If it could be proved no god exists

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would have preferred a better description - God fearing MJFlores.

as the Bible says:

1 Corinthians 8:5-7 New International Version (NIV)
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

Hearsay yet again. And you're right - I don't possess this knowledge because I feel unable to possess it. There is not warrant to believe that I have attained this knowledge simply because YOU told me, or a "God" of questionable reality supposedly inspired someone to write it down in a book. Hearsay the lot of it. That's all you have, and I am of the opinion that you should admit that to yourself.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hate much?

Was I even talking to you?

Anyway, the whole post was me explaining how your post was just wandering all over the known universe, from one subject to the next, and if it wasn't all tied to "atheism" (which you started out with) then I don't know what in the world you thought you were doing. It is an honest critique, and sure, it has some vitriol dripping from it - I freely admit it - because why just let you get away with it?

Did you read the paragraph at the end, where I wrote up a description mirroring your own, but about theists? What did you think of that? Did it sound like a nice, kind, well-intentioned treatment of the subject matter? No? Weird... I could have sworn that's what YOU thought you were going for when you originally wrote about atheists... and all I did was try to mimic you. Strange that it just ends up sounding really bigoted and prejudicial ISN'T IT?

 

[ecco]

ecco:
Where did you get your information that anyone who believed in this theory was driven out of academies, lost tenure or had their careers destroyed?

It actually came from a Readers Digest article back in the late '60's.
I take it as factual.

Seriously? That's your level of separating fact from fiction? I'm not surprised.


ETA: that article or whatever was written 20 years before you were even born. What do you do? Do you implant a thought in your head and then go looking through old magazines looking for something to agree with your foregone conclusion?

Lots of new science can be a career destroying - it's just that
plate tectonics was likely the biggest career destroyer that I know
of in my life time.

But you still haven't shown whose careers were destroyed. All you have is vague memory from a non-scientific magazine from a half-century ago.

As far as "new science can be career destroying", give some examples. Stop parroting AIG. Think for yourself.

 

[ecco]

The theory postulates that nuggets of strange matter would punch right through the
earth. This matter is attracted to gravity so would spiral inwards to the earth's core.
We don't know - but the maths looks good to show its possible. And in science, as
they say, "If it's possible then its compulsory."

What theory? Are you referring to neutrinos? Please stop making silly assertions without providing any information on what you're talking about.

 

[ecco]

The theory postulates that nuggets of strange matter would punch right through the
earth. This matter is attracted to gravity so would spiral inwards to the earth's core.
We don't know - but the maths looks good to show its possible. And in science, as
they say, "If it's possible then its compulsory."

The pre-death comes from people like Peter Fenwick. His research is quite
scientific. He studied the experiences of many people facing death. Not only the
people dying but those who cared for them.

And...?

 

[ecco]

A theist only needs to believe in one god. To be an atheist, you con't believe in any. So, you're wrong. I'm not an atheist in any sense of the word.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.​

You lack belief in the existence of many gods.

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
​

You lack belief in the existence of supreme beings.

If you were born in India you would be convinced that the Christian god is a figment of man's imagination.
If you were born in Iraq you would be convinced that the Christian god is a figment of man's imagination.

 

[ecco]

Oh for crying out loud. Excuse me while I stop laughing. The very last thing Baha’u’llah was was self-serving. What do you think He got for Himself besides imprisonment, exile and banishment for 40 years as well as many attempts on His life?

If you feel the need to laugh, you must ignore history.
He got what many men aspire to - his name in the book of history. Why did David Koresh do what he did? Why did Joseph Smith do what he did? Why did Jim Jones do what he did? All were self-serving.

 

[ecco]

I know we covered this before but apparently you need a reminder. Of course, everything He says in these passages can be verified by what He did on His mission:

Since we've covered this before, you should remember that I no longer bother to read Bahai writings.

Those writings are less coherent than the last of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver books.


ETA: I did read one sentence:

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit?​

He says he is just a humble servant and you believe him. How naive.

 

[ecco]

Every religious text I've read defines God has being transcendent as well as being imminent. For an atheist to accept the existence of God, there is a presupposition God MUST be a certain way. And that way is like an "object" with boundaries. So for an atheist, they have a preexisting definition of God most theists do not use. Yet, the very essence of atheism is supposedly the simple idea of not having any belief in God or gods. What I have found is many atheists who are supposed to not having any belief in God have very STRONG opinions on what experiencing God in reality as evidence would be like.

WhattaLottaBovineExcrement. Here we have another theist pretending to understand atheists and building strawman arguments to tilt at.

For an atheist to accept the existence of God, there is a presupposition God MUST be a certain way.

What does that even mean? Why would an atheist accept any god regardless of the way the god exists? Where did you get such a silly notion?

What I have found is many atheists who are supposed to not having any belief in God have very STRONG opinions on what experiencing God in reality as evidence would be like.

Found where? Who are these atheists? There are many on these forums. Can you quote any of them saying they have "very STRONG opinions on what experiencing God in reality as evidence would be like"?
Even though I have seen it many times, I still get amazed at the nonsense theists have to convince themselves of regarding atheists.

So for an atheist, they have a preexisting definition of God most theists do not use.

More ignorant nonsense. I don't have any "preexisting definition of God".
However, if I am in a discussion with a Christian, I try to get an understanding of their concepts of their god. It would make no sense to discuss the shortcoming of Viracocha when discussing a creation story.

It likewise makes no sense to discuss the ridiculousness of The Flood with a Hindu.

It likewise makes no sense to discuss the ridiculousness of The Flood with a Christian who reads Genesis as allegory.


The next time you want to talk about atheists, try finding some of their actual comments to quote to support your arguments. Good luck.

 

[Katzpur]

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.​

You lack belief in the existence of many gods.

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
​

You lack belief in the existence of supreme beings.

If you were born in India you would be convinced that the Christian god is a figment of man's imagination.
If you were born in Iraq you would be convinced that the Christian god is a figment of man's imagination.

Whatever. That is the lamest argument I've ever heard in my life. So call me an atheist if it makes you happy.

 

[Audie]

ecco:
Where did you get your information that anyone who believed in this theory was driven out of academies, lost tenure or had their careers destroyed?



Seriously? That's your level of separating fact from fiction? I'm not surprised.


ETA: that article or whatever was written 20 years before you were even born. What do you do? Do you implant a thought in your head and then go looking through old magazines looking for something to agree with your foregone conclusion?




But you still haven't shown whose careers were destroyed. All you have is vague memory from a non-scientific magazine from a half-century ago.

As far as "new science can be career destroying", give some examples. Stop parroting AIG. Think for yourself.

Career-destroying. These creos come up with some of
the weirdest things.

 

[Audie]

WhattaLottaBovineExcrement. Here we have another theist pretending to understand atheists and building strawman arguments to tilt at.



What does that even mean? Why would an atheist accept any god regardless of the way the god exists? Where did you get such a silly notion?

More ignorant nonsense. I don't have any "preexisting definition of God".
However, if I am in a discussion with a Christian, I try to get an understanding of their concepts of their god. It would make no sense to discuss the shortcoming of Viracocha when discussing a creation story.

It likewise makes no sense to discuss the ridiculousness of The Flood with a Hindu.

It likewise makes no sense to discuss the ridiculousness of The Flood with a Christian who reads Genesis as allegory.


The next time you want to talk about atheists, try finding some of their actual comments to quote to support your arguments. Good luck.

In bold I think illustrates an idea I have, about why
so many theos seem incapable of comprehending
atheism, and keep making things up about us

Note for example, the "pre existing definition".


Anyway, it appears to me that "god" is so central
to their whole construct of reality, that they can no
more grasp how anyone could not incorporate
"god" in some form, than a engineer is going to
see how you plan to build an airplane with no wings.

Every aircraft uses some sort of wings. Everybody
believes in something. Atheists just deny it.

You know the drill.

 

[ecco]

Whatever. That is the lamest argument I've ever heard in my life. So call me an atheist if it makes you happy.

I didn't call you an atheist. You believe in a god, so you are not an atheist.

I said you are atheistic toward all but one god. It's too bad that you have a problem understanding this basic concept.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Whatever. That is the lamest argument I've ever heard in my life. So call me an atheist if it makes you happy.

The basic gist of the point is that YOU are a nonbeliever of many, many gods that have been (or are currently being) believed by others. Therefore it should come as absolutely no surprise to you that there are people like me who eschew and do not believe in any gods at all. After all... you only believe in one, and disbelieve thousands. I simply disbelieve those same thousands... plus the one that you believe in.

 

[MJFlores]

Hearsay yet again. And you're right - I don't possess this knowledge because I feel unable to possess it. There is not warrant to believe that I have attained this knowledge simply because YOU told me, or a "God" of questionable reality supposedly inspired someone to write it down in a book. Hearsay the lot of it. That's all you have, and I am of the opinion that you should admit that to yourself.

If you are reading from a book it is hearsay?

noun: hearsay
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Then all you read in school are hearsay or everything you read are hearsay!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My theology doesn't have that idea, so it's a false equivalent to 'atheism'.

The English is interpreted in the way of a traditional belief, the english Bible just happens to use wording like that.

My belief is one Main God, with more than one form.

•••

Atheism????? I was talking about the Jewish response, not the Atheist response. Can you please, for the last time, respond to what *I* said?

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism????? I was talking about the Jewish response, not the Atheist response. Can you please, for the last time, respond to what *I* said?

I didn't know that that would be the Jewish response. What you wrote isn't really what one would derive using the Hebrew correlation, Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

The basic gist of the point is that YOU are a nonbeliever of many, many gods that have been (or are currently being) believed by others. Therefore it should come as absolutely no surprise to you that there are people like me who eschew and do not believe in any gods at all. After all... you only believe in one, and disbelieve thousands. I simply disbelieve those same thousands... plus the one that you believe in.

What on earth makes you think it does come as a surprise to me?

 

[Katzpur]

I didn't call you an atheist. You believe in a god, so you are not an atheist.

I said you are atheistic toward all but one god. It's too bad that you have a problem understanding this basic concept.

You may not have said, "You are an atheist," but you did post the following definition of the word, "atheist":

a·the·ist...noun...a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

You then said the following:

You lack belief in the existence of many gods.

This implies that I fit the definition and am therefore an atheist. The whole discussion between us is nonsense. You're an atheist; I'm a theist. For crying out loud, what are we even arguing the point for?

 

[Katzpur]

Denial is self-serving and powerful. There is no "beyond any shadow of doubt" for the willfully blind and those who model the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Wow! I'd never even heard of that before, @Jayhawker Soule. Thanks for the interesting link.