I swear to god that i'm a non believer

[TheresOnlyNow]

Are you saying that lack of belief based on lack of evidence is short sighted, i would consider it the other way round, that belief based on lack of evidence is at odds with reality. Which is why belief in god or gods is considered to be faith.

And yet there is no lack of evidence. Atheism can't arrive at a definitive explanation for first cause.
Everything that exists is of and by God.
The great faith in truth is that of the atheist. Who, witnessing all that is terrestrial, and all that even the Hubble generates in photographs of deep space, exists due to......what?
You're the atheist. What do you believe is that answer?

 

[ChristineM]

And yet there is no lack of evidence. Atheism can't arrive at a definitive explanation for first cause.
Everything that exists is of and by God.
The great faith in truth is that of the atheist. Who, witnessing all that is terrestrial, and all that even the Hubble generates in photographs of deep space, exists due to......what?
You're the atheist. What do you believe is that answer?

Please provide said evidence

Neither can theism so it fills in the gap with god magic.

In actual fact no first cause is required because the laws of thermodynamics did not begin to coalesce until after the bb

Do i need to believe in an answer? I know of 27 valid answers that each can be verified as plausible using either mathematics or/and observations of phenomena in our universe. Which is right? I do not know, nor, given current technology will any one know. I am sure of one thing though, i have no need to guess to massage a faith.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And yet there is no lack of evidence. .

False. If you had any actual evidence? You would have presented it..

Atheism can't arrive at a definitive explanation for first cause..

Atheism can't arrive at anything, you silly person. Atheism isn't a method of discovery.

As for "first cause"? PROVE THERE NEEDS TO BE ONE.

You can't.

Everything that exists is of and by God. .

PROVE IT. Show your evidence.

The great faith in truth is that of the atheist..

This would be a lie by you. Again.

Who, witnessing all that is terrestrial, and all that even the Hubble generates in photographs of deep space, exists due to......what?.

Gravity? Prove there must be a first cause... you cannot.

You're the atheist. What do you believe is that answer?

Believe? That's a faith word-- only someone who is willing to put aside reason, would use faith.

You cannot prove ANYTHING by faith.

 

[stvdv]

I have struggled to understand this theist view of atheism and I can only conclude that they [certain theists] cannot conceive of the atheist viewpoint because they think in terms of god.
Am i correct in this conclusion or has anyone got another explain?

Their "self created God" tricked them into a loop-hole of: a)Do not judge others + b)I am the only way + c)Evangelize

Seems pretty evident that any sane human being might get confused (or even crazy) to get these in sync and still be "open minded"

 

[stvdv]

I cannot conceive of the atheist viewpoint because they think in terms of god.
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Theist....: disbelief or lack of belief in the non-existence of God or gods.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Theist....: disbelief or lack of belief in the non-existence of God or gods.

Brilliantly symmetrical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet there is no lack of evidence. Atheism can't arrive at a definitive explanation for first cause.
Everything that exists is of and by God.
The great faith in truth is that of the atheist. Who, witnessing all that is terrestrial, and all that even the Hubble generates in photographs of deep space, exists due to......what?
You're the atheist. What do you believe is that answer?

I don't think that you understand the nature of evidence. If you did you could provide some instead of waving your hands.

And you have no explanation of the "first cause" either. Bringing God into it merely moves the goal posts. The current answer to the "first cause" questions is: We don't know yet.

Not knowing something is not evidence for god. But you are lucky. Not knowing is not evidence against a god either. But this brings us to a huge problem for you. The time to believe something is when one has valid evidence for that belief. Right now there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a god. As a result the logical way is to lack a belief in a god or gods until reliable evidence is found.

 

[YmirGF]

Not knowing something is not evidence for god. But you are lucky. Not knowing is not evidence against a god either. But this brings us to a huge problem for you. The time to believe something is when one has valid evidence for that belief. Right now there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a god. As a result the logical way is to lack a belief in a god or gods until reliable evidence is found.

While I agree with your stance 99.99% -- subjective experience can provide the individual with extremely convincing "evidence" that can literally trump reason. You feel so strongly etc, yadda, yadda, yadda... I do agree with what you are saying though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I agree with your stance 99.99% -- subjective experience can provide the individual with extremely convincing "evidence" that can literally trump reason. You feel so strongly etc, yadda, yadda, yadda... I do agree with what you are saying though.

I can see how that can happen. People can be convinced by a personal event. The problem is that that is not reliable. Those events do not transfer to others. A person's personal event that makes him believe that Islam is correct will not impress Christians at all and vice versa. That is why I specified "reliable evidence". Reliable evidence exists regardless of the source.

 

[YmirGF]

I can see how that can happen. People can be convinced by a personal event. The problem is that that is not reliable. Those events do not transfer to others. A person's personal event that makes him believe that Islam is correct will not impress Christians at all and vice versa. That is why I specified "reliable evidence". Reliable evidence exists regardless of the source.

That's where my strong rational side has saved my bacon over the years. When the universe began to open up to the young Paul, it took me quite awhile to realize I wasn't convincing anyone. Everyone I talked to years ago sensed my intense passion, but I would get in a muddle trying to describe or explain things. I see the various religions as being like different stages of explaining that same muddled thinking. The difference being that the anecdotal has been enabled for so long that it has taken on a life of its own in the form of scriptures that we pretend have real authority.

 

[viole]

Hmmm. The book of Isaiah, in which he said the earth was round (spherical) was written in 732 B.C.E.. It was only 400 years later that Aristotle first determined it was round in 330 B.C.E. You keep insinuating that the Bible teaches the world is flat and you think I'm indoctrinated with propaganda and you have it all figured out. That's funny.

Well, if we restrict ourselves to basic facts like that the earth is not flat and life has not been instantiated several times (once per each species will be about million times, without counting the 99% extinct ones), then every third grader has all fugured it out, too.

By the way, why did you put spherical in brackets? An inference of yours? Round does not entail spherical. For instance, a pizza is round but is not spherical. Same thing with rings, frisbees, coins, CDs, etc.

Ciao

- viole

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

Well, if we restrict ourself to the fact that the earth is not flat and life has not been instantiated several times (once per each species will be about million times, without counting the 99% extinct ones), then every third grader has all fugured it out, too.

By the way, why did you put spherical in brackets? An inference of yours? Round does not entail spherical. For instance, a pizza is round but is not spherical. Same thing with rings, frisbees, coins, CDs, etc.

The Hebrew word chugh is translated as "circle," "sphere," "round" and "globe." At Isaiah 40:22 the word is used from the perspective of Jehovah looking down on it from above. Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle.

 

[viole]

The Hebrew word chugh is translated as "circle," "sphere," "round" and "globe." At Isaiah 40:22 the word is used from the perspective of Jehovah looking down on it from above. Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle.

Jehovah can only see one face of a sphere? And what do you mean from above? Has Jeovah limited size that can be located in space?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hmmm. The book of Isaiah, in which he said the earth was round (spherical) was written in 732 B.C.E..
.

That would be a false statement by you, about Isaiah. The Hebrew word used in that verse? Means "flat plate" or "flat disc". NOT SPHERE. There is a Hebrew word for ball/sphere-- but it's not used in Isaiah-- nor in any verse describing the Earth.

So, Isaiah wrote about a flat earth-- not a round one.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The Hebrew word chugh is translated as "circle," "sphere," "round" and "globe." At Isaiah 40:22 the word is used from the perspective of Jehovah looking down on it from above. Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle.

FALSE. There is a Hebrew word for "ball"-- the one you refer to? ALWAYS A FLAT DISC.

It appears you have been disingenuous. Again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Hebrew word chugh is translated as "circle," "sphere," "round" and "globe." At Isaiah 40:22 the word is used from the perspective of Jehovah looking down on it from above. Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle.

Sorry, but mistranslating chugh as sphere is a modern error. You are now making excuses for the Bible rather than reading what it says.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have struggled to understand this theist view of atheism and I can only conclude that they [certain theists] cannot conceive of the atheist viewpoint because they think in terms of god.

Well I see that an Atheist believes there is no God, but who here is a true Athiest?

What Athiest spends so much time on God related topics, if somewhere in the heart they do no have a connection. Why would they waste their time?

No Athiests need to answer as it is well proven that when disaster strikes, most will call for help from the depths of their soul.

It appears science may be able to discover the existance of soul, if I have read this correctly;

"...Scientific philosophy has demonstrated that a simple element (’simple’ meaning ‘not composed‘) is indestructible, eternal. The soul, not being a composition of elements, is, in character, as a simple element, and therefore cannot cease to exist. The soul, being of that one indivisible substance, can suffer neither disintegration nor destruction, therefore there is no reason for its coming to an end (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 90)

This is what gives us life, puts the spark in the body

Stay happy and virtuous. Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I see that an Atheist believes there is no God, but who here is a true Athiest?

What Athiest spends so much time on God related topics, if somewhere in the heart they do no have a connection. Why would they waste their time?

No Athiests need to answer as it is well proven that when disaster strikes, most will call for help from the depths of their soul.

It appears science may be able to discover the existance of soul, if I have read this correctly;

"...Scientific philosophy has demonstrated that a simple element (’simple’ meaning ‘not composed‘) is indestructible, eternal. The soul, not being a composition of elements, is, in character, as a simple element, and therefore cannot cease to exist. The soul, being of that one indivisible substance, can suffer neither disintegration nor destruction, therefore there is no reason for its coming to an end (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 90)

This is what gives us life, puts the spark in the body

Stay happy and virtuous. Regards Tony

Atheists respond because they know that harm that many theists have inflicted upon others due to their beliefs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Atheists respond because they know that harm that many theists have inflicted upon others due to their beliefs.

That is just the results of an immature humanity. Theists, or whaterver tag people wish to place on each other are not the only group of people that harm others. Look at communism for an example, it was an attempt at a godless society. It has not worked.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is just the results of an immature humanity. Theists, or whaterver tag people wish to place on each other are not the only group of people that harm others. Look at communism for an example, it was an attempt at a godless society. It has not worked.

Regards Tony

Excuses, excuses. Not very convincing.