ForumsWEPRTheism and Atheism

4684 504611
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,156 posts
910

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,684 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

At least they both say there was a crook.


The point is it's not possible they for them to describe the same person in such a drastically contradictory way and both be correct in their descriptions.

Theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist.


One does not prove a negative claim of non existence the burden of proof is on the positive claim that there is.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

And the holy lord Buddha and the Amish said amen and let the sheep rest


....What? I think the theist of this sight have a drug ring running... And are "sampling" the product every day.
DawnzHorizon
offline
DawnzHorizon
6 posts
0

Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it ... or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.
-- Buddha


Buddha disagrees with you back

And me the awesomest ruler said I am the goodest and thou shall eat bread and whiskey
--
Buddha
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

Buddha disagrees with you back


....Where are you getting these quotes from?
DawnzHorizon
offline
DawnzHorizon
6 posts
0

nevermind imma bandwagon

And the lord Morgan Freeman once said "Thou shall fear the giraffe with the short neck"

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

You would be fired. If there is a crook, then the witnesses should be able to be at least close in their description of him. If both gave opposing viewpoints, you have no case.


Actually it can happen. It's why witness testimony isn't reliable evidence. A case has to be built on more then people's personal perspectives.
darkxrainx
offline
darkxrainx
25 posts
215

Let them eat cake? I really don't know what to say in a time like this...

Lax120
offline
Lax120
21 posts
415

All religion has hipocracy IMO and honestly which is the true religion/ there are millions of them out in the world but which one is the right one?

loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,231 posts
1,000

Let them eat cake?

And then let them worship cake, but thou shall not get fooled.

Because...the cake is a lie.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,040 posts
1,770

Yeah, umm... Let's get this one back on topic. I see several people just posting nonsense. This is the internets, and it's serious business, so let's treat it as such.

loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,231 posts
1,000

my post was a metaphor.

And then let them worship god, but thou shall not get fooled.

Because...the god is a lie.

vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
959 posts
115

this number a bit, it could have been 15000 or 30000 or 70000 out of millions of people in the general area
If you'd read basics about the place and time, the general area does not have this many in normal circumstances. And where did you get 6e-6 under power sign from?
And also the conspiracy theories about it seem much more likely.
Conspiracy theories? Like what?
You are missing the point. be it 1e-9 or 1e-1000000000000000000, it can occur! Just because something is IMPROBABLE (Adjective, not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen) does not mean it is IMPOSSIBLE
Minus added to quote... Well, there's a nonzero probability that the sun will turn out cold right now and will change its speed by some 2km/s, but if that would happen, will it be called a miracle? Given this probabilistic world, there's a nonzero probability of literally anything, including God existing (I still say that one is 1.0, but those who do not believe can't say this to be precisely 0.0).
It's not, it is the ancient equivalent of Kinder- und Hausmarchen, (Children's and Household Tales ) by the Brothers Grimm.
This means I can say the same about any book of yours, regardless its contents. This discussion ends with a stalemate.
I said that a while ago, but you're taking it out of context. I said it's historical because it recorded probable events. I never said it was accurately depicting those events.
Well then, there are goospels of John and Matthew both depicting several miracles in correct sequence (and I'm not taking Mark or Luke along with Matthew, as these are synoptics with Matthew, meaning they share the source). Do you say both of these are completely fictitious?
Geological studies have been done on some of the older rocks they have found that prove somehow (I'm not a geologist) that a great flooding did happen.
I am aware about such researches i Mesopothamian area giving evidence that there was an actual big flood. Do you know of any such researches in Central America?
We have evidence of large scale LOCALIZED flooding in very different time frames from place to place
Well, if there will be evidence that these "local" floods come to be in say the same year all over the world, could it be counted as a global flood? I say yes, in this case.
Theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist.

True. However in a situation which lacks supporting evidence the only honest statement one can truly make is 'I don't know', which (strangely enough) is the position of almost all atheists, and almost no theists.
As far as I can see, the position of most atheists with whom I was able to speak is "No, there is no God at all" without any "don't know"s. The position of many believers is "I believe, and I know, but I don't know enough to prove God to you". I can't say about "most" believers, as they vary by religion, and some will just kill me outright should I speak.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Well, if there will be evidence that these "local" floods come to be in say the same year all over the world, could it be counted as a global flood? I say yes, in this case.


They aren't all at the same time all over the world. Most of them are hundreds of years apart.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,040 posts
1,770

This means I can say the same about any book of yours, regardless its contents. This discussion ends with a stalemate.


Only those which have not been tested and verified. Certainly one wouldn't consider the Physician's Desk Reference, a textbook on clinical pharmacology, or the textbook of botany 'fairy tales'. And why is that you ask? Because they contain observed, tested, verified, and proven information. That is the fundamental difference between a biology text and the Bible.

Well then, there are goospels of John and Matthew both depicting several miracles in correct sequence (and I'm not taking Mark or Luke along with Matthew, as these are synoptics with Matthew, meaning they share the source). Do you say both of these are completely fictitious?


Yes, in fact, I would say they are both fictitious.

Well, if there will be evidence that these "local" floods come to be in say the same year all over the world, could it be counted as a global flood? I say yes, in this case.


Firstly, no it still would not be global flooding. Secondly there is no such evidence. Flooding is actually a natural cycle, and it is a highly localized event and it doesn't happen everywhere at once.

As far as I can see, the position of most atheists with whom I was able to speak is "No, there is no God at all" without any "don't know"s. The position of many believers is "I believe, and I know, but I don't know enough to prove God to you". I can't say about "most" believers, as they vary by religion, and some will just kill me outright should I speak.


Well to be perfectly honest anyone who outright claims one way or the other is speaking of things which are unknown and likely unknowable. Either way is intellectually dishonest. One may believe whatever they like, but the simple fact remains that no one knows and anyone who claims to is either delusional or is a liar.

We cannot say that there are or are not deities until we come to an accepted classification on what would make something a deity AND devise a methodology for testing for them. If such a thing occurred then, and only then, could we review the results of said testing and determine whether or not deities exist. Until that time the only honest answer remains "I do not know".
SpazAttackerz
offline
SpazAttackerz
70 posts
75

Well to be perfectly honest anyone who outright claims one way or the other is speaking of things which are unknown and likely unknowable. Either way is intellectually dishonest. One may believe whatever they like, but the simple fact remains that no one knows and anyone who claims to is either delusional or is a liar.


Is this implying that there is no reason to believe in something simply because we do not have 100% evidence of being true?
Showing 1096-1110 of 4684