Tacenda Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Woohoo!!!! I am an atheist. No more tithing for me. I am going to spend my new surplus on hookers and blow. I get to sleep on Sundays. I can ignore texts from the missionaries asking for a ride. I can participate in the slave trade and become a professional assassin. Thank you Rob.I know you're joking, but a serious rebuke is that the Atheist might do good things because it's right, not, since they are Atheist, because a religion or God told them to. So such a way better example! And how do you get around the very religious, God fearing/believing people, doing really bad things, huh? Which looks super bad, eh?
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I know you're joking, but a serious rebuke is that the Atheist might do good things because it's right, not, since they are Atheist, because a religion or God told them to. So such a way better example! And how do you get around the very religious, God fearing/believing people, doing really bad things, huh? Which looks super bad, eh?If I find out God is not real the first things I am going to do are poison the water main, rape a horse, burn down a church, and punch quadriplegic orphans.
danielwoods Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Actually I have spent 40 years studying scripture and writings of the religious and about five studying skeptics and the skeptics are more rational. Religion has to rely on lack of evidence and faith and the unprovable supernatural...thus is irrational oft times. Skeptics look to evidence and critical thinking and science. They are willing to change views based on evidence. This is rational. The assumption one makes at the beginning dictates the conclusions at the end. For example. Is there a God or not? Atheist/skeptic assumption is that there is no God or supernatural events. The claim (god or not) isn't testable by any scientific means. So, the answer isn't testable as well. So, the atheist will assume that their position is more rational and logical, and as a result the theistic position must be irrational and illogical. Now, if the claim and the associated answer isn't testable nor scientific by definition, how can the "no-god" position be more rational or logical? In the mind of the atheist there exists an undeniable truth, that they rest on. That being materialism. That all that really exists is material in nature, and nothing exists that isn't material. Since, God is claimed to be non-material (by traditional theologies), therefore he must not exist. Thus atheism is rational, right? Not quite. All that is happening is one is assuming the answer to be true, then making a logical belief system around that a-priori assumption. So, rationality and logical alone aren't enough. Something else is needed. The assumptions of a theist and deist are that something must have started this who thing we call existence, and based on the laws of physics (cause and effect), that something must be larger than what we can see and experience. Every event must have a cause. This assumption of the theist and deist is testable, and so it isn't completely unscientific, and by comparison with the atheist position, more rational and logical. After that is established, the concept of who is this being? What is the nature of this creator? Can the creator communicate with us and many more questions? The agnostic says these questions aren't knowable, which of course, is another assumption. The theist says that it is knowable based on past experience, that people now and in the past do and have known him. The agnostic position is neither rational or logical, for why would a being create and not communicate if he had that capability? The theistic position is based on past and present experience, which as we all know is what science is also based on (observation). So, the only way the atheistic position can be seen as more rational and logical is if we approach it with a strict materialistic mind set.
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Theists think they know there is a god. Atheists think they know there is no God. Pot meet kettle. 1
Teancum Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Thats the path leading towards atheism in my opinion.So in other words unless someone agrees with you, you haven no interest in talking to them and ypu dismiss them. And you think this is rational? I find you and example of why religion is very dangerous.
Teancum Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 The assumption one makes at the beginning dictates the conclusions at the end. For example. Is there a God or not? Atheist/skeptic assumption is that there is no God or supernatural events. The claim (god or not) isn't testable by any scientific means. So, the answer isn't testable as well. So, the atheist will assume that their position is more rational and logical, and as a result the theistic position must be irrational and illogical. Now, if the claim and the associated answer isn't testable nor scientific by definition, how can the "no-god" position be more rational or logical? In the mind of the atheist there exists an undeniable truth, that they rest on. That being materialism. That all that really exists is material in nature, and nothing exists that isn't material. Since, God is claimed to be non-material (by traditional theologies), therefore he must not exist. Thus atheism is rational, right? Not quite. All that is happening is one is assuming the answer to be true, then making a logical belief system around that a-priori assumption. So, rationality and logical alone aren't enough. Something else is needed. The assumptions of a theist and deist are that something must have started this who thing we call existence, and based on the laws of physics (cause and effect), that something must be larger than what we can see and experience. Every event must have a cause. This assumption of the theist and deist is testable, and so it isn't completely unscientific, and by comparison with the atheist position, more rational and logical. After that is established, the concept of who is this being? What is the nature of this creator? Can the creator communicate with us and many more questions? The agnostic says these questions aren't knowable, which of course, is another assumption. The theist says that it is knowable based on past experience, that people now and in the past do and have known him. The agnostic position is neither rational or logical, for why would a being create and not communicate if he had that capability? The theistic position is based on past and present experience, which as we all know is what science is also based on (observation). So, the only way the atheistic position can be seen as more rational and logical is if we approach it with a strict materialistic mind set.I am a seeker of truth. Show me the evidence. I spent most my life as a TBM. In my opionion the actual history of the LDS church casts grave doubts on tis truth claims. So I am studying the history of Christianity. Seems like there are problems. I study science, evolution, young earth claims and so on. I find religion relies mostly on faith and dogma. I am open other evidence. I want there to be a God. I wnT Jesus to be what Christianity claims. I just am not seeing it these days.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So in other words unless someone agrees with you, you haven no interest in talking to them and ypu dismiss them. And you think this is rational? I find you and example of why religion is very dangerous.Look, I have seen enough of your posts over and over again that takes the atheist approach. Now you may claim to lead towards beig a deist but you sell yourself instead by mocking God in post after post. By their fruits ye shall know them. I have seen many a soul who have taken the same path as you who end up at the destination of atheism. What am I supposed to believe otherwise?
Teancum Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Atheists think they know there is no God. Pot meet kettle.Wrong.I am not an athiest. I am a skeptic and I don't know either way Evidence for theism would be helpful.Personal spiritual witnesses are subjective not objective. Edited January 7, 2015 by Teancum
Tacenda Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) If I find out God is not real the first things I am going to do are poison the water main, rape a horse, burn down a church, and punch quadriplegic orphans.As I read posts before my response to yours I see that I was mistaken in how you replied to Rob and apologize for getting on my high horse, not doped horse either. Edited January 7, 2015 by Tacenda
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I am a seeker of truth. Show me the evidence. I spent most my life as a TBM. In my opionion the actual history of the LDS church casts grave doubts on tis truth claims. So I am studying the history of Christianity. Seems like there are problems. I study science, evolution, young earth claims and so on. I find religion relies mostly on faith and dogma. I am open other evidence. I want there to be a God. I wnT Jesus to be what Christianity claims. I just am not seeing it these days.I would suggest talking to God instead and if he does not answer punch quadriplegic orphans (because they cannot hit back you see).
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Wrong.I am not an athiest. I am a skeptic and I don't know either way Evidence for theism would be helpful.Personal spiritual witnesses are subjective not objective.Its atheism disguised as something else- clever subtle trick but easy to see the truth.
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 The assumption one makes at the beginning dictates the conclusions at the end. For example. Is there a God or not? Atheist/skeptic assumption is that there is no God or supernatural events. The claim (god or not) isn't testable by any scientific means. So, the answer isn't testable as well. So, the atheist will assume that their position is more rational and logical, and as a result the theistic position must be irrational and illogical. Now, if the claim and the associated answer isn't testable nor scientific by definition, how can the "no-god" position be more rational or logical? In the mind of the atheist there exists an undeniable truth, that they rest on. That being materialism. That all that really exists is material in nature, and nothing exists that isn't material. Since, God is claimed to be non-material (by traditional theologies), therefore he must not exist. Thus atheism is rational, right? Not quite. All that is happening is one is assuming the answer to be true, then making a logical belief system around that a-priori assumption. So, rationality and logical alone aren't enough. Something else is needed. The assumptions of a theist and deist are that something must have started this who thing we call existence, and based on the laws of physics (cause and effect), that something must be larger than what we can see and experience. Every event must have a cause. This assumption of the theist and deist is testable, and so it isn't completely unscientific, and by comparison with the atheist position, more rational and logical. After that is established, the concept of who is this being? What is the nature of this creator? Can the creator communicate with us and many more questions? The agnostic says these questions aren't knowable, which of course, is another assumption. The theist says that it is knowable based on past experience, that people now and in the past do and have known him. The agnostic position is neither rational or logical, for why would a being create and not communicate if he had that capability? The theistic position is based on past and present experience, which as we all know is what science is also based on (observation). So, the only way the atheistic position can be seen as more rational and logical is if we approach it with a strict materialistic mind set. Partially correct. Science has no means to falsify any God or God like force. Which in essence means "To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing".SEE Science is Agnostic on questions of God Science has long recognized that people believe in one or more Gods. What science can't do it posit that belief onto science and have it still be science. IE; It is perfectly fine to say that water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level because God made it that way. What science can't do is posit God for how water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level.
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Wrong.I am not an athiest. I am a skeptic and I don't know either wayEvidence for theism would be helpful.Personal spiritual witnesses are subjective not objective. Agnostics don't know God. I never said you were an atheist. I take you at your word. The best evidence for any religion, or atheism is in the lives of those that profess to be theists/atheists. Unfortunately human history has demonstrated that to be a two edged sword. The question is what is subjective and what is objective to the individual. Can you prove that your mother loved you? You can't, all you have is your subjective experience of how she treated you, and not whether she actually loved you or not.
danielwoods Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I am a seeker of truth. Show me the evidence. I spent most my life as a TBM. In my opionion the actual history of the LDS church casts grave doubts on tis truth claims. So I am studying the history of Christianity. Seems like there are problems. I study science, evolution, young earth claims and so on.I find religion relies mostly on faith and dogma. I am open other evidence. I want there to be a God. I wnT Jesus to be what Christianity claims. I just am not seeing it these days. What is also true is that science also relies on faith and dogma. The difference is they either don't realize it, or don't acknowledge it.
Teancum Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Look, I have seen enough of your posts over and over again that takes the atheist approach. Now you may claim to lead towards beig a deist but you sell yourself instead by mocking God in post after post. By their fruits ye shall know them. I have seen many a soul who have taken the same path as you who end up at the destination of atheism. What am I supposed to believe otherwise?What is your point Rob? If you have seen many of my posts why do you keep asking the same questions of me?I was a hobby LDS apologist for many years, I reached the point where my integrity and honestly would not allow my to continue in that path,I haven was a TBM. Now, at least for me that does not work I have been honest with you and everyone here as to where I am at.I am am NOT an athiest,I just do not know.What else can I tell you? I am open and willing to follow.I still and tell God in my prayers i iwll go where I am led.If it helps ypur own belief to dismiss me as a potential atthiesm,,,,well,I think that says more about your fragile belief system that you king too more than it does me.Best wishes .
Teancum Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I would suggest talking to God instead and if he does not answer punch quadriplegic orphans (because they cannot hit back you see).Really? I would tell you what I think of your post but it would lilkely geat me banned.Oh.....and I talk to God all the time. I just wish a god would talk back. Edited January 8, 2015 by Teancum
Teancum Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Its atheism disguised as something else- clever subtle trick but easy to see the truth.I have no idea what your point is here.
Teancum Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) What is also true is that science also relies on faith and dogma. The difference is they either don't realize it, or don't acknowledge it.No science does not rely on faith and dogma.Religoinist say that to set up a false parameter in order to maintain faith without evidences . Edited January 8, 2015 by Teancum
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Really? I would tell you what I think of your post but it would lilkely geat me banned.Oh.....and I talk to God all the time. I just wish a god would talk back.It is a badge of honor to get thread banned every so often so have fun.
danielwoods Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) No science does not rely on faith and dogma.Religoinist say that to set up a false parameter in order to maintain faith without evidences . Oh? Then what is the basis for their belief that life comes from non-living things? Edited January 8, 2015 by danielwoods
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I have no idea what your point is here.Well, theres your sign
Rob Osborn Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Say What?Its atheism- your atheism you hide by saying you are a skeptic. Like a wolf in sheeps clothing. You are out of the thread.
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Oh? Then what is the basis for their belief that life comes from non-living things? It is called called Abiogenesis.SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Recommended Posts