The Folly of Atheism

[Left Coast]

Who gave us the gift of life ?

Our parents?

You assume that the origin of all life requires a "who" to "give" it. Which is the whole point that you need to demonstrate.

 

[Catholicus]

That's just silly - if you're playing hide and seek, the whole point is you don't tell everyone where you're hiding.

It isn't a game ! - God COULD prove His existence to us; but in doing so would rob us of our supreme freedom; to believe or not to believe.

 

[Catholicus]

"I dunno" is the only valid position when you actually do not know. You can't just make stuff up to fill holes in your knowledge if you don't have evidence.

And Jesus needs to dial down his massive ego if he thinks that people that don't believe he exists are automatically "against" him.

But in the case of God's existing, you could know He exists if you WANTED to ! And you DO know that Jesus exists !

If Jesus had a massive ego, He wouldn't have died a terrible and humiliating death on the cross to save each of us from Hell.

 

[ArtieE]

It isn't a game ! - God COULD prove His existence to us; but in doing so would rob us of our supreme freedom; to believe or not to believe.

He didn't have any problems revealing his backparts to us...? Exodus 33:23 Then I will take My hand away, and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen."

 

[Catholicus]

Our parents?

You assume that the origin of all life requires a "who" to "give" it. Which is the whole point that you need to demonstrate.

Well, yes the question does require a "who." Life doesn't exist by chance.

To pretend otherwise is to choose to dodge the issue.

 

[JJ50]

But in the case of God's existing, you could know He exists if you WANTED to ! And you DO know that Jesus exists !

If Jesus had a massive ego, He wouldn't have died a terrible and humiliating death on the cross to save each of us from Hell.

He died because he was a pain in the neck where the Jewish hierarchy were concerned and for no other reason, imo.

 

[ArtieE]

But in the case of God's existing, you could know He exists if you WANTED to ! And you DO know that Jesus exists !

If Jesus had a massive ego, He wouldn't have died a terrible and humiliating death on the cross to save each of us from Hell.

He died? Isn't he supposed to be still alive?

 

[Catholicus]

It's just a simple you can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

There's nothing fallacious about being straightforward.

It is when you're being dishonest - the fact that you exist proves that God does.

 

[Catholicus]

He died because he was a pain in the neck where the Jewish hierarchy were concerned and for no other reason, imo.

No - Jesus chose to go to Jerusalem that Passover, knowing that death awaited Him there.

It's called "self-sacrifice."

 

[Catholicus]

A person who is a Gnostic, doesn't have to associate with any group of people or any religion. It is a knowledge that transcends religion(s), it's the point of a Gnostic.

Whether someone follows a form of GnosticISM is a different topic entirely.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

You meant "Strong Atheist" and that's the point I'll end on

Such knowledge does not, in fact, exist.

 

[Catholicus]

If the author of the universe cared what we thought about Him I'm sure He could make his presence clear to us.

Thus COMPELLING us to believe.

But God is a libertarian, not a dictator.

 

[Catholicus]

Ignorance of mechanism is not evidence for magic. Complexity is not evidence of intentional design.
We said no such thing. We reserve judgement pending evidence, just as we do for unicorns, faeries and Bigfoot.
Where do you come up with these absurd conclusions? We follow the evidence, whether we like it or not. So far, we've seen no evidence for any unnatural phenomena.
We don't "want" any particular outcome, we just want the truth, and following the evidence is the most reasonable way to discern it. If convincing evidence for God emerges, He would simply take His place as another "natural" phenomenon.
How are you defining "full blown atheist?"
There are various flavors of atheist, usually distinguished with qualifiers like "weak" or "strong," With no qualifier, "atheism" is reduced to its lowest common denominator; to the single, definitive feature common to all varieties: lack of belief.
But this is unevidenced mythology. You're positing God as an axiomatic major premise. You can't use the conclusion as a premise supporting that conclusion.
"Recorded in a book" is not evidence. The Bible is one of many books of religion and mythology, and it isn't the oldest. What makes it authoritative?

So who or what DID create nature, the universe ?

 

[ArtieE]

Well, yes the question does require a "who." Life doesn't exist by chance.

To pretend otherwise is to choose to dodge the issue.

Your life exists by chance. Or do you claim you were personally created by a god? What Are The Odds of You Existing At All?

 

[Catholicus]

LOOK! We found yet ANOTHER thing that your god CANNOT DO!

So-- Gross Incompetence it IS. Your god is so weak, so full of itself, it cannot dial anything back.

Lame.



Special Favorites is Grossly Unfair. More Incompetence.


We can perceive Harry Potter without seeing him.

We can perceive Spiderman without seeing him.

We can perceive Santa Claus without seeing him.

Hmmmmm...... Imaginary Creatures are like that.

Because Harry Potter etc are phantasms, like us. We created them, as God has created us.

Whereas God is Real.

 

[ArtieE]

So who or what DID create nature, the universe ?

A random quantum fluctuation. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

 

[blü 2]

Well, I can - the universe; proof of God's existence except to those who are wilfully blind.

Let's not trade insults.

You seem to be worshipping our five senses (as enhanced by scientific instruments) - which is an idolatrous worship of the human brain.

That also sounds like a cheap shot; in fact I don't worship anything.

Please don't say: if we and science can't perceive something, it doesn't exist. That IS stupid - and arrogant.

But as I've told you, that's not what I'm saying.

Instead I'm saying that while imaginary gods are not problem, they're anything we want them to be, I authentically have no idea what a real god might be ─ and therefore I need you to tell me so that I'll know. Is my neighhbor, my keyboard, the air temperature, God? Or not? What real characteristics does God have that will allow me to distinguish?

Super-scientists (like scientists) can't create anything, let alone hold it in continued being.

Imaginary gods, and Green Lantern, and Superman, can no doubt do anything if the story requires them to. But we're talking about a real god here; or we will be when you tell me what a real god is.

 

[ArtieE]

Thus COMPELLING us to believe.

But God is a libertarian, not a dictator.

I would think drowning a whole planet would be a pretty compelling way of making us believe he existed.

 

[Skreeper]

But in the case of God's existing, you could know He exists if you WANTED to ! And you DO know that Jesus exists !

I was trying to believe for many years. I was getting tired of God not revealing himself to me.

If Jesus had a massive ego, He wouldn't have died a terrible and humiliating death on the cross to save each of us from Hell.

Sure he has a big ego. Firstly, his death was merely a mild inconvenience for him considering he got up after only 3 days and got back to heaven.

Secondly, I never asked for this human sacrifice. If I were there, It would have been my moral obligation to stop him from getting killed instead of watching it and being thankful. Why would I be obligated to thank him for something I find repulsive and I didn't even ask for in the first place?

 

[Skreeper]

What evidence do you need that I don't? I didn't have to make anything up. I can see with my own eyes that material creation didn't just pop up out of nowhere and that what exists on earth is too well designed not to have a designer....too well programmed not to have programmer.

I am well aware that your own ignorance and incredulity is enough for you to just make stuff up about the origins of the universe. But I'm really not interested in doing an extended talk about science with an anti-science JW cult member.

 

[ArtieE]

Sorry, but that's simply not true. You seem to be confusing a fetus's POTENTIAL TO BECOME a viable individual human being with it actually BEING a viable individual human being. What your saying is like claiming that an acorn is as much an oak tree as an actual oak tree is. It simply is not. An acorn may have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME an oak tree, given enough time and the proper conditions, but unless that time passes and those conditions occur, the acorn will never be an ACTUAL oak tree. The exact same thing can be said about a human fetus with potential. It may have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME a viable individual human being, but that time passes and the proper conditions are met, it will never become an actual viable human being.

Exactly when does a fetus go from potential human being to a viable one? Exactly when does an acorn turn into an oak tree?