

But on the topic of mass murder and things like that, it's a bit difficult to compare, let's just say christianity and atheism, let's just focus on two to keep it simple. The difficulty lies in christians who are guilty of this perform these acts in the name of something, therefore it's easy to define and label. Atheist obviously do not do this since there's nothing they would kill in the name of. Now consider atheistic communism, one of the most brutal categories that's ever existed.

"It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]" -Gregory Koukl

"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined." - Vox Day

Full article: Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia

None of this excuses christian behavior that's similar, although I personally cannot think of examples in christianity that are anywhere equivalent and based on the topic at hand.

Start a thread on this and we will debate it. I've never heard of an atheist committing mass murder in the name of "there isn't a god". I've never heard of an atheist movement like the Christian crusaides responsible for killing.

You are confusing atheists murdering in the name of "there isn't a god" with an atheist murdering in general. Different.

And without reading your article, since I'm drinking wine and don't want to go over the intellectual cliff with you right now, if you are referring to Hitler, he believed in the metaphyhsical world. He was a huge occultist. A true atheist only believes in those senses you can quantify, and nothing in the spiritual realm. Because of this, Hitler does not qualify as a true atheist, regardless what came out of his mouth.

Start the thread, and we can debate.

[Times Roman]

Yes, it makes sense. However, my overall point was some choosing to ignore things that are revealed because they do not make sense in terms of the world as they know it. Obviously I cannot prove this, it's just a thought, theory or whatever else you'd like to call it - but I'm convinced that if God opened the heavens and came to earth for all to see, there are many who would still deny his existence. The sky being ripped open, the universe being torn apart from the outside and a figure emerging, this makes no sense in terms of how we see, view and understand the world, science or reality. Therefore, many, on that basis, would still deny the existence of God.

as a religious person, I'm surprised you do not quite get what the word "revealed" actually means. Revealing is not something with the eyes. There are two possible ways this may come about:

1) Somehow, the revelation process evokes within us an awakening of our hidden spirit and recognizes the spirit within god. An undeniable enlightenment, similar to how a blind person may feel the first time their sight is activated. It's like engaging a sense we didn't know existed until it is awakened. And I'm not talking about "euphoric feelings" that some get in church.

2) Somehow, the revelation process involves changing the physical world around us in such a way that there is no denial that anything BUT God could have effected such an effect.

Either way, anyone experiencing the revelation would have no doubts about the experience, or the conclusions inferred from it.

Damn, I thought you were religious?

[thisAngelBites]

1) it may be possible to prove there is not a god. If we knew and were able to prove the universe as we know it came to be through non metaphysical means, then there would be no place left for a god. The only reason for a god is to explain the universe. If the need for that as an explanation were to be satisfied as I mentioned, then what else for a god to do? At it's lowest level of incarnation, a god is considered a prime mover in the creation of the universe. Take that away, and god becomes pretty bourgeois; homologous to the Queen of England. A ruler that does not rule, and a god that does not create.

I disagree that if we proved the universe came about in a non-supernatural way that it would prove there were no gods. The argument could always be made that whatever was determined to have occurred at that time was just instigated by the gods - that happens now, "god planted the fossils for humans to find" etc.

Also, just because some people commonly have a conception of gods as the things that are creators of the universe it does not follow that there is an essential quality of being a god that means one must have created the universe. In other words, I can conceptualise the existence of some supernatural thing which did not create the universe just as I can conceptualise one that did (no proof for either, but certainly there is no theoretical reason both cannot exist). If gods exist, I think it's possible they do absolutely nothing.

[Times Roman]

most define god to be

1) all powerful
2) all present
3) all knowing
4) prime mover

anything less would need to be redefined.

most evoke a god to explain how the universe has come to be. if god had no hand in it, then

does that mean he is a part of this universe, or
he is greater than this universe?

now, if there be gods that did not create this universe, then are they really gods?

if they are a part of this universe, then the universe must have came first, right?

and if so, then did these gods spring forth from nothing, or did they evolve and eventually become gods?

and if they evolved and eventually became gods, then are they really gods?

by what definition would we describe these gods?

1) They are finite beings
2) If they have a beginning, they could also have an end
3) They are not supreme since the universe is a greater force than they


are we really describing gods, or very advanced life forms?

[Times Roman]

you may not recall, but previously, this board and I had a discussion on how humans may eventually evolve. The last evol u tion ary stage might be energy, light energy specifically.

if we were to come in contact with such a life form, how would we refer to it? As a god? once evolved to this level, life spans would be measured in eons, not years. Think of all the things this life form could do:

instantly appear all around the globe, "as if" in more than one place at a time

travel at the speed of light

never age

manipulate it's energy in ways we cannot imagine

does this make it a god?

[jolter604]

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

[Times Roman]

I disagree that if we proved the universe came about in a non-supernatural way that it would prove there were no gods. The argument could always be made that whatever was determined to have occurred at that time was just instigated by the gods - that happens now, "god planted the fossils for humans to find" etc.

Also, just because some people commonly have a conception of gods as the things that are creators of the universe it does not follow that there is an essential quality of being a god that means one must have created the universe. In other words, I can conceptualise the existence of some supernatural thing which did not create the universe just as I can conceptualise one that did (no proof for either, but certainly there is no theoretical reason both cannot exist). If gods exist, I think it's possible they do absolutely nothing.

one way to prove that the universe had natural origins is for us, at some point in time, to create, at least on a smaller scale, another universe.

I would argue that if once we were able to do this, then that pretty much closes the book on the possibility of a god. Why?

By what measure would we call a being a god if we can accomplish anything a "god" can accomplish?

[Times Roman]

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

so? what's your point?

nice article that quotes scripture

anything else?

[jolter604]

| Creation Education Center

[jolter604]

its in the dirt.