The Folly of Atheism

[ratiocinator]

There is no objective, verifiable evidence that God exists.
There is another kind, Messengers of God.

That's the basic contradiction then. If there is no objective way to test the notion that this god of yours exists, yet it will still judge people for not believing in it, then it can't be just and fair...

 

[tas8831]

Ah, the Definition Nazis have arrived!

Dismissal by definition? Ignorance by decree? Pretended secret insight as to what some term 'really means!'?

..can't have a forum discussion without them!

Can't really have an informed discussion when you don;t understand what the words mean, or have idiosyncratic ideas regarding what words mean.

LIke the word "haplogroup". You thought you knew what that word meant, and you even condescendingly used it in an "argument" - your your definition was laughably inept.
The,k Trump-like, upon being informed what a "haplogroup" actually is, you ignored it and whined about 'hecklers.'

Pomposity is not a trait to be proud of.

 

[ArtieE]

There is no objective, verifiable evidence that God exists.
There is another kind, Messengers of God.

"While these are among the Manifestations mentioned in the Bahá'í writings, there are others mentioned by name in Bahá'u'lláh's writings and he indicates that there are many more prophets than are named."
BBC - Religions - Bahai: God's prophets
"The writings associated with these prophets are the means through which an individual can get a deeper knowledge of God."
Isn't that a bit difficult when these "messengers" can't agree among themselves who this god is? The Christians and the Muslims can't even agree whether he had a son or not...

 

[ArtieE]

Can't really have an informed discussion when you don;t understand what the words mean, or have idiosyncratic ideas regarding what words mean.

LIke the word "haplogroup". You thought you knew what that word meant, and you even condescendingly used it in an "argument" - your your definition was laughably inept.
The,k Trump-like, upon being informed what a "haplogroup" actually is, you ignored it and whined about 'hecklers.'

Pomposity is not a trait to be proud of.

Remember you are addressing a person who denies there are agnostic atheists even though there's an entry for them in Wikipedia.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia Maybe there's some sort of denial of reality going on here?

 

[tas8831]

Remember you are addressing a person who denies there are agnostic atheists even though there's an entry for them in Wikipedia.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia Maybe there's some sort of denial of reality going on here?

Yeah, he denies lots of things.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is history that Napoleon III fell from power in1870.
It is history that WWI and WWII came to pass.

It's also NOT HISTORY that your "special favorite" accurately predicted any of that.

Guessing, and using very easy to twist the meaning of, silly stories? Isn't actual prediction...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your obfuscation does nothing for your credibility.
There were no failed prophecies. Everything Baha'u'llah predicted came to pass.
If you can refute that you will have a case. Otherwise you have no case.
Have fun.

Keep on pushing that false narrative. Every time you attempt to show there WERE "accurate prophecies"? You are shown how wrong that interpretation actually is.

You make our case every time...

 

[PureX]

So people don't actually believe in God then they just believe in their own fantasy version of what they believe he should be?

And likewise for those who "believe" there are no gods unless it can be proven otherwise. Their "fantasy" is that they would be able to recognize and validate proof if it were forthcoming.

 

[PureX]

How many? Quote statistics.

Irrelevant even if they existed, because atheists lie about what they 'unbelieve'.

 

[PureX]

I don't actually believe that you would not "disbelieve" those claims. There is no question of the context - they are statements about the real (intersubjective) world - if the "context" is anything else, they would be false statements.

I have no idea what you mean by "intersubjective". (I assume you mean 'relative', which is then automatically subjective, i.e., subject to relationship). Which is why I said I would seek context, not "verifiable evidence". But I am not a materialist. I do not presume ideological objectivity to be anything more than one conceptual tool among several that we humans have available to us or ascertaining the "truth" of existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Irrelevant even if they existed, because atheists lie about what they 'unbelieve'.

Which atheists, and how do you know they are lying?

Also, just to be clear, you wouldn't disbelieve me if I said I had an invisible pet dragon (#1123) but you're absolutely certain that these atheists of which you speak, are lying about what they "unbelieve"......

 

[PureX]

You also just believe in your own version of God. It hasn't been established that there is a god at all, so all people do is make up their own version and believe in that.

Exactly: it's an act of faith, and of hope, not of presumed knowledge. So why are atheists constantly asking theists for "objective evidence"? Theism is based on the LACK of such evidence. It is a way of taking advantage of the unknown, and using it as a means of help rather than as a hindrance.

 

[PureX]

Which atheists, and how do you know they are lying?

What do you care, if it's not you? Or is it?

Also, just to be clear, you wouldn't disbelieve me if I said I had an invisible pet dragon...

No, I wouldn't. Because I would not assume to know what you meant by "have". I am not a materialist, so I am able to recognize that to "have" does not necessarily require physicality. Which is why I would seek to understand the context of that term, and not incredulously demand "objective evidence".

... but you're absolutely certain that these atheists of which you speak, are lying about what they "unbelieve"......

No one said anything about anyone being "absolutely certain" of anything. And again, I can't see how what I think atheists think would matter to you unless YOU are one of the atheists I'm referring to. In which case, you seem to be exemplifying my point.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes, science is of limited usefulness, I will give you that.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Good grief... I'm not going to go into the difference between OBJECTIVE reality and SUBJECTIVE reality AGAIN.

Go ahead and respond to the post in which I did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Remember you are addressing a person who denies there are agnostic atheists even though there's an entry for them in Wikipedia.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia Maybe there's some sort of denial of reality going on here?

No, I don't deny that. Now

Good grief... I'm not going to go into the difference between OBJECTIVE reality and SUBJECTIVE reality AGAIN.

Go ahead and respond to the post in which I did.

I have corrected my answer. It had an formatting error. It is on page 56.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, I don't deny that. Now


I have corrected my answer. It had an formatting error. It is on page 56.

Still waiting for your reply to my post #1115

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still waiting for your reply to my post #1115

Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still waiting for your reply to my post #1115

Here you go:
The Folly of Atheism

 

[Trailblazer]

You also just believe in your own version of God. It hasn't been established that there is a god at all, so all people do is make up their own version and believe in that.

I did not make it up. It was revealed by Baha’u’llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 33:17-23 - King James Version
If this god does the same thing to any reputable scientific institution he won't be hard to prove to exist.

Why do you think that God should show Himself to you?
God only reveals Himself to His chosen Messengers, those such as Moses.
How much of God Moses ever saw we cannot ever know, as much of what is in the Bible is allegorical.
Exodus 33:23 is obviously allegorical because God does not have any “back parts.”