Total Posts:266|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I am tired of Theists denying facts

jamccartney
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."

This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.
WilliamsP
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.
WilliamsP - Multilingual Liberal Atheist
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 4:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."

That poster was trolling I think.

This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

I would be careful when throwing generalizations at theists. It's not fair and simply just false. All humans are very capable of deluding themselves, or finding things more believable than the facts and reasoning actually deserve.

A great example is the conflict between Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris on Free Will. Reading Daniel dennet' criticism of Sam harris have me much of the same vibe that evolution/science deniers do, religious or not. Moreover I know many atheists who hold strong superstitious convictions, and with strong emotional attachments to these.

I don't think belief is necessarily a choice, that is something you do subconsciously. Acceptance however is a choice. It me is very easy to mislead yourself if you have emotional attachments of any sort. Just look in your local casino to see people deluding themselves by the masses, theist or otherwise.

Religion has the distinct problem in that it does heavily emotionally invest the people that follow them, the most total the religions are, the heavier the investment, and the more likely people are to delude themselves to defend it, as the attachment is that much greater.

At least those are my two cents.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 2:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."

This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

If a Theist makes the claim "God is Real", then they have to present a burden of proof to support that claim.

Be it Theist or Atheist some people reject all evidence to support a claim becuase they are already reject the conclusion it leads to.

So the question to you is what evidence would support convincingly support the claim "God is Real"?

For me evidence is valued on it's explanatory powers.
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:21:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like :evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten :me as to why.

Why you put all the theists in the same bag ? Some theist believe in Evo, some not. If you notice, I said "believe", because human Evo is still a "theory".
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 7:34:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The theist in question was apparently a Christian. Their worldview is inflexible because it relies on ancient texts and therefore they are resistant to adapting it to new insights. Acknowledging their holy scriptures are wrong is inconvenient. However, enough evidence can sway some of them. For example, the belief in Hell is wavering and so is the belief in YEC, while the belief in a flat earth has vanished almost completely. Those paradigm shifts are made possible mostly because one can interpret the Bible in many ways.

Mineva
Why you put all the theists in the same bag ? Some theist believe in Evo, some not. If you notice, I said "believe", because human Evo is still a "theory".
Gravity is also still a "theory".
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 8:04:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

Please keep in mind that not all theists behave this way. We just naturally tend to remember the most absurd and extreme examples that we come across. There are millions of theists who accept the evidence of reality, yet can still reasonably believe that there is a divine and intelligent source, sustenance, and purpose responsible for the phenomena of existence as we know it.

As to these irrationally superstitious folks that you're referring to, we must assume that they have some need to believe as they do, or they would not continue to do so. I think in most instances these people have been seriously abused and damaged by the sickness of authoritarianism: a sickness that often infects the religious, and particularly the religions of Christianity and Islam.

It's a sickness wherein the children of religious authoritarian parents are taught that it's 'bad' to think, feel, and act of their own volition, and that instead they are to blindly accept the thoughts, rules, and behaviors of 'the religious authority'. The 'authority' being some absolutist religious dogma based on the blind obedience to, and the worship of 'God's authority' (as conveyed by the religious authoritarians, themselves, of course). And to dare to think for one's self, acknowledge one's own feelings, or act according to one's own inclinations is seen as direct disobedience to God, and God's absolute authority, and as something to be punished, severely.

So as you can imagine, children raised in this kind of an environment become afraid to be themselves; to think for themselves, and feel their own feelings, and act according to their own desires, because to do so is 'wrong", and "evil', and brings severe punishment. And they believe this because this is what they have been taught, and what they have experienced at the hands of their teachers. So they try to protect themselves by hiding within the illusion of the authority's unassailable righteousness. Because for them, to be "right" (righteous in the eyes of 'the authority') is to be safe from harm. While to doubt that authority is to be "wrong", which has severe and dire consequences.

There are other reasons that people choose to give up their own ability to think and reason and feel and act for themselves, but most of them involve fear. They have come to mistrust themselves and their own thoughts, feelings, and desires so much that they want or need some 'authority' to do it for them. And of course there are always people who are willing to act as that authority. But religions offer the added incentive of their 'authority' being divine and absolute. Their 'authority' is God.

So before you get angry with these folks, try and remember that most of them are living in fear of their own humanity. They are afraid to doubt 'the authority' of their religion and their gods far more than they are afraid of appearing irrational and absurd to you. And sadly, they will have to discredit and dismiss in their own minds, anyone who dares to defy their illusions of absolute righteousness that they believe they have gained by their obedience to their authoritarian religion.
WheezySquash8
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 9:37:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."

This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

I do not deny facts. I believe in what I want to believe in. Is that wrong? I understand if you are annoyed by religious people harassing you, but you should not call us idiotic. There are very smart religious people out there, and saying that theists are idiotic is very stereotypical. We have the right to believe in what we believe in as people. Even if some of us put you down, please don't do the same towards us. An individual's actions is what makes them idiotic, not their beliefs. I think that evolution is a great theory, but I still deny it. I stand to the belief system that I trust most. Yes I think evolution is possible, but until I witness it myself I will deny it. You can call me an idiot all you want, but in the end as human beings we are the same. Saying that our beliefs are hellish is idiotic itself. A vast majority of us stand for equality, peace, and tranquility. Even if you hate religion don't you ever say something like that. Emotionally, I have been impacted by people like you trying shift my views. It has made me go into emotional moments sometimes. Why can't you just let me take my own path? Saying that our beliefs are primitive is horrid. If we were primitive beings, we would be doing psychotic things such as believing in walking around naked and stuff. If it was not for religion, society would not have ended up like if is today. The Pilgrims may have never came to America for religious freedom, etc. Already at age 14 am I being pulled into fighting for respect for what I believe in. Go ahead, respond to this. Say more words. I know that I am most likely going to be made fun of, or picked on by you people saying these words. Thanks a lot for really hurting my feelings. I have pulled through people like you putting me down, and I guess I will do it again. Respond like you wish, but in the end I am right for standing beside what I think is right. You guys are right too for sticking with what you think is right. That's good, but when you go to the point in which that you are harassing other beliefs, you have gone too far.
Pacifist Since 3/12/14
Wheezy
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 10:09:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 7:34:09 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
Gravity is also still a "theory".

Hey,

Gravity is a scientific "law", because experimentally observable, gives always the same result under the same conditions. Laws are not related with the purposes, theories are. "Gravity law" and "Gravity theories" , both are different things. "Gravity theories" tries to explain the formation path of "Gravity". But this doesnot mean there is no "Gravity law".

We cant say the same things for "Human Evo Theory", it just tries to explain the developmental stages of mankind. But there are problems with demonstrably of it.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 1:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."

This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

Evolution is a bunch of malarkey. How can you believe you are a bunch of chemicals evolved from primordial goo ? That stinks to the heavens, man !
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 7:09:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times.

Theism represent's humanity's reaction to the collective perception of some sort of higher power, coming in the form of all the religions we know today. It continues to exist because humanity continues to sense and experience that higher power.
To call it a "pathetic tradition from ancient times" is post-hoc.

Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith.

Religion is the search for the deeper metaphysical truths of reality. Science is the search for answers about how our material universe works. Both religion and science are equally important to fully understanding the universe.

Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you.

The Bible is not representative of theism... it's a book of ancient Hebrew mythology/folklore, a semi-accurate historical record of ancient Israel/Judah, and early Christian propaganda.

it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

WilliamsP, just stop and see for a moment. Open your mind, and you may learn something.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 7:15:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic.

And your insults are unwarranted.

Anyone who denies evolution denies reality.

True, but at the same time, there IS much to be desired regarding the evidence behind evolution.

Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

The fact that you can't question them in a civil manner is just plain shitty.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 7:34:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:

"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."

This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:

"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."

As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

Anti-Theist
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 8:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:59:47 PM, jamccartney wrote:
Recently, I saw a forum with a post that said the following:
"I was just accosted by a militant Atheist while I was giving my sermon on the town hall steps of our market place, and I'm glad to say I destroyed his feeble rantings simply by trusting my judgement unto the Lord Christ. His ridiculous claims about evolution are easily rebuked, we all know science doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to theological facts, and his assertions about the big bang are simply ludicrous."
This statement angered me. So, because I like expressing my opinion, I replied with this:
"Would you like to debate me on this? I would love to debate you on this. Your denial of scientifically proven facts is appalling, ignorant, nightmarish, abhorrent, blood-curdling, hellish, and simply idiotic and imbecilic. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. Though that Atheist's final claim about you dying was quite absurd, the fact that you deny evolution and other scientifically, empirically corroborated actualities is just plain shitty."
As you can probably tell, I am becoming increasingly tired of Theists denying facts like evolution. Why can't Theists just give up their primitive superstition? Somebody enlighten me as to why.

Denying fact is not related to someone being theist or atheist or etc., it is just being dumb.
This is red.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 10:24:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Month after month, year after year it goes on and on and on.

Learn what a scientific theory is before you prove your ignorance by misapplying the word.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt.

An atheist on the other hand says that there are reasons of existence. Atheists dont say that there is no reason of existence. Atheist just dont like hanging their hats on God. Atheists say that there are only natural reasons of existence ; not supernatural. And science can explain those reasons.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 12:34:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself.

Nope, you are criticized for the very reasons listed above - and many more. No atheist will take the affirmative in the proposition, "I know that there is no God". They won't do that.

"Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along."

That would be correct. Atheists, some of them anyway, claim that matter/energy just existed all along.

"After this a theist assumes that God created the universe."

That would also be correct. Atheists assume that it just happened.

I was referring specifically to the arbitrary assertions made by someone (I don't recall who) concerning the dating of the books of the NT. I had said that I saw no way around certain prophesies, other than a feeble attempt to redate all the NT books. After that, I'd have been embarrassed to respond by ... what? ... attempting to redate them. Unfazed, the attempt came anyhow. And what was the evidence provided? Absolutely none, as usual.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 12:52:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 12:34:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself.

Nope, you are criticized for the very reasons listed above - and many more. No atheist will take the affirmative in the proposition, "I know that there is no God". They won't do that.

"Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along."

That would be correct. Atheists, some of them anyway, claim that matter/energy just existed all along.

"After this a theist assumes that God created the universe."

That would also be correct. Atheists assume that it just happened.

I was referring specifically to the arbitrary assertions made by someone (I don't recall who) concerning the dating of the books of the NT. I had said that I saw no way around certain prophesies, other than a feeble attempt to redate all the NT books. After that, I'd have been embarrassed to respond by ... what? ... attempting to redate them. Unfazed, the attempt came anyhow. And what was the evidence provided? Absolutely none, as usual.

The evidence, as you well know Anna, is the consensus of the vast majority of biblical historical scholars.
They date most of the writings post AD70.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 12:55:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 12:52:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:34:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself.

Nope, you are criticized for the very reasons listed above - and many more. No atheist will take the affirmative in the proposition, "I know that there is no God". They won't do that.

"Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along."

That would be correct. Atheists, some of them anyway, claim that matter/energy just existed all along.

"After this a theist assumes that God created the universe."

That would also be correct. Atheists assume that it just happened.

I was referring specifically to the arbitrary assertions made by someone (I don't recall who) concerning the dating of the books of the NT. I had said that I saw no way around certain prophesies, other than a feeble attempt to redate all the NT books. After that, I'd have been embarrassed to respond by ... what? ... attempting to redate them. Unfazed, the attempt came anyhow. And what was the evidence provided? Absolutely none, as usual.

The evidence, as you well know Anna, is the consensus of the vast majority of biblical historical scholars.
They date most of the writings post AD70.

... and they don't even know why. Have you seen their "reasons"? I have.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 1:11:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 12:55:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:52:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:34:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself.

Nope, you are criticized for the very reasons listed above - and many more. No atheist will take the affirmative in the proposition, "I know that there is no God". They won't do that.

"Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along."

That would be correct. Atheists, some of them anyway, claim that matter/energy just existed all along.

"After this a theist assumes that God created the universe."

That would also be correct. Atheists assume that it just happened.

I was referring specifically to the arbitrary assertions made by someone (I don't recall who) concerning the dating of the books of the NT. I had said that I saw no way around certain prophesies, other than a feeble attempt to redate all the NT books. After that, I'd have been embarrassed to respond by ... what? ... attempting to redate them. Unfazed, the attempt came anyhow. And what was the evidence provided? Absolutely none, as usual.

The evidence, as you well know Anna, is the consensus of the vast majority of biblical historical scholars.
They date most of the writings post AD70.

... and they don't even know why. Have you seen their "reasons"? I have.

And you'd be over the moon to have a biblical scholar come along and tell you that what you do in your veterinary practice is all wrong.
Think about it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 1:16:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 1:11:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:55:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:52:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:34:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself.

Nope, you are criticized for the very reasons listed above - and many more. No atheist will take the affirmative in the proposition, "I know that there is no God". They won't do that.

"Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along."

That would be correct. Atheists, some of them anyway, claim that matter/energy just existed all along.

"After this a theist assumes that God created the universe."

That would also be correct. Atheists assume that it just happened.

I was referring specifically to the arbitrary assertions made by someone (I don't recall who) concerning the dating of the books of the NT. I had said that I saw no way around certain prophesies, other than a feeble attempt to redate all the NT books. After that, I'd have been embarrassed to respond by ... what? ... attempting to redate them. Unfazed, the attempt came anyhow. And what was the evidence provided? Absolutely none, as usual.

The evidence, as you well know Anna, is the consensus of the vast majority of biblical historical scholars.
They date most of the writings post AD70.

... and they don't even know why. Have you seen their "reasons"? I have.

And you'd be over the moon to have a biblical scholar come along and tell you that what you do in your veterinary practice is all wrong.
Think about it.

Not if they have decent reasons for saying it. "Biblical scholars" flip-flop around almost as much as the WatchTower. They'll claim that Matthew was composed in about AD 100, knowing full well that Clement of Rome quoted it in the AD 90's. The Book of Acts ends abruptly in about AD 63, yet the writer (Luke) speaks of his former treatise. Then they turn around and date the former treatise after AD 63! THEN, after that, they just make up a hypothetical work that nobody ever quoted: "Q".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 1:53:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 1:16:42 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/3/2014 1:11:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:55:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:52:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:34:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along. After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself.

Nope, you are criticized for the very reasons listed above - and many more. No atheist will take the affirmative in the proposition, "I know that there is no God". They won't do that.

"Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along."

That would be correct. Atheists, some of them anyway, claim that matter/energy just existed all along.

"After this a theist assumes that God created the universe."

That would also be correct. Atheists assume that it just happened.

I was referring specifically to the arbitrary assertions made by someone (I don't recall who) concerning the dating of the books of the NT. I had said that I saw no way around certain prophesies, other than a feeble attempt to redate all the NT books. After that, I'd have been embarrassed to respond by ... what? ... attempting to redate them. Unfazed, the attempt came anyhow. And what was the evidence provided? Absolutely none, as usual.

The evidence, as you well know Anna, is the consensus of the vast majority of biblical historical scholars.
They date most of the writings post AD70.

... and they don't even know why. Have you seen their "reasons"? I have.

And you'd be over the moon to have a biblical scholar come along and tell you that what you do in your veterinary practice is all wrong.
Think about it.

Not if they have decent reasons for saying it. "Biblical scholars" flip-flop around almost as much as the WatchTower. They'll claim that Matthew was composed in about AD 100, knowing full well that Clement of Rome quoted it in the AD 90's. The Book of Acts ends abruptly in about AD 63, yet the writer (Luke) speaks of his former treatise. Then they turn around and date the former treatise after AD 63! THEN, after that, they just make up a hypothetical work that nobody ever quoted: "Q".

Well since I obviously have no ammunition against the worlds foremost authority :), I withdraw from the field ;).
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 3:11:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along.

Atheist assert the same characteristics to the Universe. So being by itself and existing all along is not an impossible characteristic for something to have.

After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.

Are you saying the universe was not created but always existed? Then see previous point.

If you are saying the universe emerged into existence what was the cause for this emergence? If you are saying this cause was a quantum fluctuation then you are basing this idea on what has been seen inside the universe. There is no logical link to expecting what happens inside the universe is plausible to be for the whole universe.

We do not look at the fuselage of a plane and say fuselages fly, therefore that is how a plane flies. You would be confusing a part with the whole. fallacious.

However you describe the mechanism of the universe forming, like you can describe how a ball rolls down hill. You will always be missing who put the ball in motion.

Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt.


This is the difference between a deist who accepts God's existence and a theist who believes God to be personal.

Personality goes to intent and reasoning behind things. Your right in not every reason for something is a consequence of personal traits. But the claim is not absurd. A being with intelligence would be expected to maybe have a personality and emotions. Whether God cares about us or not is on how this personhood demonstrates such emotions. Which is fine if you disagree with what a sufficient display is. People in relationships will often say "I wish you would do this more often because it makes me feel loved" They are unconvinced by the demonstrations of another person. but not absurd to think God is personhood.

An atheist on the other hand says that there are reasons of existence. Atheists dont say that there is no reason of existence. Atheist just dont like hanging their hats on God. Atheists say that there are only natural reasons of existence ; not supernatural. And science can explain those reasons.

Science is a tool man made to help understand reality. God made reality and is all-knowing. Science can only explain what it knows. So to say God can explain why a God is not needed in the origins of the universe is flat out wrong. Science can not.

It's okay to say you don't know or unsure of how something happened. But you are making a plead to ignorance, saying because you do not know means God did not do it. You reject information of God's existence not on it's lack of explanatory power, not on it's inconsistency with reality, not on the lack of residual traces of God's actions, (all of which God's existence is completely in line with). No you reject the information because you reject God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 3:33:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 3:11:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along.

Atheist assert the same characteristics to the Universe. So being by itself and existing all along is not an impossible characteristic for something to have.

After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.

Are you saying the universe was not created but always existed? Then see previous point.

If you are saying the universe emerged into existence what was the cause for this emergence? If you are saying this cause was a quantum fluctuation then you are basing this idea on what has been seen inside the universe. There is no logical link to expecting what happens inside the universe is plausible to be for the whole universe.

We do not look at the fuselage of a plane and say fuselages fly, therefore that is how a plane flies. You would be confusing a part with the whole. fallacious.

However you describe the mechanism of the universe forming, like you can describe how a ball rolls down hill. You will always be missing who put the ball in motion.

Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt.


This is the difference between a deist who accepts God's existence and a theist who believes God to be personal.

Personality goes to intent and reasoning behind things. Your right in not every reason for something is a consequence of personal traits. But the claim is not absurd. A being with intelligence would be expected to maybe have a personality and emotions. Whether God cares about us or not is on how this personhood demonstrates such emotions. Which is fine if you disagree with what a sufficient display is. People in relationships will often say "I wish you would do this more often because it makes me feel loved" They are unconvinced by the demonstrations of another person. but not absurd to think God is personhood.

An atheist on the other hand says that there are reasons of existence. Atheists dont say that there is no reason of existence. Atheist just dont like hanging their hats on God. Atheists say that there are only natural reasons of existence ; not supernatural. And science can explain those reasons.

Science is a tool man made to help understand reality. God made reality and is all-knowing. Science can only explain what it knows. So to say God can explain why a God is not needed in the origins of the universe is flat out wrong. Science can not.

It's okay to say you don't know or unsure of how something happened. But you are making a plead to ignorance, saying because you do not know means God did not do it. You reject information of God's existence not on it's lack of explanatory power, not on it's inconsistency with reality, not on the lack of residual traces of God's actions, (all of which God's existence is completely in line with). No you reject the information because you reject God.

God has as much explanatory power as leprechauns.
Reality and god are inconsistent.
Residual traces? Where?
God is rejected because there is no evidence but more importantly there is no need.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 3:43:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 3:33:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2014 3:11:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along.

Atheist assert the same characteristics to the Universe. So being by itself and existing all along is not an impossible characteristic for something to have.

After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.

Are you saying the universe was not created but always existed? Then see previous point.

If you are saying the universe emerged into existence what was the cause for this emergence? If you are saying this cause was a quantum fluctuation then you are basing this idea on what has been seen inside the universe. There is no logical link to expecting what happens inside the universe is plausible to be for the whole universe.

We do not look at the fuselage of a plane and say fuselages fly, therefore that is how a plane flies. You would be confusing a part with the whole. fallacious.

However you describe the mechanism of the universe forming, like you can describe how a ball rolls down hill. You will always be missing who put the ball in motion.

Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt.


This is the difference between a deist who accepts God's existence and a theist who believes God to be personal.

Personality goes to intent and reasoning behind things. Your right in not every reason for something is a consequence of personal traits. But the claim is not absurd. A being with intelligence would be expected to maybe have a personality and emotions. Whether God cares about us or not is on how this personhood demonstrates such emotions. Which is fine if you disagree with what a sufficient display is. People in relationships will often say "I wish you would do this more often because it makes me feel loved" They are unconvinced by the demonstrations of another person. but not absurd to think God is personhood.

An atheist on the other hand says that there are reasons of existence. Atheists dont say that there is no reason of existence. Atheist just dont like hanging their hats on God. Atheists say that there are only natural reasons of existence ; not supernatural. And science can explain those reasons.

Science is a tool man made to help understand reality. God made reality and is all-knowing. Science can only explain what it knows. So to say God can explain why a God is not needed in the origins of the universe is flat out wrong. Science can not.

It's okay to say you don't know or unsure of how something happened. But you are making a plead to ignorance, saying because you do not know means God did not do it. You reject information of God's existence not on it's lack of explanatory power, not on it's inconsistency with reality, not on the lack of residual traces of God's actions, (all of which God's existence is completely in line with). No you reject the information because you reject God.


You are a troll. But if your are sincerely answering let us examine your claims.

God has as much explanatory power as leprechauns.

God is omnipowerful and eternal and omnipresent which relates directly to a universal event. leprechauns are not those three traits and therefore can not explain a universal event.

Reality and god are inconsistent.

What about God is inconsistent with reality?

Residual traces? Where?

The act of God causing the universe to expand in the big bang left behind an asymmetrical pattern in the CMB. How can something nonsymetric arise from an homogenous singularity? It can not with out an outside cause.

God is rejected because there is no evidence but more importantly there is no need.

No need does not deductively reason to no existence. No evidence is your confirmation bias speaking. I have presented explanations contrary to no evidence.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 3:50:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 3:43:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is omnipowerful and eternal and omnipresent which relates directly to a universal event.
ALL supernatural gods are 100% human invention & the sum total of evidence refuting that, amounts to zero!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 3:55:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 3:50:04 AM, Composer wrote:
At 6/3/2014 3:43:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is omnipowerful and eternal and omnipresent which relates directly to a universal event.
ALL supernatural gods are 100% human invention & the sum total of evidence refuting that, amounts to zero!


Some gods sure. But a real god is possible in this reality. Humans describe what they see, this is how science works too. Scientist describe what they see in a language and on facts they know of. But science has been shown to be wrong at times as well.

What you are construing as human invention can be human descriptions of a real god. It is the responsibility of a rational mind to investigate claims they come across and discern which of the 2 it is.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 4:47:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 3:11:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:35:57 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/2/2014 11:06:53 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:15:58 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:02:29 PM, WilliamsP wrote:
Theism is a pathetic tradition from ancient times. Now that we have a means to obtain knowledge, we should give up on religion and faith. Faith in a book called 'The Bible', written by nodody-knows-who thousands of years ago, is what blinds you. it distracts you from the truth and the facts before you. Theists, just stop and see for a moment. Just see the errors in your ways.

So it is unreasonable to be a theist, but totally reasonable to believe nothing spontaneously formed itself into stuff, that stuff exploded, and randomly assembled into self reproducing life for no reason? Sorry, I'll stay a theist.

Atheist: What's your explanation?
Theist: I believe God created matter and energy
Atheist: I reject that assertion due to lack of evidence
Theist: What's your theory?
Atheist: When the rubber meets the road, I don't know
Theist: Who wrote the book of Matthew?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man named Matthew?
Atheist: No, absolutely not
Theist: Then who wrote it?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was it written by a man who companied with Christ?
Atheist: No, he never knew Jesus, if He even existed
Theist: Then when did the author live?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: Was he born after Jesus supposedly died?
Atheist: I don't know
Theist: What exactly do you know?
Atheist: I know that I don't know

Actually anna it is more like this.

There is no claim of any God. There are Only human claims. Billions of people dont see any claim personally from a God. Theism is supposing a number of things. Firstly they are supposing that something (God) can be by itself (no creation needed) and existed all along.

Atheist assert the same characteristics to the Universe. So being by itself and existing all along is not an impossible characteristic for something to have.

For assuming that you first need claim from a deity. Its like assuming that since it is dark then ghosts must be real.

After this a theist assumes that God created the universe. Not only that a theist also supposes that God is conciousness or a personality.

Are you saying the universe was not created but always existed? Then see previous point.

If you are saying the universe emerged into existence what was the cause for this emergence? If you are saying this cause was a quantum fluctuation then you are basing this idea on what has been seen inside the universe. There is no logical link to expecting what happens inside the universe is plausible to be for the whole universe.

What happens inside the universe helps us understand the bigger picture. For example scientists can observe new planets being formed to understand how our planet formed.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

We do not look at the fuselage of a plane and say fuselages fly, therefore that is how a plane flies. You would be confusing a part with the whole. fallacious.

The understanding of our planet earth and universe has enabled scientists to reach conclusions.

However you describe the mechanism of the universe forming, like you can describe how a ball rolls down hill. You will always be missing who put the ball in motion.

If you are saying that someone set it into motion , then in other words you are saying a force is applied. Then what about gravitational force in which no conscious decision is required.

Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt.

This is the difference between a deist who accepts God's existence and a theist who believes God to be personal.

Personality goes to intent and reasoning behind things. Your right in not every reason for something is a consequence of personal traits. But the claim is not absurd. A being with intelligence would be expected to maybe have a personality and emotions. Whether God cares about us or not is on how this personhood demonstrates such emotions. Which is fine if you disagree with what a sufficient display is. People in relationships will often say "I wish you would do this more often because it makes me feel loved" They are unconvinced by the demonstrations of another person. but not absurd to think God is personhood.

Theists also suppose that a God has free will. If God was personality or had free will, then earth would have formed in an instance. But evidence does not support this. Age of universe is 13.8 billion years while age of earth 4.5 billion years. Why would an all powerful god wait this much long. Clearly the idea of God is absurd. Only natural reasons explain such billion years.

Actually theists claim that god is a personality because humans themselves want to take the role of God. People did claim to be God in the past. The concept of sin and good is also intended to control decisions of the common people. For example am religious leader can say that fighting jihad will lead you to heaven.

An atheist on the other hand says that there are reasons of existence. Atheists dont say that there is no reason of existence. Atheist just dont like hanging their hats on God. Atheists say that there are only natural reasons of existence ; not supernatural. And science can explain those reasons.

Science is a tool man made to help understand reality. God made reality and is all-knowing. Science can only explain what it knows. So to say God can explain why a God is not needed in the origins of the universe is flat out wrong. Science can not.

Science can improve, improve and improve until it discovers most of the things. Filling gaps in knowledge with superstition is not the answer. People used think that the sun is God but the sun is as natural as everything else.

It's okay to say you don't know or unsure of how something happened. But you are making a plead to ignorance, saying because you do not know means God did not do it. You reject information of God's existence not on it's lack of explanatory power, not on it's inconsistency with reality, not on the lack of residual traces of God's actions, (all of which God's existence is completely in line with). No you reject the information because you reject God.

I reject God because God is not needed. Only natural reasons of existence are present. Secondly no claim from any deity is present. Thirdly believing in God means that you become part of a system in which religious leaders, governments, empires are in control. Man did make religions and then made lots of sects. Show me any religion which had sects since its formation. It means humans are controlling religion. Crusades is an example. I am a free man and certainly don't want to involuntarily become a slave by believing in a religion. If a government needs my political support, then it should say please but deceiving me is not going to work.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...