For atheists

[JustWondering]

What stood out to me in the video was how all the theists turned out to be from different religions and denominations with different beliefs they couldn't agree on. If a creator of some kind exists I think it has no plans to reveal itself to us. The huge number of religions and beliefs that humanity has created and believed in attests to that. If a being is powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole fricking universe and intelligent life from nothing, it should be capable of getting any information/demands across to us across the globe without any problem if it wanted to. Since that hasn't happened the two most logical conclusions are that a creator god does not exist or one exists but has no desire to interact with us.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Ok, so now it sounds like you are saying you do believe in intelligent design?

Is that a question, or a statement?

In any event, until such time as there is compelling evidence for intelligent design (instead of reverse-engineered, fit-the-facts-to-the-Bronze-Age-theology nonsense), I'll be obliged to view it as the cavalcade of silliness that it is.

And even if you could prove that an intelligence is behind evolution, you'd still be light years away from proving that it was the Christian god.

To those who say there is no evidence evolution occurred with a higher intelligent force than man guiding the process they are lying to themselves and causing havoc. (imo)

Wow. That's a statement that carries about as much weight as "those who say that chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla ice cream are lying to themselves and causing havoc."

Statements of opinion will never pack the same wallop as pure, unvarnished fact.

You cannot be on the fence on this one, that’s lame.

There is no evidence that supernatural beings exist and there have never been any persuasive arguments offered by theists in lieu of evidence.

Essentially those who attest evolution could have occurred without an intelligent they are echoing Richard Dawkins famous declaration in his book The Blind Watchmaker, i.e. “"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

Actually, evolution was already well established before Richard Dawkins was born. He's certainly a well-known proponent ... but he's just one person. Even if the lone block that is Richard Dawkins were to be removed from the Jenga game that is modern science's understanding of evolution, the tower would still stand firmly. The evidence available to us wouldn't change.

He is saying natural selection cannot see, does not plan, has no purpose in view.

He says that because there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

However, that view of natural selection is an interesting contrast with unnatural selection. We see the results of that all the time. Not even the most devout theist is going to argue that both creatures and plants can be genetically manipulated.
And if you aren't opposed to unnatural selection, why bother getting huffy an puffy over natural selection?

And yet, mindless molecules chase each other around and create the most uncanny of physiological systems whose functions appear to be light years more ingenious than anything man can produce ...

The operative word there is appear. They only appear to be ingenious.

... even with his gift of intelligent design. This is such an oxymoron to me it strikes me more as an egotistical denial of an obvious truth.

The individual molecules aren't the ones doing the chasing. Or the creating.

And I fail to see how your application of the term "oxymoron" is applicable given the scenario. But never mind.

God has revealed Himself in a myriad of ways and signs that has nothing to do with evolution (Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, The Shroud, weeping statues, exorcisms, the Bible, the saints, documented history, et al.)

The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim. To cite the claim to support the claim is circular in the extreme.

Considering all that evidence for God why is it so strange to think God was involved with the creation of life and not the inane thought it was random experiments by mindless matter without hardly any signs of failure in the fossil record constructing these amazing machines? It’s your waterloo.

Not at all sure what you meant to say there. That was a rather incoherent outburst.

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes convinced that evolution is based on faith alone”-

Louis Trenchard, Professor of Physics University of Cincinnati

You're reduced to dusting off archaic quotations from a professor who was commenting on a subject that was beyond his own field of study? Do I need to bother pointing out how staggeringly unimpressive that would have been back in the 1920s?

If I ever want to see a snapshot of 1920's-era physics, I might delve into what Professor Trenchard More had to say regarding his subject of study. Otherwise, I fail to see why a physics professor's opinion regarding paleontology should be esteemed in the least. Especially since he was voicing those opinions based on the evidence that was available to him back in the 1920's!

I know that the Bible is unchangeable, but that doesn't mean that we should expect the same of science.

Which would you choose, the chance for heaven at the risk of hell, or rather just be turned into a stone when you leave earth with no consciousness or risk of pain?

There's no evidence that heaven or hell exist ... except as the carrot and the stick of an outdated behavioral control system that's rapidly losing its grip on the human race.

I'm not going to lose any more sleep over whether or not the Christian religion is true than you'll probably lose over whether or not non-Christian religions are true.

 

[thau]

Is that a question, or a statement?

In any event, until such time as there is compelling evidence for intelligent design (instead of reverse-engineered, fit-the-facts-to-the-Bronze-Age-theology nonsense), I'll be obliged to view it as the cavalcade of silliness that it is.

And even if you could prove that an intelligence is behind evolution, you'd still be light years away from proving that it was the Christian god.



Wow. That's a statement that carries about as much weight as "those who say that chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla ice cream are lying to themselves and causing havoc."

Statements of opinion will never pack the same wallop as pure, unvarnished fact.



There is no evidence that supernatural beings exist and there have never been any persuasive arguments offered by theists in lieu of evidence.



Actually, evolution was already well established before Richard Dawkins was born. He's certainly a well-known proponent ... but he's just one person. Even if the lone block that is Richard Dawkins were to be removed from the Jenga game that is modern science's understanding of evolution, the tower would still stand firmly. The evidence available to us wouldn't change.



He says that because there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

However, that view of natural selection is an interesting contrast with unnatural selection. We see the results of that all the time. Not even the most devout theist is going to argue that both creatures and plants can be genetically manipulated.
And if you aren't opposed to unnatural selection, why bother getting huffy an puffy over natural selection?



The operative word there is appear. They only appear to be ingenious.



The individual molecules aren't the ones doing the chasing. Or the creating.

And I fail to see how your application of the term "oxymoron" is applicable given the scenario. But never mind.



The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim. To cite the claim to support the claim is circular in the extreme.



Not at all sure what you meant to say there. That was a rather incoherent outburst.



You're reduced to dusting off archaic quotations from a professor who was commenting on a subject that was beyond his own field of study? Do I need to bother pointing out how staggeringly unimpressive that would have been back in the 1920s?

If I ever want to see a snapshot of 1920's-era physics, I might delve into what Professor Trenchard More had to say regarding his subject of study. Otherwise, I fail to see why a physics professor's opinion regarding paleontology should be esteemed in the least. Especially since he was voicing those opinions based on the evidence that was available to him back in the 1920's!

I know that the Bible is unchangeable, but that doesn't mean that we should expect the same of science.



There's no evidence that heaven or hell exist ... except as the carrot and the stick of an outdated behavioral control system that's rapidly losing its grip on the human race.

I'm not going to lose any more sleep over whether or not the Christian religion is true than you'll probably lose over whether or not non-Christian religions are true.

“Statements of opinion will never pack the same wallop as pure, unvarnished fact.”

So much for “your“ opinion.


“There is no evidence that supernatural beings exist and there have never been any persuasive arguments offered by theists in lieu of evidence.”

So much for your opinion, once again.


“The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim. To cite the claim to support the claim is circular in the extreme.”

The Bible is supporting evidence for the Christian God. It supports factual and empirical evidence and sound historical reason. I did notice how you focused on the Bible mention but not the more difficult historical manifestations noted.


“Not at all sure what you meant to say there. That was a rather incoherent outburst.”

I said the fossil record is your waterloo, not your friend. And what that professor said in the 1920’s still holds true, i.e. transitional fossils are more rare than a mermaid.


“There's no evidence that heaven or hell exist ... except as the carrot and the stick of an outdated behavioral control system that's rapidly losing its grip on the human race.”

It was a hypothetical question, yet, interestingly enough, no one dares address it. Call it my “pascal’s wager,” only better.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

“Statements of opinion will never pack the same wallop as pure, unvarnished fact.”

So much for “your“ opinion.

If you prefer to discard evidence and dwell purely in the realm of invention, that's your business. You're entitled to your delusions.

“There is no evidence that supernatural beings exist and there have never been any persuasive arguments offered by theists in lieu of evidence.”

So much for your opinion, once again.

Sorry. A complete lack of evidence isn't my opinion. It's just the reality of the scenario.

“The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim. To cite the claim to support the claim is circular in the extreme.”

The Bible is supporting evidence for the Christian God.

No it isn't. It is the Christian God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Again: The Word is God. God is the claim. The claim is not evidence for itself.

It supports factual and empirical evidence and sound historical reason.

Exactly what "factual and empirical evidence" does it support, pray tell?

If you found a copy of Moby Dick, it'd certainly support the notion that Nantucket actually existed, but it certainly would not lend credence to claims that Moby Dick himself ever truly existed.

I did notice how you focused on the Bible mention but not the more difficult historical manifestations noted.

I'm quote content to ignore the "difficult historical manifestations" because they're utterly meaningless without the Bible.

“Not at all sure what you meant to say there. That was a rather incoherent outburst.”

I said the fossil record is your waterloo, not your friend.

The fossil record and science in general are both much more robust and compelling than the twaddlesome voodoo being conjured by creationist pseudoscience.

Anyway, the Bible is a highly suspect historical document. There simply aren't enough transitional manuscripts.

And what that professor said in the 1920’s still holds true, i.e. transitional fossils are more rare than a mermaid.

1.) All fossils are transitional.

2.) It wouldn't matter if you set 1,000,000 transitional fossils down in front of a dedicated creationist ... because they'd simply insist that the number of gaps in the fossil record had been increased by 1,000,000.

It was a hypothetical question, yet, interestingly enough, no one dares address it. Call it my “pascal’s wager,” only better.

Pascal's Wager handily applies to Christians. Consider what you stand to lose if you've opted to follow the wrong faith? What if Islam is The One True Religion? Are you prepared to take that risk?

Given that that majority of religions make mutually irreconcilable claims that their way is the only true path to salvation, it seems much more probable that they're simply all wrong.[/quote]

 

[jonathan180iq]

For one, because I simply cannot allow myself the time to continue a discussion with necessary detail.

 

[thau]

If you prefer to discard evidence and dwell purely in the realm of invention, that's your business. You're entitled to your delusions.



Sorry. A complete lack of evidence isn't my opinion. It's just the reality of the scenario.



No it isn't. It is the Christian God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Again: The Word is God. God is the claim. The claim is not evidence for itself.



Exactly what "factual and empirical evidence" does it support, pray tell?

If you found a copy of Moby Dick, it'd certainly support the notion that Nantucket actually existed, but it certainly would not lend credence to claims that Moby Dick himself ever truly existed.



I'm quote content to ignore the "difficult historical manifestations" because they're utterly meaningless without the Bible.



The fossil record and science in general are both much more robust and compelling than the twaddlesome voodoo being conjured by creationist pseudoscience.

Anyway, the Bible is a highly suspect historical document. There simply aren't enough transitional manuscripts.



1.) All fossils are transitional.

2.) It wouldn't matter if you set 1,000,000 transitional fossils down in front of a dedicated creationist ... because they'd simply insist that the number of gaps in the fossil record had been increased by 1,000,000.



Pascal's Wager handily applies to Christians. Consider what you stand to lose if you've opted to follow the wrong faith? What if Islam is The One True Religion? Are you prepared to take that risk?

Given that that majority of religions make mutually irreconcilable claims that their way is the only true path to salvation, it seems much more probable that they're simply all wrong.

[/QUOTE]

I am quite content to leave this all where it now lies. Your definition of “opinion” and “fact” and how they are applied to deductive reasoning, et al. greatly differs than mine.

Then you say you are quite content to ignore "difficult historical manifestations" because they're utterly meaningless without the Bible. Well, fine, whatever the heck that means? All it tells me is you lack sincere interest in miracles or other claimed divine manifestations. You would rather remain ignorant. I can’t do much about that.

Then what you call a “transitional fossil”has no bearing to me, makes no sense whatsoever. And I said I would rather not expand that debate on this thread so I will try to honor that.

Finally, pascal’s wager has nothing to do with my “wager.” You chose to dissect pascal’s wager instead and explain to me why Christians like me are guilty of the same “gamble”because we ignore the thought of being wrong on what the Muslims claim will happen to us if we do not serve. How can I care one whit what Islam says when I am already completely certain I have the truth with Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church? I cannot have both belief systems. You, on the other hand, do not strike me as all that certain what you maintain (atheism or agnosticism?) is something you are absolutely certain of. But you sure appear militant against the Christian faith in some ways.

So, again, you have chosen to ignore my Question, not pascal’s. And I think I can understand why.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... you say you are quite content to ignore "difficult historical manifestations" because they're utterly meaningless without the Bible. Well, fine, whatever the heck that means?

You know exactly what it means.

If a person sees an image of Telly Savalas burned into their toast, it's merely a weird phenomenon. But if they see an image that looks like their preconceived notion of what Jesus ought to have looked like, it's suddenly a "difficult historical manifestation?"

Please.

All it tells me is you lack sincere interest in miracles or other claimed divine manifestations. You would rather remain ignorant. I can’t do much about that.

The operative word in "claimed divine manifestations" is undoubtedly "claimed." Even some of the most devout theists look on these claims with a most jaundiced eye:

"I know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal in the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on account of the honour which is rendered to him, and in order the better to preserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says, that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no other foundation than our own devising." ~ John Calvin ("Treatise On Relics")

So you see, it's much better to dwell on the Bible. The rest of it is just cosmic bread and circus. Without the claims of the Bible to grant it a veneer of legitimacy, the rest is just Kojak On Toast.

Then what you call a “transitional fossil”has no bearing to me, makes no sense whatsoever.

See: Incredulity, Argument From.

And I said I would rather not expand that debate on this thread so I will try to honor that.

Translation: Point clumsily conceded.

Finally, pascal’s wager has nothing to do with my “wager.” You chose to dissect pascal’s wager instead and explain to me why Christians like me are guilty of the same “gamble”because we ignore the thought of being wrong on what the Muslims claim will happen to us if we do not serve. How can I care one whit what Islam says when I am already completely certain I have the truth with Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church?

So you actually reject Pascal's Wager, correct?

I cannot have both belief systems.

And I cannot believe something that's unbelievable.

You, on the other hand, do not strike me as all that certain what you maintain (atheism or agnosticism?) is something you are absolutely certain of. But you sure appear militant against the Christian faith in some ways.

I won't apologize for theism's lack of coherent arguments or evidence to support its wild claims. That goes for all religions, by the way. Christianity is typically my target because I live in what is alleged to be a Christian country.

So, again, you have chosen to ignore my Question, not pascal’s. And I think I can understand why.

I didn't address your Question because it's ridiculous. However, if we must ...

Thau's Wager (I prefer Thau's Bogus Dichotomy, but I digress) can be reproduced as:

Which would you choose, the chance for heaven at the risk of hell, or rather just be turned into a stone when you leave earth with no consciousness or risk of pain?

As I understand it, you're offering me one of the two following choices:

1.) The chance for heaven (and the risk of hell).
2.) Being turned into an unconscious stone* and leaving earth.

I'd much rather opt for space-bound oblivion. There you go.

* - as opposed to the conscious variety of stone?

 

[thau]

You know exactly what it means.

If a person sees an image of Telly Savalas burned into their toast, it's merely a weird phenomenon. But if they see an image that looks like their preconceived notion of what Jesus ought to have looked like, it's suddenly a "difficult historical manifestation?"

Please.



The operative word in "claimed divine manifestations" is undoubtedly "claimed." Even some of the most devout theists look on these claims with a most jaundiced eye:

"I know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal in the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on account of the honour which is rendered to him, and in order the better to preserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says, that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no other foundation than our own devising." ~ John Calvin ("Treatise On Relics")

So you see, it's much better to dwell on the Bible. The rest of it is just cosmic bread and circus. Without the claims of the Bible to grant it a veneer of legitimacy, the rest is just Kojak On Toast.



See: Incredulity, Argument From.



Translation: Point clumsily conceded.



So you actually reject Pascal's Wager, correct?



And I cannot believe something that's unbelievable.



I won't apologize for theism's lack of coherent arguments or evidence to support its wild claims. That goes for all religions, by the way. Christianity is typically my target because I live in what is alleged to be a Christian country.



I didn't address your Question because it's ridiculous. However, if we must ...

Thau's Wager (I prefer Thau's Bogus Dichotomy, but I digress) can be reproduced as:



As I understand it, you're offering me one of the two following choices:

1.) The chance for heaven (and the risk of hell).
2.) Being turned into an unconscious stone* and leaving earth.

I'd much rather opt for space-bound oblivion. There you go.

* - as opposed to the conscious variety of stone?

[thau said: ... you say you are quite content to ignore "difficult historical manifestations" because they're utterly meaningless without the Bible. Well, fine, whatever the heck that means?]

You know exactly what it means. If a person sees an image of Telly Savalas burned into their toast, it's merely a weird phenomenon. But if they see an image that looks like their preconceived notion of what Jesus ought to have looked like, it's suddenly a "difficult historical manifestation?" Please.

Please, what? This is where you (and so many others) come off as totally disingenuous. It is why I cannot help but read ulterior motives in all of your comments, and theirs. They (you) are not concerned about if God really has provided miracles for our faith and edification --- no, they (you) are interested in finding the lowest hanging fruit and trying to convince others this is “the miracles” the Catholic Church allegedly claims come from God. And then you can proceed to have a good laugh over it.

When I speak of Fatima or Lourdes or The Shroud or stigamatas or weeping statues of Mary or Jesus or incorruptible bodies of certain saints or 250,000 Egyptians seeing Mary on top of a Cathedral on many nights or of demonic manifestations during exorcisms or very specific miracles performed and documented by canonized saints --- do not come back and tell your audience that we Catholics are going “gaga” over some image that looks like the Virgin Mary on someone’s grilled cheese sandwich or an image of Mother Teresa inside a croissant. The joke’s on you nullisin --- not us, and not your audience. So if you, as a total doubter, want to say there is no proof of God and only focus on making merry with Scripture, well good luck. God knows what this world is up to and it is not honesty, it is looking for the easy way out to live their lives as they please and plead ignorance to any sign there was a God trying to get their attention.


The operative word in "claimed divine manifestations" is undoubtedly "claimed." Even some of the most devout theists look on these claims with a most jaundiced eye: "I know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal in the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on account of the honour which is rendered to him, and in order the better to preserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says, that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no other foundation than our own devising." ~ John Calvin ("Treatise On Relics")

Oh big deal. You think you can use that as some kind of defense to ignore all pleadings from heaven? You think you can throw a blanket over all witnesses, all testimonies, all manifestation claims and walk away convinced that St. Paul has told you we are all nuts and you are the smart one? Utterly daft and John Calvin was far more of a detriment to serving our Lord than in spreading charity and the good news. (imo)


[thau: Then what you call a “transitional fossil”has no bearing to me, makes no sense whatsoever.]

See: Incredulity, Argument From.

The incredulity argument from the side of the godless evolutionist is nothing more than a total act of desperation because they have nothing else to use for a defense in those instances. It is a total joke and necessary piece of B.S. to keep your ruse going. Probabilities be damned, “but of course an eyeball or a spine or hearing could rise up by chance when there was none before it. Just because it sounds ridiculous only makes you look ridiculous, not us science types who say there is no evidence for intelligent design.” Is that your defense? The blind watchmaker? Isn’t that funny. Science is your friend until science opposes reasonableness and common sense, then you have to invent a most embarrassing argument to try to play on.


So you actually reject Pascal's Wager, correct?

No, I do not reject it. I just think it is a consideration so simple in its idea that any 12 year old could come up with it and see the value in it. We all know we are going to die, we all know there are billions who are certain there is a God and life continues after we die. We all know they have many sound arguments for believing that. Therefore, if we have not given this any thought at all and consequently do not have strong feelings one way or another ---- and since we know we are going to die, it might not be a bad idea to spend just a little time expressing one's thoughts and pains and pleadings to this possible deity and ask for some forgiveness just in case he turns out be true. Yeah, great idea pascal, I would hope everyone could see that without having to read your books.


I won't apologize for theism's lack of coherent arguments or evidence to support its wild claims. That goes for all religions, by the way. Christianity is typically my target because I live in what is alleged to be a Christian country.

And I will not apologize for telling you what I honestly believe in most cases: that being that most intelligent atheists or agnostics in the West have ulterior motives for remaining totally opposed to the idea of God, or for despising God the way he is spoken of in Scripture.


Thau's Wager said: Which would you choose, the chance for heaven at the risk of hell, or rather just be turned into a stone when you leave earth with no consciousness or risk of pain?

As I understand it, you're offering me one of the two following choices:
1.) The chance for heaven (and the risk of hell).
2.) Being turned into an unconscious stone* and leaving earth.
Answer: I'd much rather opt for space-bound oblivion. There you go.

I appreciate your willingness to address the question. So is such a God unfair if he gives you both options I ask? You can opt out of the game and just spend your time on earth as you please with no ramifications after death. You would choose that path? That just astonishes me. How can you ask for so little? It has to be pride, once again. (imo)

 

[Shad]

The video shows the atheist as the human and the smart one whereas the others as fools,fighting each others which isn't the case for all religions, some religions don't care if ones believe about their own religion and they don't care even about the others opinion regarding their religion of being right or wrong and the atheist not less than the others squabbling about God whereas in the video the atheist looks polite and kind.

Several stories doesn't mean that the only right choice is atheism.

Different names for God doesn't mean we have several Gods, people through history changed the actual names to another names and some others invented new names but what happened exactly has been lost with history, For example Jesus got a different name in Arabic and another in Hebrew whereas Jesus still Jesus.

You missed the point. It was not to show that theists are dumb. It shows that if one avoids reducing peoples beliefs to theist or atheist it shows many supporting the theist position are not in agreement. Each had a different version of God, different concept they each claim is true all via personal experience. It shows a hasty generalization that theists is some monolithic term which is agreement. It shows personal experience becomes moot. It is not a difference in names, it is a difference in the concept of God. Judaisms concept of God has no son, Christianity's concept does. Islam's concept has Mo as it's last prophet while the former 2 do not. So while all 3 share a basic concept of God addition views are placed upon this concept.

 

[FearGod]

You missed the point. It was not to show that theists are dumb. It shows that if one avoids reducing peoples beliefs to theist or atheist it shows many supporting the theist position are not in agreement. Each had a different version of God, different concept they each claim is true all via personal experience. It shows a hasty generalization that theists is some monolithic term which is agreement. It shows personal experience becomes moot. It is not a difference in names, it is a difference in the concept of God. Judaisms concept of God has no son, Christianity's concept does. Islam's concept has Mo as it's last prophet while the former 2 do not. So while all 3 share a basic concept of God addition views are placed upon this concept.

In real life all are the same including the atheists.

Atheists defend their conception that there is no need for God and that the world came to existence by coincidence.

 

[Shad]

In real life all are the same including the atheists.

Atheists defend their conception that there is no need for God and that the world came to existence by coincidence.

This has nothing to do with what I said and in fact shows your fallacious thinking by accepting the generalization. Atheism is a position of one question. Theism is the other position which is loaded with dogma, doctrine and theology. After all there is deism which is another position in which the mentioned concepts of theism are not a part of. Hence the video was pointing out the fallacy used.

Do you believe God had/has a son? If not then you follow a concept of god with no son. If you do you follow a concept of a god with a son. It is a modification of the concept of god which creates a separate concept from a foundational concept which is deistic not theistic

 

[FearGod]

This has nothing to do with what I said and in fact shows your fallacious thinking by accepting the generalization. Atheism is a position of one question. Theism is the other position which is loaded with dogma, doctrine and theology. After all there is deism which is another position in which the mentioned concepts of theism are not a part of. Hence the video was pointing out the fallacy used.

Do you believe God had/has a son? If not then you follow a concept of god with no son. If you do you follow a concept of a god with a son. It is a modification of the concept of god which creates a separate concept from a foundational concept which is deistic not theistic

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't prove that there's no God or that atheism is the only right choice.

 

[Shad]

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't prove that there's no God or that atheism is the only right choice.

No it does not. I was just pointing out you misunderstood the point. The conclusion is a non-sequitur as it excludes that one of the divided theist representations could be in fact right. The conclusion should of been that not all theist share the same concept of god so ad populum arguments are pointless

 

[NulliuSINverba]

When I speak of Fatima or Lourdes or The Shroud or stigamatas or weeping statues of Mary or Jesus or incorruptible bodies of certain saints or 250,000 Egyptians seeing Mary on top of a Cathedral on many nights or of demonic manifestations during exorcisms or very specific miracles performed and documented by canonized saints --- do not come back and tell your audience that we Catholics are going “gaga” over some image that looks like the Virgin Mary on someone’s grilled cheese sandwich or an image of Mother Teresa inside a croissant.

OK. How about this:

"The only discernible difference I can see between all your talk of miracles and relics ... and a random sampling of magical baloney from an evening spent (hypothetically) playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is that the nerds (usually) walk away from the the table knowing that what they've been dealing with is pure fiction."

Is that any better?

Of course, if any of these hypothetical nerds were to actually come to believe that their magical baloney was real, we'd call them "delusional" and try to help them with their mental illness. When the magical baloney originates from within a religion, we're apparently obliged to grant it some measure of leeway. I'll concede that it isn't consistent, but that's the way it is.

So if you, as a total doubter, want to say there is no proof of God and only focus on making merry with Scripture, well good luck.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." ~ Galatians 6:7

How does one mock that which hasn't been demonstrated to exist in the first place?

Luckily, I'm perfectly content to merely mock God's self-proclaimed earthly representatives. Their existence is beyond question.

God knows what this world is up to ...

Unsubstantiated claim.

... and it is not honesty, it is looking for the easy way out to live their lives as they please and plead ignorance to any sign there was a God trying to get their attention.

If God wanted to get our attention, certainly he could do better than revealing his will piecemeal to a lone band of scraggly, Bronze Age pastoralists and then sacrificing himself to himself to appease his own anger at having created beings that could (as designed) doubt his very existence ... or that couldn't (having no knowledge of good or evil in the first place) refrain from eating the fruit from a magical tree because they were misled by a talking snake?

Or couldn't he?

You think you can use that as some kind of defense to ignore all pleadings from heaven?

Don't blame me. Blame your fellow theists.

Here's a suggestion: Why not initiate a little holy war? What's that? Holy wars make for bad press these days?

Well, why don't you scrounge up a team of theologically like-minded supplicants and organize a tug-of-war with these heretical theists who're calling bulls**t on your claims of miracles and relics? And may the best band of loonies side prevail.

"Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

You think you can throw a blanket over all witnesses, all testimonies, all manifestation claims and walk away convinced that St. Paul has told you we are all nuts and you are the smart one?

It's not my Bible. He's not my saint. Feel free to go invent whatever sort of theological spin you fancy. I don't care.

Utterly daft and John Calvin was far more of a detriment to serving our Lord than in spreading charity and the good news. (imo)

I don't have a dog in that fight. I mentioned Calvin simply because he's a fine example of a Christian who refused to buy into Catholicism's dog-'n-pony, Las Vegas-styled version of Christianity. If people who claim to believe in God don't buy it, how can you expect someone who doesn't buy the foundational premise ("God exists") to buy it?

The incredulity argument from the side of the godless evolutionist is nothing more than a total act of desperation because they have nothing else to use for a defense in those instances.

News Flash: The Pope accepts evolution.

"The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” ~ Pope Francis

Feel free to take your whining and complaining to his august lap. Perhaps he'll care that you cannot accept the evidence?

It is a total joke and necessary piece of B.S. to keep your ruse going. Probabilities be damned, “but of course an eyeball or a spine or hearing could rise up by chance when there was none before it.

Unless you can cite a source that demonstrates otherwise, I'm leaning towards believing that evolutionary science has never (as in "not once ever") claimed that eyeballs or spines arose by chance from nothing. If you truly believe that this is what the science says, you're merely announcing your own ignorance as to what the science actually does say.

Is that your defense? The blind watchmaker? Isn’t that funny. Science is your friend until science opposes reasonableness and common sense, then you have to invent a most embarrassing argument to try to play on.

Sorry. Your apparent lack of comprehension on this subject has no impact on the known facts.

So you actually reject Pascal's Wager, correct?

No, I do not reject it. I just think it is a consideration so simple in its idea that any 12 year old could come up with it and see the value in it.

Yes, but what if you as a Christian are wrong? Apply Pascal's Wager to your own belief system. Is it any less applicable simply because you've already made up your mind that your faith happens to be the correct one?

Again: What if you're wrong? You stand to lose everything for believing in the wrong faith, so why not put all your chips on Islam (or some other faith)?

Or could it be that Pascal's Wager is simply inane, childish nonsense that any twelve-year old could come up with?

... I will not apologize for telling you what I honestly believe in most cases: that being that most intelligent atheists or agnostics in the West have ulterior motives for remaining totally opposed to the idea of God, or for despising God the way he is spoken of in Scripture.

Because the God that's spoken of in the scripture is despicable. Even if we look no further than his views on slavery. Beyond that, how many people were slaughtered at his command? How many cities burnt to the ground?

This is the god that commanded one of his believers to ritually sacrifice his own child and then called it off at the last second? That's sick.

"Psyche! Oh man! I really had you goin' there fer a second, dude! Now. Tell me again how great I am!"

I appreciate your willingness to address the question. So is such a God unfair if he gives you both options I ask?

No. It isn't unfair.

Heaven or Hell on one hand ... and simple oblivion on the other? I'll opt for the latter every time and twice on Sundays.

You can opt out of the game and just spend your time on earth as you please with no ramifications after death. You would choose that path?

Yes. I would. And I'll opine that an eternity in heaven or hell wouldn't be free from ramifications.

That just astonishes me. How can you ask for so little?

How can you ask for so much? And why would you?

It has to be pride, once again. (imo)

Given that Christians believe that God created the entire universe in all of its boundless splendor just so that each individual human might have a personal relationship with him, I'll concur.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If a being is powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole fricking universe and intelligent life from nothing, it should be capable of getting any information/demands across to us across the globe without any problem if it wanted to. Since that hasn't happened the two most logical conclusions are that a creator god does not exist or one exists but has no desire to interact with us.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Even I can be really stupid sometimes

 

[thau]

What stood out to me in the video was how all the theists turned out to be from different religions and denominations with different beliefs they couldn't agree on. If a creator of some kind exists I think it has no plans to reveal itself to us. The huge number of religions and beliefs that humanity has created and believed in attests to that. If a being is powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole fricking universe and intelligent life from nothing, it should be capable of getting any information/demands across to us across the globe without any problem if it wanted to. Since that hasn't happened the two most logical conclusions are that a creator god does not exist or one exists but has no desire to interact with us.

The inverse of all that being ---- since you are quite certain that God has not revealed Himself to His creation then you do not feel accountable to any deity for your actions or lack of actions.

So then how do you conduct your life? I imagine you have your own personal code of conduct and try to stay true to that. And if you fail morally or ethically (e.g. one in his conscience knows adultery is wrong but occasionally falls prey to it) then nothing more needs to be said? When you die, if there is a God, do you think it will matter to him that you violated your own conscience when it was convenient? Do you think it will matter to him if one who says no sign of God proceeds to be very selfish with his resources and gives nothing but a few crumbs to the poor? I think those who deny God will be their own judge and some of their “justifications” will simply not hold up.

 

[JustWondering]

The inverse of all that being ---- since you are quite certain that God has not revealed Himself to His creation then you do not feel accountable to any deity for your actions or lack of actions.

Correct, since I am an atheist I do not consider myself accountable to Ra, Odin, Zeus, Cthulu, and the thousands of other gods humanity has created, including yours.

So then how do you conduct your life? I imagine you have your own personal code of conduct and try to stay true to that. And if you fail morally or ethically (e.g. one in his conscience knows adultery is wrong but occasionally falls prey to it) then nothing more needs to be said?

Basically.

When you die, if there is a God, do you think it will matter to him that you violated your own conscience when it was convenient?

If there is an afterlife of some sort. If there is a god waiting there to pass judgment on people. If it is your god. That's a lot of ifs don't you think? None of which are substantiated in any way. Just claims made by a true believer who cannot understand why his unsubstantiated beliefs are not mindlessly excepted by all that hear them.

Do you think it will matter to him if one who says no sign of God proceeds to be very selfish with his resources and gives nothing but a few crumbs to the poor? I think those who deny God will be their own judge and some of their “justifications” will simply not hold up.

If your god is so worried about the poor being fed why doesn't he feed them? If he chooses not to, how can he stand in judgment of anyone for doing the same and not be a hypocrite?

 

[thau]

Correct, since I am an atheist I do not consider myself accountable to Ra, Odin, Zeus, Cthulu, and the thousands of other gods humanity has created, including yours.



Basically.



If there is an afterlife of some sort. If there is a god waiting there to pass judgment on people. If it is your god. That's a lot of ifs don't you think? None of which are substantiated in any way. Just claims made by a true believer who cannot understand why his unsubstantiated beliefs are not mindlessly excepted by all that hear them.



If your god is so worried about the poor being fed why doesn't he feed them? If he chooses not to, how can he stand in judgment of anyone for doing the same and not be a hypocrite?

If your god is so worried about the poor being fed why doesn't he feed them? If he chooses not to, how can he stand in judgment of anyone for doing the same and not be a hypocrite?

"Blessed are the poor, for they shall be comforted."

It is you I am more concerned about, and me. Life is but the shortest of trials, heaven is forever.

What I asked was a hypothetical, if there were a God on the other side --- do you think what we do or choose not to do will matter, whether we believed He existed or not? From what I can gather, you do not appear too concerned one way or the other.

 

[JustWondering]

If your god is so worried about the poor being fed why doesn't he feed them? If he chooses not to, how can he stand in judgment of anyone for doing the same and not be a hypocrite?

"Blessed are the poor, for they shall be comforted."

It is you I am more concerned about, and me. Life is but the shortest of trials, heaven is forever.

What I asked was a hypothetical, if there were a God on the other side --- do you think what we do or choose not to do will matter, whether we believed He existed or not? From what I can gather, you do not appear too concerned one way or the other.

What I asked was not a hypothetical. Your god purposely creates a world were great suffering exists and is supposed to be considered a hero after he stops the suffering he caused to happen in the first place? That's who you think is morally suited to pass judgment on others? That makes as much sense as making an arsonist the fire chief and congratulating him on all the fires he puts out after he started them? Next you'll argue that whatever suffering I perceive in the world is not gods fault but my own as well as the rest of humanity, which is utter garbage. A human parent not being held liable for a bad decision one of their children made is logical. A creator god that created everything, not being held liable for the bad decisions of its creations whose very nature it purposely created down to the tiniest bit of our DNA is not logical. The Christian god is so laughably flawed and ridiculous that I could never entertain its existence.