I rest my case. I forgot why I stay off this forum topic . You can't help but get into an argument...

Why is that a bad thing? I met many of my AG friends by arguing with them about the topic of religion. They weren't hostile arguments (well, some were :P), they were discussions about why we believed or didn't believe in god or gods and the validity or invalidity of religious claims. It's not a bad thing to be challenged on your beliefs. I understand if you don't want to have a discussion, but in a thread called "Theism and Atheism" you don't read the thread just to hear people's opinions and not respond to or be affected by them. I come here all the time to have my beliefs challenged, sometimes I even argue against what I believe (like I'm doing now) to make sure I understand exactly what my opponents are saying and also because if there are parts of my beliefs I can't explain, asking other believers how they resolve the issue is just as important as presenting your beliefs (in a non hostile way, hopefully ;) ) for the purpose of defending them. And I'm sorry, but you seem to be responding by saying, "I don't need evidence, I have faith". I have faith too, but I still make discussions on the basis of evidence because that's what you do. I don't simply decide that the issue isn't worth exploring because my religion requires a leap of faith. In fact, it is for this reason that I like to explore the topic and challenge myself to close the gap of what I don't understand, hopefully to make the leap a little less terrifying.

Code of the Atheist:

Faith is a lie. There is only knowledge.
Through knowledge, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.

I hope somebody reading this knows where I pulled that from. :P

Gods will for those that follow him is that we lead as many people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Refusing to engage in discussions with atheists is not the way to convince them to follow what you believe.
I'm not trying to be hostile, so I apologize if I came across that way, but respecting one's right to hold an opinion is not dependent on avoiding any possible discussion on the differences between your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and theirs.

God will... show himself? do party tricks? hide behind the couch and scratch himself?

I vote for the second one. Let's get out some glasses of water, then good old JC can do his famous party trick ;)

I just feel there will never be any evidence that atheists will accept as viable proof of the deities the theists believe in.

I mean, what do you want?

If I was able to prove the existence of a divine entity in a way atheists find acceptable, atheism would cease to exist.

If I was able to prove the existence of a divine entity in a way atheists find acceptable, atheism would cease to exist.

Wouldn't that require some extremely solid proof; I'm sure many still wouldn't believe, and find a way to further dissprove the "evidence". Even if it is viable, and in that hypotheticcal situation, there is god/gods.

Wouldn't that require some extremely solid proof; I'm sure many still wouldn't believe, and find a way to further dissprove the "evidence". Even if it is viable, and in that hypotheticcal situation, there is god/gods.

Exactly. So what's the point?

I rest my case. I forgot why I stay off this forum topic . You can't help but get into an argument...

Get into an argument? On a debate thread? HOW DARE WE!

Alright, I will say one more thing. Gods will for those that follow him is that we lead as many people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

How do you know that? Why would that be necessary?

I would also like to thank all of you who understood my point even if you didn't agree...

While you look at my point and say "Oh yes. Facts and evidence. That is cool, but I am sticking with blind faith"?

I just feel there will never be any evidence that atheists will accept as viable proof of the deities the theists believe in.

I mean, what do you want?

If I was able to prove the existence of a divine entity in a way atheists find acceptable, atheism would cease to exist.

It would be easy. Show me. Show me your god. In the Bible, your god was something that would appear in every battle, rain dramatic fire from the sky, and talk to his people in a booming voice. He would show himself to anyone and everyone, in a form that would be impossible to mistake for anything but a deity. If he would do something like that in modern times, it would be proof of him, wouldn't it?

I don't know why you think it is difficult to prove that something, especially something that is supposed to be large as a deity. If you don't believe in lions, I show you lions. If you don't believe in noodles, I can show you noodles. I don't believe in god, so why don't you show me a god?

It would be easy. Show me. Show me your god. In the Bible, your god was something that would appear in every battle, rain dramatic fire from the sky, and talk to his people in a booming voice. He would show himself to anyone and everyone, in a form that would be impossible to mistake for anything but a deity. If he would do something like that in modern times, it would be proof of him, wouldn't it?

I don't know why you think it is difficult to prove that something, especially something that is supposed to be large as a deity. If you don't believe in lions, I show you lions. If you don't believe in noodles, I can show you noodles. I don't believe in god, so why don't you show me a god?

Let's get real bro.

....There's no such thing as 'nood-les'. Nor will there ever be. I mean, come on. SHOW ME YOUR NOOD-LES.

And this is what I'm trying to get at. If we were all meeting in a bar, and I put my arm around the guy with the beard next to me and said, "Jesus...the guys. The guys....Jesus" and we all high-fived and he turned our water to the beverage of your choosing, we wouldn't have atheism, or buddhism, or any other -ism or religion other than christianity.

Why he doesn't pop down for a visit and boom for everybody, I don't know. Why he makes his very possible existence illogical and ill-reasoned, I don't know.

I don't have all the answers.

....There's no such thing as 'nood-les'. Nor will there ever be. I mean, come on. SHOW ME YOUR NOOD-LES.

Well here it is. It is a little bit disturbing to just post, so be warned...

And this is what I'm trying to get at. If we were all meeting in a bar, and I put my arm around the guy with the beard next to me and said, "Jesus...the guys. The guys....Jesus" and we all high-fived and he turned our water to the beverage of your choosing, we wouldn't have atheism, or buddhism, or any other -ism or religion other than christianity.

And then we would all be saved, correct? Isn't that what your god wants?

Why he doesn't pop down for a visit and boom for everybody, I don't know. Why he makes his very possible existence illogical and ill-reasoned, I don't know.

.....Wait, did you just admit that his very existence is illogical and ill-reasoned?

It is a little bit disturbing to just post, so be warned...

I was disturbed. And this goes with.....those mystical, round spheres of meat?

.....Wait, did you just admit that his very existence is illogical and ill-reasoned?

More like that it appears to us that way....I guess. 0.o

I mean, if he was just strollin' around preforming miracles, we wouldn't need to be religious or whatnot, because he'd be right there, chest-pumping and knee-slapping his way through the world.

And then we would all be saved, correct? Isn't that what your god wants?

My interpretation of the whole 'saving' thing is that he wants us to all be 'saved', or come back, but not without effort. Whats the point of doing good, or being kind and blah if you're 'saved' anyway? The sky would rain contraceptives and magnums.

...I'm trying my best to have a stand point without preaching or 'condemning everybody to hell', or whatnot.

Well, let's say that some way a deity proves it's existence to humanity. Would everyone suddenly become fervent acolytes? Certainly not. Would everyone suddenly accept said deity's guidelines and go to heaven? Certainly not. Would everyone suddenly behave all good all the time? Certainly not.

So I don't see what would be wrong with that. Saying god cannot show up because then everyone will be christian is simply not true, if you think about it.

But you can choose what the truth is.

Then you just took away what makes it truth. Truth is indisputeable, you can't pick and choose what feels best.
Anything that is subjective has no truth -- you can't look at something and say it's truth, however with the evidence supporting many theories that make them worthy enough to be considered 'truth', it's quite easy to see using this simple logic what you're actually trying to do.
It's essentially truth vs opinion. Which one takes precedence?

Don't we also have faith in evolution, the Big Bang, and others?

Under the meaning of the term "faith" as it's commonly understood -- it's belief without reason. There is certainly enough supporting the Big Bang, evolution and et cetera, thus it isn't really based on faith.

I mean, the theists could argue that everything around you is proof of some divine power.

You and I are both humans.
Therefore we are both the same people.

^ The logic applied to putting it towards a divine power.
You'd be jumping logical steps with knowledge. There is nothing to say that it is a divine power, and simple facts (that are construed good) representing the divine power is the same as the simple fact that we're humans representing us being the same identity.

Sure, sometimes you would be busted and have no idea what's going on -- but it's far far better to just find out and history of religion has shown pretty poor reactions with curiosity.
Now, the hindrances I mentioned in my previous post will just show how it can impede the understanding people have because they don't attempt to find out, et cetera.

And logic and reason isn't always correct.

You never have it 'incorrect' if you do it right. If you lacked information but made the right decision based on what you had (and that would include considering that you did not have all the information because there is no reason to assume you do) then you did the best possible thing, which makes it correct. As MageGrayWolf's picture on page 409 shows, a new factor coming in can change stories, but nonetheless any situation I've been in and considered strongly I've been able to base the best action for each situation that could present itself, based on the flaws in my understanding or simple lack of understanding.

I believe that was a somewhat extreme example taking my words out of context...

Yeah I do think it seemed to take things a step further, unnecessarily.

I feel that works with logic and reason as well.

Well, it is using logic and reason as it is. Surely you can consider other situations that change it, but it's often the case of probabilities with the car crash scenario. Even so, you have to ask how much it makes a difference towards you -- it may come to a point of never having an objective, indisputeable conclusion, and thus there will be no general consensus. With that in mind, I believe that most people would decide to pick either:
1) Believe the most probable scenario or,
2) Remain tentative on the entire thing as it is.

If there was some judgement from an entity at some point then it would be wrong to let him / her / it leave us in the dark without possibly (physically impossible to) deducing which is the sure-fire case. Therefore, the risk of not making a decision and the consequences involved are actually not really that large when you consider something like that (because an unreasonable being would probably screw with you either way).

Plus, it's just moral values vs fear / pain in that situation. But I digress.

I think that we both accept that god does or does not exist through faith.

Can someone verify whether this is even a correct sentence?

Sure we both have found 'solid' facts to prove that he does or does not exist,

Wrong.

but in reality, have the athiests fully proved their theory? No.

Atheists don't have a universal theory that applies to all of them. But for the ones you're probably referencing -- are you seriously putting forward that something that isn't fully built should be disregarded?

Now, to some extent each party has found evidence,

*facepalm* No, they haven't.

but no party, again, has actually proven their belief.

I'm just going to assume you're putting the atheists involved in this thread into that 'party'. If not, then stop generalizing.

I believe that the Big Bang happened because of the information that supports it. As MageGrayWolf pointed out in the other picture on page 409, creationists often try and draw a conclusion, then try to support it.

One is based on logic, reason, experimentation and observation. The other is based on faith.

In short, I believe God exists, but cannot fully prove it.

Oh? And how can you prove it even just a little? Your 'theory' probably doesn't consider all the other possibilities and as such just seems to show that you're bridging your belief to what information you have. It's not going to work out for you if you attempt to explain your belief and it follows something under those lines.

riding on belief that his or her party is correct.

Yours, more accurately, is faith - belief without reason.
Ours is belief - we have reasons to.

and don't really care to prove it.

Even though it's supposed to be a massive part of your life and the explanation to great philosophical points of contention (meaning of life, origination of life, et cetera et cetera)?
You care not to prove it even to yourself. That doesn't warrant respect, that deserves pity to let yourself willingly believe in something you have truly no reason to. Now, if you could tell me you have a very logical, indisputeable reason to believe in God and don't care to share it, I would judge both why you would be withholding such information and whether it's actually what you just said it was (very logical and indisputeable).

I didn't mean to imply arguing is wrong, or whomever starts the argument is in the wrong.

I was directing it towards everyone, it was nothing personal (despite the style it was written in). I think we do have a general agreement on the matter, then. :)

I'm tired of people yelling: what is rong wit u, your going 2 HELL!!!11!!1

Often it's people wanting me to get off their backs for calmly pinpointing errors in their beliefs. Can't say I'm going to persist much in such a scenario where their mentioning of their beliefs (especially as an answer to mine or someone else's question) wasn't really up to be debated for.

I didn't mention, as hard as it is to accept, smething that is absurd to you, can make sense to me.

Wrong. 'Sense' is logic and reason. You're just being intentionally ignorant. You look at it from our perspective that isn't so frivolously narrow, and you actually see the sense in it.

I am saying Everything is through belief.

Why you believe is the point of contention. Yours is faith -- belief without reason.

Say you've never seen a lion, only on TV. How do you know it exists? You believe.

What is to gain from lying in this case? There's no conceivable point in doing so, and thus yours is pretty much based on cynicism, not necessarily scepticism.

Same concept goes in this situation.

Nope, because there was a reason to lie -- comfort. And as they could not explain in truth, they generated stories instead. Why did the volcano erupt and destroy the village? They angered Hades, of course.

It is a personal veiw

Nice attempt at sugarcoating, I suppose, by adding "personal" -- but all views ought to be personal, otherwise you tend to lose your individual self, or a piece of, that is.

I don't need facts, I need faith.

Congratulations. Except that's something to be ashamed of if you actually do it.

that you do not have to believe if you don't want to.

Whilst that may be your belief, I'll hold to a point that many religious people - particularly Christians in America, constantly try and push their beliefs on others.

But it will not change what I believe.

So because you're not trying to put something into our open minds, you figure you need not have an open mind whether we have something to put in their or not, regardless of what it is?
I say 'regardless' because what would be put forward to you is pretty much indisputeable to any reasonable folk.

I would not be doing the very thing he wanted me to.

Showing one of the reasons your religion is actually pretty dangerous, no? It is in your unfounded belief that you do not dispute with that belief even to external conflicts.

You can't help but get into an argument...

Because something so productive as stating what you believe without getting in an argument and expecting impunity is better?
The 'productive' part was sarcastic, incase you didn't realize.

Gods will for those that follow him is that we lead as many people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Don't try and spread your beliefs if you're not willing to defend them, that's disgusting.

I hope somebody reading this knows where I pulled that from. :P

Someone who has not the right to speak for every Atheist. Nit-picking, I'm sure, but no, there is no code for an Atheist ^^

Although I do respect and partially agree with the philosophies behind what is said :)

If I was able to prove the existence of a divine entity in a way atheists find acceptable, atheism would cease to exist.

Atheists are defined solely by their lack of belief in a deity. It sounds like you're trying to show the idea that we'd lose logical prospects, but in truth we actually just gain belief in a deity.

Not all atheists would find it acceptable, I'm sure. Some may be too stubborn - others are much more easily pleased than others (because not all atheists are logical, and etc).

Why he doesn't pop down for a visit and boom for everybody, I don't know. Why he makes his very possible existence illogical and ill-reasoned, I don't know.

Which extends to conflict between humans and philosophies of the God that would hypothetically be proven in the first place.
Now, MageGrayWolf did also have a list of injustices and I believe murders by God linked somewhere, I fail to find it, I'm afraid.

.....Wait, did you just admit that his very existence is illogical and ill-reasoned?

I don't remember Wyrzen saying he was religious. As far as I know (though I could easily be wrong), you jumped the gun a bit :D
Of course, I haven't checked Wyrzen's profile and I haven't seen every comment he's made so. . . could easily be wrong about that :)

...I'm trying my best to have a stand point without preaching or 'condemning everybody to hell', or whatnot.

You're doing well, considering I couldn't even tell if you was religious :P the only thing that hinted to me that you are religious is:

but not without effort.

Please, elaborate? What effort do you speak of concerning being 'saved' by God?

- H