Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[leibowde84]

de84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.



Dear readers here, I have been telling leibowde84 that the argument has two parts:

Part 1. The enunciation of the concept of God in our mind, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Part 2. The expedition we all including and specially all my opponents starting with leibowde84 will undertake into the world outside our mind, to search for all instances of things with a beginning, because they make up evidence to the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God we have in our mind, namely, God [in concept] is the creator of everything with a beginning.

That is why I ask readers and posters here, Perhaps leibowde84 is a robot badly invented by his creator with not going out into the expedition to search for all instances of things outside his CPU, everything with a beginning, which are then evidence of the existence of God in concept in its CPU as creator of everything with a beginning.

I can accept that there are certain things in the universe that have beginnings. But, I do not accept that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. That is because there are things like noses, faces, flowers, strawberries, etc. that are not created by God, but, instead, come about naturally.

So, I ask again. What evidence do you have that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Convince me that I should accept this claim as true. Or, admit that you cannot provide any evidence supporting this claim.

 

[siti]

Ye Gods! @Sanmario is right - they found a yeti in a G-string - in the Australian outback (where else?) here's proof:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Dear readers and posters here and dear leibowde84, I also ask for the link, not only the complete text purportedly from you that it came from me as you reproduced it.

Sorry, but let me be quite clear -- I will not be commanded by you to go and spend hours of my time searching through your posts in order to provide a link.

In any case, you have (even you must admit it) latched on to a simple typo (I typed "it" instead of "is," which if you've read my posts you know already is not the kind of grammatical error I would make). You have said, many times (too many times) in this one thread, "Let us agree that God is in concept the creator of everything with a beginning." You have also included "and sustainer," some of those. If you want to know where you made those quotes, go look them up for yourself. I haven't got the time.

Nor the interest.

 

[siti]

I am certain you all read the same masters of deceits and peddlers of lies.

Would you care to name these "masters of deceits and peddlers of lies" that you are "certain" we are all reading from?

 

[leibowde84]

@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.



Dear leibowde84, you say that "Nothing created DNA."

I ask you to prove it, "Nothing created DNA."

What you do is not any proof that "Nothing created DNA."

You are saying that nature includes also the process by which DNA comes into existence, but you know that nature is not nothing.

That is a lot of hand-waving, but no proof that "Nothing created DNA."

Now, my next question to you is Who created nature?

What do you mean by nature? Is the following an OK definition?
na·ture
ˈnāCHər/
noun

1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

If so, we know that nature developed over billions of years on earth via natural processes.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I am a theist, and I love to talk with atheists on the issue of God exists or not.

Is it possible to talk with them, and I am not into converting them to accept the existence of God, but just to get to learn from them to think better, on the issue God exists or not.

To learn from them as to think better, am I lying?

No, I am not lying, I really want to see how they think as to themselves come to their position that there is no God; in that way I can and will get to be a better thinker, from knowing how others think who do not share my position of God existing.

It is like that I eat meat and vegetable, but there are folks who are vegetarians, so by talking with them on how to eat better, I can and will learn to adopt a better diet.


So, let me see if any atheists will talk with me.

Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm used to being around theists and I'm comfortable chatting about many religious topics. I don't outright reject God but I can't believe in Him either. I think that the existence of any god is unknowable and therefore plausible regardless of belief. If you want to chat more or ask me questions I'm okay with that. I respect that your desire to learn from interacting with us.

 

[David T]

This all breaks down on both sides that the topic GOD and NATURE are believed to be clearly understood by both sides of the coin in their own minds. Both totally agree is a car engine just on side has a designer the other believes it's a magical perpetual motion machine obeying laws like a good subservient woman is suppose to. Neither side seems to inclined to listen to nature and is really just inclined to talk about nature. That is DANGEROUSLY ARROGANT the anthropocene epoch is proof.



I see no evidence that either side understands either topic!!!! Either the topic they are supposed to be an expert in, nor the topic they seem to be in opposition to. I do not mean that specifically here I mean that in a very broad general way. And if the show fits wear it!!! This problem requires more than a conversation than exists just ones own head. Science most certainly just as guilty as religion on that aspect alone, and both tend to gather here in a mutual hugging of some wierd sorts..

What's wierd is this exact conversation has been going on and on and on unresolved by a giant pack of famous goofballs. So a bunch of not famous goofballs on religious forum won't resolve it! Beer we need more beer and music. *.

 

[siti]

nature is for me another name of God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

So you're a pantheist - Deus sive Natura.

 

[columbus]

Okay, dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read the reactions of siti, leibowde84, columbus, icehorse, and all my opponents here.

Stop tagging me in your posts.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

@Sanmario

Please stop tagging me in your posts, thanks. (The reason I'm asking is because I have spent time answering your questions, and asking you to clarify yourself, and those requests have been ignored by you. So it's clear that you're not really wanting a discussion.)

 

[columbus]

Stop tagging me in your posts.
Tom

Apparently the reason that @Sanmario can't talk with atheists is reading comprehension.

At least that is one reason.
Tom

 

[Nous]

@SabahTheLoner
@columbus
@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.

I get included in the group of people "who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusions"? Thank you. (Few other people here would agree.)

 

[columbus]

Dear readers here, columbus is also one pompous self-wannabe referee here, but he lapped from the same masters of deceits and peddlers of lies, as with all my opponents here, including one Evangelicalhumanist.

You are such a brilliant conversationalist. I just don't know what else to say.

So I won't say anything.
Tom

 

[columbus]

@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.

Which part of

Stop tagging me in your posts.
Tom

do you find impossible to understand?
Tom

 

[siti]

I get included in the group of people "who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusions"? Thank you.

Don't get too excited...I got included in the same list and then I got this...

Now, I see you siti to be a nothing-ist vacuous inane arse.

...which I presume is @Sanmario's latest attempt at a philosophical defense of his 'proof of God's existence - (or maybe evidence of his Christian ethics perhaps?)

1. I say God exists as the creator of everything that has a beginning
2. Siti disagrees
3. Siti is an nothing-ist vacuous inane arse
Therefore God exists
QED

To which my considered philosophical response is:

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

genuine knowledge

Let me try this:
If there were no atheists, we would have no need for talking.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

reasoning

Please stop including me in this.
I don't think its a constructive conversation.
You seem to be motivated from a need to dominate, rather than teach.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

@SabahTheLoner
@columbus
@crawfeather one
@icehorse
@dgirl1986 Big Queer Chesticles!
@siti
@leibowde84
@Evangelicalhumanist
@Relinquish
@Nous
@Jonathan Ainsley Bain
@The Transcended Omniverse
@SpiritQuest
@fantome profane
@Augustus
@David T
@godnotgod
@MD
@Musing Bassist
@Lucida Sidera
@Carlita
@PopeADope
@shunyadragon
@bobhikes
@Rex
@ALL who use reason to examine observation and thus arrive at intelligent conclusion.






Thanks for your input, appreciate it most sincerely.

I am also a Christian mystic, but I pursue a diy Christian mysticism: my mystical life is in the midst of the city, in the midst of folks, in the malls, in business centers, in the parks, everywhere.

What about a life of solitude? Been there, done that, now I am all in God anywhere anytime and all the time in all places.

I live in Africa, where I am trying to teach people that their poverty arises from overpopulation.
I realize that we sometimes reflect the anger of others back at them. And I guess it does help sometimes.
But I found siti to be one of the easier people to talk to, and you two were getting in quite a mudslinging drama there.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Sanmario would you please stop "mentioning" me in every post. It's quite irritating, really. I've lost interest in whatever it is you think you're saying.

 

[siti]

Dear siti, I like to read again your thought on how unchangeableness cannot become changeableness, therefore the universe has no beginning, something like that; because the way I see it, it is pure 100% arse and fart standard already with what is in your brain which is what you take to be your arse exuding foul fart.

Seriously, as you are so conversant with that unchangeableness to changeableness thought whatever, please for the information of readers here, repeat the whole thought from your arse I mean your brain.

I'm not going to repeat it - pointless repetition is your speciality - I couldn't hope to compete with you on that front. I believe it was in post #480 if anyone is bored enough to look for it.

I will give you a hand, keep in mind that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, and there is a transcendental division of existence into permanent existence and transient existence.

What on earth is a "transcendental division of existence into permanent existence and transient existence"? And what is your evidence for drawing such a bovine excretory conclusion? At least mine came (in your opinion at least) from my own rear end!