winsor 186
ChrisL 2
QuoteCourse, the sword cuts both ways. Maybe you don't credit God because your brain at the time wasn't working right.
That could be true.
Of course now its 15 years later and my brain must still not be working
right because I'm still sober and happy and I still dont credit God.
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
wolfriverjoe 1,340
QuoteThis set of concepts is truly neolithic.
A more compelling argument for the case that religion is symptomatic of emotional illness would be hard to make.
You know nothing. What you think you know about God is vacuously inadequate. If you had the slightest inkling of how ignorant you have become you would hide you face and nash your teeth. Just another example of how arrogant and spiritually blind we can become. TRULY PATHETIC!
...
There are none so blind as those who will not see?
So who is "blinder"?
The "True Believer" who accepts everything in the Bible as true, acurate historical fact (The holy word of God)?
We can argue for ever and ever about which parts are literal "Truth" and which are metaphor, song and poetry. I'm talking about those who believe most of it as true and accurate.
Or the athesist who denies the very existence of God?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
maadmax 0
That's "gnash."
For someone to berate me regarding my ignorance of Tooth Fairy protocol or of the Laws of the Leprechauns does not really carry a lot of weight. I doubt your invisible friend needs you to rise to his defense, since he is either possessed of GreatMagick Magic or completely imaginary.
I do not claim knowledge; I am calling bullshit - big difference. You are claiming knowledge - with the caveat that anything I dispute has to be taken on "faith" because it fails verification by any objective, double-blind measure. I, however, place no stock in make-believe.
For someone to berate me regarding my ignorance of Tooth Fairy protocol or of the Laws of the Leprechauns does not really carry a lot of weight. I doubt your invisible friend needs you to rise to his defense, since he is either possessed of Great
I do not claim knowledge; I am calling bullshit - big difference. You are claiming knowledge - with the caveat that anything I dispute has to be taken on "faith" because it fails verification by any objective, double-blind measure. I, however, place no stock in make-believe.
I place stock in results. God gave us Wisdom to shape our personal realities around His love. The results are truly transforming and liberating. The alternative is to reject Gods Wisdom and create a reality based on our lusts with woeful consequences.
...
QuoteI do not claim knowledge; I am calling bullshit - big difference. You are claiming knowledge - with the caveat that anything I dispute has to be taken on "faith" because it fails verification by any objective, double-blind measure. I, however, place no stock in make-believe.
If you claim atheism, then you do in fact claim knowledge. An atheist, in the true sense of the word, declares with certainty that there is no God. Agnosticism, on the other hand, makes no decision either way. It is reserved and declares that there is not enough evidence to make a decision. In addition, by saying that you claim no knowledge, you are denying your presupposition. In order to hold the atheistic or naturalistic position, you must presuppose that all matter, energy, and the laws of physics came from nothing, blew up, and, on its own, became organized and progressed into what we see and experience today. Since no one can prove that scientifically, you must begin with that presupposition which is a faith position. That presupposition will then influence your future interpretations. It will influence and inform your worldview.
winsor 186
QuoteQuoteI do not claim knowledge; I am calling bullshit - big difference. You are claiming knowledge - with the caveat that anything I dispute has to be taken on "faith" because it fails verification by any objective, double-blind measure. I, however, place no stock in make-believe.
If you claim atheism, then you do in fact claim knowledge. An atheist, in the true sense of the word, declares with certainty that there is no God. Agnosticism, on the other hand, makes no decision either way. It is reserved and declares that there is not enough evidence to make a decision. In addition, by saying that you claim no knowledge, you are denying your presupposition. In order to hold the atheistic or naturalistic position, you must presuppose that all matter, energy, and the laws of physics came from nothing, blew up, and, on its own, became organized and progressed into what we see and experience today. Since no one can prove that scientifically, you must begin with that presupposition which is a faith position. That presupposition will then influence your future interpretations. It will influence and inform your worldview.
Logic, semantics and linguistics are not your long suit.
So long as you stick to "God said it, I believe it and that settles it," you're good. The moment you go beyond that, you've blown it.
winsor 186
Quote
That's "gnash."
For someone to berate me regarding my ignorance of Tooth Fairy protocol or of the Laws of the Leprechauns does not really carry a lot of weight. I doubt your invisible friend needs you to rise to his defense, since he is either possessed of Great Magick or completely imaginary.
I do not claim knowledge; I am calling bullshit - big difference. You are claiming knowledge - with the caveat that anything I dispute has to be taken on "faith" because it fails verification by any objective, double-blind measure. I, however, place no stock in make-believe.
I place stock in results. God gave us Wisdom to shape our personal realities around His love. The results are truly transforming and liberating. The alternative is to reject Gods Wisdom and create a reality based on our lusts with woeful consequences.
...
Again, any double-blind attempt at verification of your claims reveals them to be complete bullshit, coming and going.
So what exactly is your position winsor other than to criticize the positions of others?
Shotgun 1
QuoteIn order to hold the atheistic or naturalistic position, you must presuppose that all matter, energy, and the laws of physics came from nothing, blew up, and, on its own, became organized and progressed into what we see and experience today.
Some atheists might believe that the universe was pooped out from a giant unicorn's bum. But atheism has nothing to do with unicorns or physics; it only has to do with whether one believes in the man-made gods of various religions. To deny the existence of those gods does not require that one has an explanation for everything else. There are many things I don't have an answer for, and I don't believe that everything came from "nothing," but I also don't accept "God did it" as a tidy little answer. Where did this "God" come from? It just appeared from nothing? This marvelously complex and intelligent thing that created us, who created it?
winsor 186
QuoteSo what exactly is your position winsor other than to criticize the positions of others?
If you are capable of comprehending the obvious, no explanation is necessary. If you are incapable of comprehending the obvious, no explanation will suffice.
Hey, I am not claiming that an invisible friend, courtesy of a magic jewish zombie, is the basis for everything. If I were to make such a claim, I would reasonably expect it to be met with a bit of skepticism.
I am not saying that I am right, just pointing out that your claims are patent nonsense.
QuoteIf you are capable of comprehending the obvious, no explanation is necessary. If you are incapable of comprehending the obvious, no explanation will suffice.
Hey, I am not claiming that an invisible friend, courtesy of a magic jewish zombie, is the basis for everything. If I were to make such a claim, I would reasonably expect it to be met with a bit of skepticism.
I am not saying that I am right, just pointing out that your claims are patent nonsense.
You would like to oversimplify the issue and, in doing so, ridicule and dismiss the opposing viewpoints. It’s not that simple. Religion aside, I’m talking about what created/started the universe. It is your presupposition, is it not (as an atheist), that everything came from nothing on its own, blew up, and organized itself through random process, and sustains itself? I’m just trying to establish that starting point which is in fact an atheist/naturalistic standpoint? It is also a faith position because you can’t prove it. Is it also not true that one’s presuppositions influence their worldview (e.g. we study to understand God’s creation and bring glory to Him versus study simply for the sake of accumulation of knowledge). Otherwise, if you're just going to sit on the fence and hurl insults, aren't you really an agnostic and, by definition, at least open to the idea of a supernatural origin?
"Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else." "By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the Uncaused Cause." Psalm 90:2 If Everything Needs a Creator, then Who or What Created God? - by Matt Slick
So, are you really agnostic Shotgun?
So, are you really agnostic Shotgun?
beowulf 1
Atheism is simply a disbelief in any god.
What started the evolutionary process is unknown, if there ever was a beginning. It has nothing to do with atheism.
Your belief that god did it is not based on any evidence.
What started the evolutionary process is unknown, if there ever was a beginning. It has nothing to do with atheism.
Your belief that god did it is not based on any evidence.
Quote"Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else." "By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the Uncaused Cause." Psalm 90:2 If Everything Needs a Creator, then Who or What Created God? - by Matt Slick
There is really not a philosophical difference between claiming that the universe came into existence form nothing and organized itself and claiming that God organized the universe and made it. It merely pushes the point of unknowing back one step and in either case it asserts a claim that is unknowable and unprovable.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
winsor 186
QuoteQuoteIf you are capable of comprehending the obvious, no explanation is necessary. If you are incapable of comprehending the obvious, no explanation will suffice.
Hey, I am not claiming that an invisible friend, courtesy of a magic jewish zombie, is the basis for everything. If I were to make such a claim, I would reasonably expect it to be met with a bit of skepticism.
I am not saying that I am right, just pointing out that your claims are patent nonsense.
You would like to oversimplify the issue and, in doing so, ridicule and dismiss the opposing viewpoints. It’s not that simple. Religion aside, I’m talking about what created/started the universe. It is your presupposition, is it not (as an atheist), that everything came from nothing on its own, blew up, and organized itself through random process, and sustains itself? I’m just trying to establish that starting point which is in fact an atheist/naturalistic standpoint? It is also a faith position because you can’t prove it. Is it also not true that one’s presuppositions influence their worldview (e.g. we study to understand God’s creation and bring glory to Him versus study simply for the sake of accumulation of knowledge). Otherwise, if you're just going to sit on the fence and hurl insults, aren't you really an agnostic and, by definition, at least open to the idea of a supernatural origin?
Again, semantics has you in over your head from the outset.
All of your guesses are wrong, and it is my prerogative to call you on it without the obligation to set you straight. You do not qualify for admission, and could not afford the tuition.
Shotgun 1
Quote"Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else." "By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the Uncaused Cause." Psalm 90:2 If Everything Needs a Creator, then Who or What Created God? - by Matt Slick
So, are you really agnostic Shotgun?
I don't believe in God. You can call me agnostic, atheist, whatever. The label is unimportant to me. But I do think you're reading too much into what an athiest is. My dictionary says "one who denies the existence of God."
And your quoted answer/link for who created "God": Sorry, but it's a typical crap non-answer. Can't buy it.
QuoteAtheism is simply a disbelief in any god.
What started the evolutionary process is unknown, if there ever was a beginning. It has nothing to do with atheism.
Your belief that god did it is not based on any evidence.
Hold to your atheistic position dude. If God didn't create, then it just started itself for no reason. If you don't want to use the term atheist with regard to this, how about naturalist? I don't care. The question is still the same. Design implies a designer, does it not?
“A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.
There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
- Dr. Werner Gitt
QuoteI don't believe in God. You can call me agnostic, atheist, whatever. The label is unimportant to me. But I do think you're reading too much into what an athiest is. My dictionary says "one who denies the existence of God."
I know you don't believe in God. However, in order to be agnostic, you must be at least open to the possibility. As you said, the definition of atheist is one who denies the existence of God. That is a declaritive statement. You're not saying that God might or even probably doesn't exist. You're saying that God does not exist.
beowulf 1
You make a lot of assumptions that are not supported by evidence.
QuoteThere is really not a philosophical difference between claiming that the universe came into existence form nothing and organized itself and claiming that God organized the universe and made it. It merely pushes the point of unknowing back one step and in either case it asserts a claim that is unknowable and unprovable.
But it does establish the fact (which supposed atheists seem to withdraw from) that their beliefs are based on a presupposition just like the man of faith in God. (which influences their thinking going forward.)
You know nothing. What you think you know about God is vacuously inadequate. If you had the slightest inkling of how ignorant you have become you would hide you face and nash your teeth. Just another example of how arrogant and spiritually blind we can become. TRULY PATHETIC!
...
That's "gnash."
For someone to berate me regarding my ignorance of Tooth Fairy protocol or of the Laws of the Leprechauns does not really carry a lot of weight. I doubt your invisible friend needs you to rise to his defense, since he is either possessed of Great Magick or completely imaginary.
I do not claim knowledge; I am calling bullshit - big difference. You are claiming knowledge - with the caveat that anything I dispute has to be taken on "faith" because it fails verification by any objective, double-blind measure. I, however, place no stock in make-believe.
You can revere the sayings of people who had just figured out they had opposable thumbs and could use rocks as tools, or you can put it into perspective. Do not expect me to be impressed if you choose the former approach.
BSBD,
Winsor