Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[sojourner]

That is untruth. For a being who threw out Adm and Eve just for eating an apple, or who unashamedly threatened people that he will punish the children for the sin of parents to the third and the fourth generation who hate him, or who sent the flood which destroyed all things other than four people and whatever they could load in their thousand-oared (?) boat

1) Not sure the poster is talking about the God of the Bible. 2) you do get that these are all metaphors that come out of a particular cultural understanding, and not universal absolutes, correct? 3) If you’re going to use metaphors to dismiss claims, you should at least get them right, along with the truths they illustrate. As an example: God didn’t evict A and E “just for eating an apple.”

 

[Audie]

Sure they have. Not everyone agrees that the methods are valid — oddly enough, as with any new technology.

Hmm. You have a technology to detect god? Prease exprain.

 

[sojourner]

Divine from a different perspective????
aztec sacrifice - Google Search

I think you’d have to agree that this is a particular cultural perspective and not a universal absolute. We might not buy into the vehicle, but it does speak to the truth of the cycle of life. It may even speak to the truth of rebirth.

 

[sojourner]

Hmm. You have a technology to detect god? Prease exprain.

Sure. But to explain it would take a book. You wouldn’t buy the information, so why waste bandwidth?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm. You have a technology to detect god? Prease exprain.

I've been told that "spiritual insight" is the method.
When one believes, one is granted that by God.

 

[sojourner]

If I say "yes," do I become eligible for the clergy housing allowance?

Only if you give up your livelihood to minister full-time and subsist only through the good graces of your flock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep this will be fun. Please start...



Your response...



I suggest you go and google the meaning of strawman and find out what it means. The answer to the question was no because those who do not believe in God or in the existence of God do not have evidence for their belief. If there is no evidence for belief it is simply a belief based on faith.

And this was a rather foolish response. It was a strawman for the reasons given. A link that you do not understand does not help you. You are making the error that I spoke of in my prior post. For most atheism is a lack of belief. Your claim that it is a belief of nonexistence is a strawman. Read the link that you provided. One does not need evidence for a lack of belief. Once again you are not reasoning logically.

Your reponse...



Nonsense! What you have posted above is a a gread example of a logical fallacy which does not make sense or does it address the post question you are quoting from. No evidence is simply an argument in silence and does not prove one thing or the other. For example, before science discovered electricity or radio waves the lack of evidence before they were discovered does not mean they never existed. It simply means they was no evidence for their existence until people found evidence. If you claim there is no God or there is no existence of God that is your believe. If now you have no evidence for your belief then you are in the exact same situation as the person you claim has no evidence that there is God and that God exists. Therefore your belief is faith because you have no evidence.

Wrong again. You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand logic. If an event would leave evidence behind and no evidence of that event is to be found that is evidence against that claim. If your friend calls and says that there was an explosion in the city that you live in, destroyed buildings, broken glass, smoke and destruction everywhere and you rush to where he said it occurred and you find nothing indicating an explosion do you say "Well, I have no evidence so I cannot conclude that he was lying?". If you do I have some very valuable stocks I would l like to sell to you. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. It does not mean that is always the case. That would be a fallacy on my part.

That is two major logical fails on your part.

Your response...



Nonsense! As posted earlier athiesm is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. You have already said in your own words that you do not believe in God or the existence of God. That is your belief. You have no evidence for your belief and if you have no evidence there is the possiblility that you are simply wrong. If your honest here you will agree. If not you are free to believe as you wish.

No, atheism is a lack of belief for most. No evidence is required for a lack of belief. You are repeating errors, but since this has been explained to you countless times it counts as a third massive logical fail on your part.

Your response...



No need for Ad Hom. How do you know it is you not understanding what the scriptures teach?

And we need to add Ad Hominem to the concepts that you do not understand. So that is four. You made a gross error. It appears to be due to your arrogance. Why did you not apologize for your error. Instead you usd a deflection.

That is four logical fails.

Why when your the one coming to a religious forum claiming there is no God or that God does not exist? I admit for many things I live by faith as I cannot definitively prove God or the existence of God but you my friend are in the same situation and if you are honest you do not have any evidence for your belief that there is no God and there is no existence of God therefore you also live by faith in what you believe. The difference between you and me is that I am at peace with what I believe and it seems you are not because for someone that does not believe in God or the existence of God you sure do like to talk about him a lot. Yes this was indeed fun.

We will have to do it more often.

And there you go back to your false claim about me claiming there is no god. So once again you make a strawman argument since you cannot refute the argument used against you. That is five major logical fails.

You need to work on your logic skills. They are rather inadequate.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

No.

If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

No. Let me ask you - if someone tells you that there is an invisible, magical dragon-spirit living underneath your home, and you tell them "I don't believe you" - is your non-belief "simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?" Is it? Think hard now.

. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

Not at all. Not the plausibility of some judgment, nor the judges themselves, nor the court within which they supposedly judge have EVER been demonstrated to me. Not once, and not one bit. Do you live your life in fear of things that haven't been evidenced to exist? If you do, then why do you? "Just in case?" Do you see how flimsy that stance is when we're talking about things that are not to be found or demonstrated? It is one thing to be prepared "just in case" of some kind of natural disaster - we know and have experienced natural disasters. It is quite another to be prepared for a demonic-unicorn invasion.

. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

With many of the claims that exist within religions that include things like supernatural realms or abilities, omniscience, omnipresence, or even just some universal-agency that chooses some people for great purpose, doles out punishment/justice, etc. - NONE of that can be adequately investigated. It is a crap-shoot, and all you have to go on is words from others, and "feelings" from within yourself that you can't verify the source of. That's it. There is literally nothing else.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

Nope, I can't prove that they are not. But again, you can't prove that there isn't an invisible, magical dragon-spirit living under your place of residence. Are you going to start believing that there is one if I agree to believe in God? Hmm?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same as a non believer will not believe anything if they choose not to

Belief is a choice only for those that think irrationally. Most nonbelievers do not believe due to a lack of evidence. In fact the logical response to unsupported claims is a lack of belief. You implied by your poor reasoning that your beliefs are a choice, and therefore irrational.

 

[sojourner]

Nonsense! I do not know anyone that claims Santa Clause is real or anyone that has made a religion out of santa clause

Have you BEEN CHRISTMAS shopping??

No one believes in unicorns and leprechauns do they, let alone make a religion based around them

Have you BEEN to a comicon?

Not really. I do not know anyone that claims leprechauns are real or anyone that has made a religion out of leprechauns

Have you heard of the ancient Celtic religion?

 

[Audie]

I've been told that "spiritual insight" is the method.
When one believes, one is granted that by God.

Well, that does NOT count as "technology".
And it sure is not "new".

 

[firedragon]

You really should try to learn the difference between a lack of belief and a belief of nonexistence.

A theist said a similar thing.

You really should try to learn the difference between acceptance of God and belief in God.

All of this may just be semantics.

 

[Audie]

Belief is a choice only for those that think irrationally. Most nonbelievers do not believe due to a lack of evidence. In fact the logical response to unsupported claims is a lack of belief. You implied by your poor reasoning that your beliefs are a choice, and therefore irrational.

The irrationality and sheer nonsense we see from our fundy
friends when they try to argue against evolution seems to
me a very direct reflection of what goes into their religious
beliefs.

 

[Audie]

A theist said a similar thing.

You really should try to learn the difference between acceptance of God and belief in God.

All of this may just be semantics.

To the religious it is, but to one who actually knows
what it is to be an atheist, it is not.

But do tell how belief and acceptance are different.

 

[sojourner]

Well, that does NOT count as "technology".
And it sure is not "new".

Depends on how you define technology. Technology is the study of certain techniques, yes? To wit: “Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value.” (Wikipedia)

 

[Audie]

Sure. But to explain it would take a book. You wouldn’t buy the information, so why waste bandwidth?

That is as sorry a bs answer as ever i could ask for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3rdAngel said: ↑ How can I not understand it? I simply quoted the dictionary definition of athiesm. What is there to not understand? You have already told me elsewhere you do not beleive in the existence of God did you not?

Your response...

Pehaps you need to look up the definition of lying. How in your view is asking you a question on something you have said lying? Just thought I would post this again for fun since you accused me of lying just now...

Your response...

From your post # 403 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

and again...

Your response...


From your post # 415 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

Seems you are not being honest again and simply digging a hole for yourself .[/QUOTE]

Please, we all know who is not being honest here. And I am not too surprised that you do not understand the Ninth Commandment. I did not say that you lied. You bore false witness against your neighbor. You made claims about others that are not true. You may believe those claims, which would mean that you were not lying, but that does not change the fact that they were incorrect.

The Ninth Commandment is more than a ban on lying. It is a ban on saying things against others that you cannot prove. It may not happen every time, but sooner or later when you make unsupported claims about others you will be wrong and will have broken that Commandment.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure they have. Not everyone agrees that the methods are valid — oddly enough, as with any new technology.

Really? What repeatable, public method has been found for detection? One in which, if the detection fails, people will agree deities do not exist?

 

[Audie]

Depends on how you define technology. Technology is the study of certain techniques, yes? To wit: “Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value.” (Wikipedia)

That does not help, at all.

AND btw, as for your claim that a whole book is needed,
and the insult about how my mind is closed so its no use
to try to educate me-

People who actually understand their topic are people
who can find a way to explain it in direct terms that lay
people can understand.
Anyone who cannot really does not know what he is talking
about.

You've made a hollow claim and wik wik wont help you at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he kind of gave his game away by saying that

"Many religions live by faith"

For lo, they cannot all the correct, or true in any sense.
They can, though, all be false.

He added "and not by sight"

In that sentence, I see two things that look wrong
to me. It is not "many" but all religions that rely
on faith. And, with that, is that NONE can rely on
sight.

It appears that he is trying to use a Tu Quoque fallacy. He probably realizes that faith is not rational so he wants to accuse others of what he is doing wrong as an excuse for his beliefs.