If God actually spoke to you, would you try to obey?

[Spiderman]

Than existence as we know it will be over and humans will not remain humans

It doesn't.

It does.

So why don't you?
You know what is the right thing to do.
But it's too hard... or else we would all have done it

Lol... sounds like you think god lives in a castle in the skies ????

Not true.. they worship an idea of god.
God doesn't require worship especially of the wrong kind.

By whom?

It did, in a most detailed way. most people simply refuse to accept it

Nice one what is it that he thinks god is willing?
There is an answer... really is. its a very logical one, btw.

You already have the answer... yet you won't accept it.

How are you sure?

Just start reading

Probably, but if you have confusion, its its will that currently you'll have until you do not have one

I would guess the same

I shouldn't blow my own horn. but I've recently bought a lady her groceries, and I've given out more than 50% of my income this month, granted some of those people promise to pay me back.

No, I do not know what God's will is. If I heard clear messages I would try my best to obey.

 

[ChristineM]

It's all about respect. You are an atheist, of course God respects that and won't give you an orgasm
You have a husband for that. Cheating on your husband with God ... Don't even contemplate that
[will cost you 1 eye as per the Bible; but being an atheist, no worries for you there]

Once someone has proven this god you all talk about the incidence of atheism will dramatically fall. Untill then i'll keep both my eyes.

Edit : respect is earned, not handed out willynilly to those who demand it

 

[dianaiad]

Absolutely, 100% false.

I happened to be an atheist. I ALSO happen to be an agnostic.

These terms address two very different questions.

The former? Addresses the question: "is god real" with "show us proof"

The latter? Addresses the question "Can anyone know about gods?" "unlikely-- you have to define what you mean, first-- and nobody really has"

You have your definitions all mixed up-- no doubt from some theist who has never met an actual atheist.

Don't be silly.

'atheism - theism' isn't a dichotomy, with 'agnosticism' in the middle. It's a continuum, with something like 'strong' atheism on one end, and adamant theism on the other, and quite frankly, when one is looking at those two positions, they are really the SAME position; adamant conviction of a religious point of view regarding the existence of deity that is not, because it cannot be, based upon objective evidence.

One believes strongly that there is a God...so strongly that nothing could convince one that there isn't, OR...one believes strongly, so strongly that no possible evidence could convince one otherwise, that there isn't

Both positions are based upon unsubstantiated, non-objective beliefs. "Faith,' so to speak, and neither position is amenable to logic or argument.


MOST atheists do not occupy that far end, but more do than one would consider, given that those folks love 'logic' and the idea of accepting objective evidence, even when it messes with one's convictions. They don't, but they pay lip service.

The theists on the other end at least are more honest about their rejection of objective evidence.


ANYway....

I've always figured that we have, in a very loose set of folders, "strong' atheists who make the positive claim that 'There is no God," "weak" atheists, who say that they see no evidence that would make them believe in a God, but if there ever were any such evidence, they'd consider it, "ignostics" who claim that it is absolutely impossible to know whether there is a god or not and so the whole question is meaningless, "agnostics,' who don't know and don't think it's really possible to know, but hey, it's worth thinking about, "deists,' who think there probably is one but s/he pretty much abandoned the universe after creating it and certainly doesn't give a good hoot about us, ordinary theists who believe that there is a god, and He might even mess with us from time to time, and then there are the tried and true believers who are as convinced that there IS a God, and once more, God agrees with them and nothing will convince them otherwise.

It looks like a completed circle to me.

All I ask is that the atheist/ignostic/agnostic/theist involved figure out where on the spectrum s/he lies, and stop, when someone makes a point about where s/he is on THAT level, pretend that everybody is somewhere else.

My point is simple. I haven't ever spoken/debated with an atheist who did not end up letting me know that God appearing to him/her would not convince him/her of deity's existence, because the atheist involved would not be able to accept that evidence AS a personal appearance by God.

Why?

Because God doesn't exist. Therefore He can't appear, and any apparent appearance must be due to something else.

 

[dianaiad]

Perhaps your post was badly worded, ever considered that aspect?

or badly read. Either way, I hope this clarifies things.

Yes you believe despite the lack of evidence, that is faith. I an the other hand consider the lack of evidence (as well as the contrary evidence) to be very telling.

No. I believe based upon evidence that I find compelling. It's not scientific, objective evidence, but it is evidence. I accept it. That's not faith. FAITH is when one trusts ones beliefs, and acts accordingly.

As for the agnostic definition i quoted. You negative view of the standard, accepted, dictionary definition does explain much. Definitions are there to aid understanding. Not to change to suit sensibilities.

What 'negative view?'

I just think that the one you chose is closer to ignostic than agnostic, and dictionaries disagree with each other on this issue.

I don't have a problem with it, either way.

 

[ChristineM]

or badly read. Either way, I hope this clarifies things.



No. I believe based upon evidence that I find compelling. It's not scientific, objective evidence, but it is evidence. I accept it. That's not faith. FAITH is when one trusts ones beliefs, and acts accordingly.



What 'negative view?'

I just think that the one you chose is closer to ignostic than agnostic, and dictionaries disagree with each other on this issue.

I don't have a problem with it, either way.

Yes it clarified your poor use of language

You must have a very low threshold of evidence.

The one i chose is the accepted dictionary definition, you dont like it speak to the OED et al

 

[dianaiad]

Yes it clarified your poor use of language

You must have a very low threshold of evidence.

The one i chose is the accepted dictionary definition, you dont like it speak to the OED et al

Y'know, Christine, just because I use DIFFERENT evidence doesn't mean I have a LOW LEVEL of evidence.

Nor have I personally insulted you. Why are you going all ad hominem on me?

 

[Segev Moran]

I shouldn't blow my own horn.

Indeed you shouldn't.

but I've recently bought a lady her groceries, and I've given out more than 50% of my income this month,

Yet you did
But it is amazing. i wish many could afford and willing to that.
I hope you can afford doing that!

granted some of those people promise to pay me back.

What people? If i were you, i wouldn't give charity to someone expecting to get it back. sounds... well... you know...

No, I do not know what God's will is. If I heard clear messages I would try my best to obey.

There are clear messages, so all you have to do is make sure your best is really your best

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Don't be silly.

'atheism - theism' isn't a dichotomy, with 'agnosticism' in the middle. It's a continuum, with something like 'strong' atheism on one end, and adamant theism on the other, and quite frankly, when one is looking at those two positions, they are really the SAME position; adamant conviction of a religious point of view regarding the existence of deity that is not, because it cannot be, based upon objective evidence.

One believes strongly that there is a God...so strongly that nothing could convince one that there isn't, OR...one believes strongly, so strongly that no possible evidence could convince one otherwise, that there isn't

Both positions are based upon unsubstantiated, non-objective beliefs. "Faith,' so to speak, and neither position is amenable to logic or argument..

Re-read what I wrote, instead of what you THOUGHT I wrote. Seriously-- you could not be farther from what I said there..... !

As for your claim that strong atheists are no different from theists? And not based in logic?

Well... you would be wrong again.

It all boils down to what is meant by the word "god".

Until that silly place-holder is actually defined? You really cannot say at what level the atheist is, with respect to rejection of the particular god-definition.

This is because "god" is a meaningless word, without context.

Moreover? The more the word is defined? The easier it is to prove a myth...

 

[dianaiad]

Re-read what I wrote, instead of what you THOUGHT I wrote. Seriously-- you could not be farther from what I said there..... !

As for your claim that strong atheists are no different from theists? And not based in logic?

Learn to read. I did not compare strong atheists to the set 'all theists.'

I compared the two extreme ends of that continuum of belief to one another.

When you have it figured out what the words actually said, get back to me. Hopefully without snark.

 

[stvdv]

Jehovah’s witnesses will say, pray to God for understanding and read the Bible and you will be enlightened to understand his word
I asked God for understanding and no more confusion

Below youtube I like.
Tells very clear (1m30s-2m00s) how to hear "what mother earth wants to tell us".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Learn to read. I did not compare strong atheists to the set 'all theists.'

I compared the two extreme ends of that continuum of belief to one another.

When you have it figured out what the words actually said, get back to me. Hopefully without snark.

Oh, I understood your little tirade. It was absolutely false, of course.

Extreme atheists are not like extreme theists-- principally because as a group, atheists do not try to burn non-atheists at the stake... or worse...

Moreover? Atheism has logical arguments in support, whereas theism *must* begin with an article of FAITH.

Finally? Unless a god is defined? It's pretty much a given: It's not-existent. By default.

Once gods get defined? It's usually pretty easy to reduce them to myth too-- just using the definitions.

The definitions let humans test these gods, you see-- and they always fail.

So far. Ain't that cute?

 

[ChristineM]

Y'know, Christine, just because I use DIFFERENT evidence doesn't mean I have a LOW LEVEL of evidence.

Nor have I personally insulted you. Why are you going all ad hominem on me?

When you use second hand hearsay and mythological narrative as evidence then i rest my case.

I am not going anything, i am simply pointing out the actual, accepted definition of agnostic. If you choose to ignore that definition and make up your own it is not difficult to understand why there is a breakdown in communication.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, I understood your little tirade. It was absolutely false, of course.

Extreme atheists are not like extreme theists-- principally because as a group, atheists do not try to burn non-atheists at the stake... or worse...

these atheists...the ones on the extreme end of the spectrum to which I refer?

Have been responsible for more deaths in the twentieth century than religious nut cases have managed to pull off in the last two thousand years.

I am NOT calling all atheists 'extreme.' I am not comparing those extreme anti-theist/atheists to the set 'all theists.'

 

[dianaiad]

When you use second hand hearsay and mythological narrative as evidence then i rest my case.

Since I am not using anything to attempt to convince YOU of anything, your opinion of the type of evidence I use is not only irrelevant, but insulting.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

these atheists...the ones on the extreme end of the spectrum to which I refer?

Have been responsible for more deaths in the twentieth century than religious nut cases have managed to pull off in the last two thousand years.

I am NOT calling all atheists 'extreme.' I am not comparing those extreme anti-theist/atheists to the set 'all theists.'

Riiight. I bet you are referring to Hitler's Nazis? Or Stalin's troops? Or perhaps Mao?

Got some bad news for ya. None of those were atheists.

Worse: None, regardless of their beliefs, did anything in the name OF atheism.

This is in direct contrast to all the wars fought because one side didn't like how god was described by the opposite side...

No, Theists continue to hold the World Record for numbers of dead, because one side could not agree with the other side, with regards to what happens when a person's throat was cut...

.... so they each set about cutting the other's throats...

.... perhaps in a macabre attempt to find out what DID happen?

No?

Well... there you go!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Y'know, Christine, just because I use DIFFERENT evidence doesn't mean I have a LOW LEVEL of evidence.

Nor have I personally insulted you. Why are you going all ad hominem on me?

You keep using the word "evidence". I don't think the word means what you think it means...

 

[ChristineM]

Since I am not using anything to attempt to convince YOU of anything, your opinion of the type of evidence I use is not only irrelevant, but insulting.

You think? I would say it were factual.

But your misrepresentation of the definition of agnostic does fit the bill of insulting.

 

[ChristineM]

these atheists...the ones on the extreme end of the spectrum to which I refer?

Have been responsible for more deaths in the twentieth century than religious nut cases have managed to pull off in the last two thousand years.

I am NOT calling all atheists 'extreme.' I am not comparing those extreme anti-theist/atheists to the set 'all theists.'

Both Hitler and Stalin were Christian. Mao and Pol pot Buddhists with pol pot having a catholic schooling. Only Mao renounced his faith. Hitler firmly believed believed he did what he did in the name of god.

Or perhaps you meant different atheists that no one knows about?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Both Hitler and Stalin were Christian. Mao and Pol pot Buddhists with pol pot having a catholic schooling. Only Mao renounced his faith. Hitler firmly believed believed he did what he did in the name of god.

Or perhaps you meant different atheists that no one knows about?

Mao also thought the ghosts of his dead ancestors would guide his actions...

... if that was true? That's some mighty evil ancestors, that's what that was.

But not an atheist, per say... what with atheists rather rejecting claims with elements of supernatural woo written in...

That puts Mao firmly in the "theist" camp too.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Both Hitler and Stalin were Christian. Mao and Pol pot Buddhists with pol pot having a catholic schooling. Only Mao renounced his faith. Hitler firmly believed believed he did what he did in the name of god.

Or perhaps you meant different atheists that no one knows about?

Indeed. I did note how carefully the names were left out of his post.

How..... Convenient. He has no need to defend his claim about an un-named "atheist" that way.

Maybe he was referring to the Space Battle of 2017, where the earth was invaded by Small Green Creatures from Alpha Centuri?

No? Maybe it was this: