Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Kenny]

I never said or implied that anyone is exempt from cog dis. It is just that the religious, those with strong political beliefs, followers of conspiracy theories, etc. are more prone to it. And I do not know of anyone that can reason logically that has ever accepted the Adam and Eve myth. Why would one believe in a lying God? If God lies all of his promises are for naught.

I can agree... just like those atheists with strong political beliefs and followers that the Government is a saint and never have conspiracies

And you know Adam and Eve are empirically and verifiably myths, how?

 

[savagewind]

I never said or implied that anyone is exempt from cog dis. It is just that the religious, those with strong political beliefs, followers of conspiracy theories, etc. are more prone to it. And I do not know of anyone that can reason logically that has ever accepted the Adam and Eve myth. Why would one believe in a lying God? If God lies all of his promises are for naught.

You do know, do you not? that the story of Adam and Eve can be believed in a lot of different ways. ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can agree... just like those atheists with strong political beliefs and followers that the Government is a saint and never have conspiracies

Oh please Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret? Realizing that conspiracy theories are nonsense is also nowhere near the same as thinking that the government is a saint.

And you know Adam and Eve are empirically and verifiably myths, how?

From the story itself. That alone will tell any rational thinker that it is a fairy tale. If one can read it without cog dis showing up one realizes that God is at fault for his own failure. That the serpent was the only one that told the truth. Once again, if God can't lie then the story has to be read as a morality tale.

Then if one wants to go further, though there is no need, the scientific evidence against it is endless. You might as well declare that gravity does not exist and go with the FSM reason that we stay one the ground. There is more and stronger evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. If you accept gravity by the same standard you would need to accept evolution. Believers in the myth are once again calling God a liar since he would have had to have planted endless evidence, and not just fossil evidence. That evidence is not even the strongest, it is merely the easiest evidence for those without a science education to understand. But even that is more than strong enough to tell us that we are the product of evolution and not a golem spell.

 

[Audie]

God is not about granting people miracles. It is a must that for God to be with you, you have to be with God. Is that not fair, in your opinion?

With all the treachery of human " friends "
the invisible type may be the best.

Its obvious that whatever a god may be,
miracle-donor isnt it, though, we note, full many
think otherwise.

 

[Audie]

You do know, do you not? that the story of Adam and Eve can be believed in a lot of different ways. ?

Its obvious to any atheist.

 

[Audie]

Jesus is not God. God is the disciplinarian. Jesus is not a disciplinarian. He is our friend.

Good cop bad cop

 

[savagewind]

With all the treachery of human " friends "
the invisible type may be the best.

Its obvious that whatever a god may be,
miracle-donor isnt it, though, we note, full many
think otherwise.

I shall call that, a poem. Nicely done!

 

[F1fan]

"many hundreds"?

Try an infinite number of things, only really limited by ones imagination.

Well I wouldn't have guessed that Ken would have explored an infinite number of ideas to believe in their non-existence. I guessed a multiple of hundreds. I didn't include ideas he wasn't aware of since he had to have at least heard of the ideas to "believe in it's non-existence".

I guess @KenS also positively "believes" in the "non-existence" of gooblydockboeya
Gooblydockboeya is a creature I just made up. It has 7 legs, 3 eyes, 6 mouths and it squirts tomato sauce when it is laughing. I plan on catching one one of these days. I'll put it in a box and have it watch comedy 24/7 and bottle its squirt juices to sell at a premium to Italian restaurants.

Well if he reads this then there's one more. It adds up fast. It's a lot of belief to manage.

 

[cladking]

But overwhelming support by objective evidence, will potentially demonstrate if (not "cause") something specific exists.

So how do you prove abstractions like "evolution" or "gravity"? We can see masses attract but "gravity" is just a word if we don't know what it is.

Science is an exercise of zero-ing in on truth.

Tell Kuhn that.

You just ignore every argument to the contrary while repeating your same debunked claims. Then you accuse others of your behavior.

Science is an exercise of zero-ing in on truth.

...I might add that it sounds like you must now know just about everything from the non-existence of God to why the sun comes up every single morning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how do you prove abstractions like "evolution" or "gravity"? We can see masses attract but "gravity" is just a word if we don't know what it is.

We don't. How do you prove "murder"? In the sciences there is no absolute proof. There is no absolute proof in the law either. In the law one is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We can apply the same standard to evolution or gravity and both of them have been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. Now there is a very very faint possibility that they are amazingly wrong. The problem is that no one can find evidence to the contrary. So until someone does they are accepted as fact since all of the scientific evidence out there supports those ideas.

Tell Kuhn that.

You just ignore every argument to the contrary while repeating your same debunked claims. Then you accuse others of your behavior.



...I might add that it sounds like you must now know just about everything from the non-existence of God to why the sun comes up every single morning.

Not at all. Find some evidence to the contrary and people will listen to you. But one must first understand the scientific method and scientific evidence. They are not that hard to understand.

 

[Kenny]

Oh please Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret? Realizing that conspiracy theories are nonsense is also nowhere near the same as thinking that the government is a saint.

so true... but then again, the Dems-Russia collusion conspiracy turned out to be correct because Government ISN'T a saint

From the story itself. That alone will tell any rational thinker that it is a fairy tale. If one can read it without cog dis showing up one realizes that God is at fault for his own failure. That the serpent was the only one that told the truth. Once again, if God can't lie then the story has to be read as a morality tale.

This is empirical and verifiable evidence? At most it is a twisted viewpoint And certainly "rational" doesn't translate into "spiritual". Spirituality can often violate rationality as a higher authority IMO

Then if one wants to go further, though there is no need, the scientific evidence against it is endless. You might as well declare that gravity does not exist and go with the FSM reason that we stay one the ground. There is more and stronger evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. If you accept gravity by the same standard you would need to accept evolution. Believers in the myth are once again calling God a liar since he would have had to have planted endless evidence, and not just fossil evidence. That evidence is not even the strongest, it is merely the easiest evidence for those without a science education to understand. But even that is more than strong enough to tell us that we are the product of evolution and not a golem spell.

LOL.. That is what I love about discussions... chock full of supportive statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so true... but then again, the Dems-Russia collusion conspiracy turned out to be correct because Government ISN'T a saint

No, Trump himself was a huge part of the problem. Are you forgetting when he asked the Russian to collude with him? He later claimed "It was a joke". Part of the reason that the Democrats were so sure that Trump was in collusion with the Russians were things that he said and did. And that was not a "conspiracy theory". You are misusing the term. There was an evidence based investigation. They found, if you read it, that Trump did obstruct Congress, that alone was an impeachable offense, but they could not find reliable evidence of collusion.

This is empirical and verifiable evidence? At most it is a twisted viewpoint

The story can be analyzed. I did not claim that was "empirical and reliable evidence". The point was none was needed. This appears to be cognitive dissonance arising on your part. You are getting rather hostile as shown by your abuse of smileys. You seem to be having a hard time understanding simple facts because they go against your cherished beliefs. Once again, the story is so poorly written that it ends up refuting itself.

LOL.. That is what I love about discussions... chock full of supportive statements.

You could go to any of the evolution threads and find more than enough evidence. There is no need for me to provide any more than that. Is there a way that I can guarantee a conversation where you will try to understand the facts? My favorite place to start is with the concept of evidence. Creationists cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[F1fan]

From the story itself. That alone will tell any rational thinker that it is a fairy tale. If one can read it without cog dis showing up one realizes that God is at fault for his own failure. That the serpent was the only one that told the truth. Once again, if God can't lie then the story has to be read as a morality tale.

Plus how perfect is a God that makes supposedly perfect being that are easily duped and incapable of being obedient? Far from being perfect beings if that is part of their design flaws.

It was all a set up. Does a God really make an error in the people it creates? If a perfect Good makes people and it wants then to be obedient, then those people ARE going to be obedient.

On top of that, A&E were designed to be tempted, and God also sent the serpent to do it. If God really wanted them to be obedient why did it tempt them with the serpent?

So I suggest it is in the interests of believers to NOT interpret this literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus how perfect is a God that makes supposedly perfect being that are easily duped and incapable of being obedient? Far from being perfect beings if that is part of their design flaws.

It was all a set up. Does a God really make an error in the people it creates? If a perfect Good makes people and it wants then to be obedient, then those people ARE going to be obedient.

On top of that, A&E were designed to be tempted, and God also sent the serpent to do it. If God really wanted them to be obedient why did it tempt them with the serpent?

So I suggest it is in the interests of believers to NOT interpret this literally.

Yes, creationists continually ignore the fact that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil meant that the two could not have know that what they did was wrong. The story even reflects that. It was not until after they ate the fruit that they realized what they had done. Not before. We know better than that. We do not imprison that mentally incompetent. They may be locked away in a hospital where they cannot hurt anyone for the rest of their life, but we do not punish them. God in the myth not only made Adam and Eve mentally incompetent when it came to right and wrong. He set them up as you pointed out with the cleverest beast.

As a fairy tale it barely works.

 

[Kenny]

No, Trump himself was a huge part of the problem. Are you forgetting when he asked the Russian to collude with him? He later claimed "It was a joke". Part of the reason that the Democrats were so sure that Trump was in collusion with the Russians were things that he said and did. And that was not a "conspiracy theory". You are misusing the term. There was an evidence based investigation. They found, if you read it, that Trump did obstruct Congress, that alone was an impeachable offense, but they could not find reliable evidence of collusion.

I think you need to update your info into more current revelations.

The story can be analyzed. I did not claim that was "empirical and reliable evidence". The point was none was needed. This appears to be cognitive dissonance arising on your part. You are getting rather hostile as shown by your abuse of smileys. You seem to be having a hard time understanding simple facts because they go against your cherished beliefs. Once again, the story is so poorly written that it ends up refuting itself.

LOL... smilies are "hostile"... - Are you needing a safe place?

Thanks for a well thought out response.

(an extra emoji for your enjoyment ) (Unless you are getting hostile because I use them )

You could go to any of the evolution threads and find more than enough evidence. There is no need for me to provide any more than that. Is there a way that I can guarantee a conversation where you will try to understand the facts? My favorite place to start is with the concept of evidence. Creationists cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence.

You mean that since there is evolution there was no Adam and Eve? Or are you saying there is only explanation for an Adam and Eve and that there can't be other species that evolved that weren't the Adam and Eve species?

Or is it that since spirituality often violates reason, it just rubs you wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you need to update your info into more current revelations.

Are you talking about the Hillary nonsense that fell apart?

LOL... smilies are "hostile"... - Are you needing a safe place?

Thanks for a well thought out response.

(an extra emoji for your enjoyment ) (Unless you are getting hostile because I use them )

Yes, you tend to use them when losing an argument and the hostility is clearly there. I would suggest that you ease off of the personal attacks.

You mean that since there is evolution there was no Adam and Eve? Or are you saying there is only explanation for an Adam and Eve and that there can't be other species that evolved that weren't the Adam and Eve species?

Or is it that since spirituality often violates reason, it just rubs you wrong.

Pretty much since the story is pointless with evolution. You are trying to make a massive rewrite after the fact and it still fails if you go back to how God set them up. Even if you change the story so that Adam and Eve evolved from a population of apes and there were still many other humans at the time it still fails because of the poor lesson that it gives.

I do not think that you understand the "spirituality" of the lesson. How can you defend God's failures and evil acts?

 

[Kenny]

Are you talking about the Hillary nonsense that fell apart?

That's old... I mean up to date.

Yes, you tend to use them when losing an argument and the hostility is clearly there. I would suggest that you ease off of the personal attacks.

LOL... No, I use it when the rebuttal to my statements falls short of its mark. But if it rubs you wrong... I can lighten up.

Pretty much since the story is pointless with evolution. You are trying to make a massive rewrite after the fact and it still fails if you go back to how God set them up. Even if you change the story so that Adam and Eve evolved from a population of apes and there were still many other humans at the time it still fails because of the poor lesson that it gives.

I do not think that you understand the "spirituality" of the lesson. How can you defend God's failures and evil acts?

Pointless? Not in my view.

Personally, I see it as a failure of man and not God. But, hey, variety is what makes the world a more spicy place.

And, no, I don't think Adam and Eve came from apes.

 

[F1fan]

I think you need to update your info into more current revelations.

You're right. I was surprised Sub Zone didn't post this

STATEMENT: U.S. Senate Report Confirms Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia, CAP’s Neera Tanden Says

 

[rational experiences]

It makes very good sense. Is not playing football a sport? If you just sit on your couch all day Sunday, or whatever day that you prefer, maybe watching TV, maybe not, is that activity a sport?



No, it is clearly not. It is a sign of rational thought. One should not believe in something until sufficient evidence to justify a belief is given. That is not the case with religion. For almost everyone in a religion they are in it because their parents brought them up in that religion. When I say that I do not believe in God that is not the same as saying I believe that God does not exist. The first is a neutral statement. It tells you that I do not have an old belief to cling to and my mind can be changed by evidence. When a person says "I believe that God does not exist" that person already has decided (hopefully based upon evidence, but for such a subject that does not appear to be the case). This is why atheists are always asking for evidence.

If once cannot find evidence for something that should have left clear evidence that is a very good sign that thing does not exist. So if a person's "God" is the God if the Adam and Eve myth or the Noah's Ark myth I have no problem saying that God does not exist. The evidence that both of those myths would have left behind is quite substantial and it is not to be found. But that does not refute all versions of God. It does not even refute all versions of the Christian God.

Are footballers safe or should they be life Warne..d.

 

[cladking]

Now there is a very very faint possibility that they are amazingly wrong.

If no one knows what gravity is then how can they be wrong? If there's no experiment showing gradual change caused by survival of the fittest then how do you know it's right?