The Problem That Atheist Has Produced.

Originally Posted by polscie View Post
He who continue to support this claim of belief in God has a moral
obligation to produce a physical evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt,
otherwise this claim of "God" is to be rendered as moot and academic.

polscie

Response: Similarly, those who claim that there is no God have the same obligation to prove so.


The belief in "God" is just a claim.
This is one claim that Man can never ever produce a body of proof
that shall serve as a convincing proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

This claim of belief in "God" became a challenge to Man.

This initial challenge was incorrectly addressed.

The initial challenger/s now known as the Atheist
(or they were purposely labeled) incorrectly gain ground as the opposition to this (claim).

Incorrectly, because it appeared that there is "God" by saying,
"I do not believe in "God".

Those people who are now known as the Atheist should have said in the first place,
"You people are claiming that there is "God", now if you cannot
produce "God" self or any "body of proof"
in due time then you should stop all this grossly non sense of yours".

In addition to the above statement, they also should have said....
I am not going to say "I do not believe in "GOD" ,
since that is only a claim and so it shall remain as a claim in a given time
and shall be rendered as Moot and Academic
when this time has fully been consumed.
(and that this time is now fully consumed ) so the belief in the CLAIM of "GOd" is now an obsolete claim.

Polscie



The problem.

At present, Atheist stands as an organization that is fully opposed
to a standing order of belief, and this belief is that there is "God"
and that those people who do not believe are now called or labeled as
an Atheist. What a big problem Atheist has here.

A claim is just a claim, and he who makes the first claim carries the full burden of proof.

The burden of proof ever since lies on the shoulder of the primitive man,
they failed to produce the hard evidence in due time and so it is but
high time to declare this claim as null and void.

So the present Man must now declare, hey people of our time.
The calim of "God" is never proven as true in due time and in due course.
The claim is a lie and is not true.

Polscie

 

So, I want to make sure I understand this correctly, athetists are being ethnocentrists to other soceities.

 

My wife is an Atheist. She is the nicest person I know, she just doesn't believe in anything divine, she believes evil is man himself. I'm agnostic, I don't associate faith with any one God. Atheist are not bad people who go around looking for belittle others, some are...but in all fairness every faith/religion has the same group of people who hunt for others and try to make them feel like crap. It is pathetic, but it's a part of life.

 

before going any further we could try and
start by
tackling Ethnocentrist first.

Then the application of Ethnocentrist to "The Claim of God".

polscie

 

I'm an athetist. If I was an ethnocentrist, I would see your god ,and say you're wrong, based upon what I believe. It's juding a differnt culture, by comparing it to your own, usually has negative results.

 

It would help your argument if it was typed in something approaching making sense. For the life of me I can't exactly work out what you're actually trying to say.

 

ethnocentrist is a label.
atheist is a label.

labels are made by those in power.

and because the approach made by those who questioned the claim of "god"
was incorrect to my mind, hence they were labeled as an atheist and now
is possibly facing this problem of receiving another form of label as an enthnocentrist.

Atheist now as I observe has the burden of producing
an evidence everytime he/she would say " There is no God."

IN the first place (atheist) has no moral obligation to do so.
People (atheist) just made an enormous mistake and so it remains as
a vicious cycle.
There is god. There is no god.

polsice

 

Most atheists though will say that they don't believe in any gods. That isn't a position that requires a burden of proof. The problem is that the religious keep telling us what we think and believe instead of actually listening to us.

 

It does require and believers require atheist to make a proof of their belief.

Believers: Do you believe in God?

Atheist: I don't believe in God.

Believers: Why?

Atheist: Because there is no God.

Believers: Can you prove it?

See.

polsice

 

And then with the role reversal, we see this:

Atheist: Do you believe in God?
Believer: I do believe in God.

Atheist: Why?

Believer: Because there is a God.

Atheist: Can you prove it?

See.

That is the problem that Atheist have created. Subsequently, the reversed scenario which you portrayed came about only after the Atheists first created the scenario which I presented. Someone who throws stones, have stones thrown back at them.

 

Yes it does.

The rules of logic apply yo your side or they do not. Apparently, when it comes to evidence though, atheism is supposed to get special treatment?

And the real problem is that almost all theists can offer some kind of proof for God. It may not be estably scientific, but then science cannot rule out the possibility of God can it?

Yet atheists are certain there are no Gods at all with no science to back it up.

So logic states, you believe something because. .. Why?

Well, who the hell knows. Its not like atheists spend any time actually looking at the universe and attempting to solve the riddle. Nope, far better to simply make up exceptions to very standards they claim to show how rational, logical, and scientific they are.

So everyone is tracking, its called the fallacy of special pleading. Somehow theism is flawed because it cannot be proven beyond the doubt of absurdity, but atheism is totally scientifically valid... Without using any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.

And yet, despite claiming to be driven by evidence, they produce none. As I have long stated, and as a former atheist, there is nothing logical about atheism, its just emotion.

 

Atheists say intelligence comes from dust, but whens the last time Albert Einstien crawled out from underneath your sofa? CHECKMATE!

 

So, all intelligence flows from Einsteun, who was not even an atheist?

 

One day you'll actually read what I say with comprenhension instead of just spouting nonsense.

 

Thats what you got from the post? You are simply under a misapprehension.

 

Can you please show a quote where an Atheist has made that comment?

 

One day you'll actuallt come ba ck with something like a reasoned responsevrather than making the same banal claim a bout being serially misunderstood.

Being an ass is not scietific, its emotional. And like all atheist claims, the claim that you are not undetstood is just arrogance incarnate.

If you dont like it, put me back on your ignore list for the upteenth time, and acknowledge that ypur faith is indefensible. If, howver, you choose to sing the swill over and over again, then perhaps you should think it it through before posting it on a debate forum where it is easily rebutted, just like it was the last time you made the same idiotic claim.

Of course, if ypu actually thought thing through, applied actual science to your position, well, then you couldn't be atheist anymore because youd realize that, "erm, nothing," wasn't exactly bomb proof.

Of course that was the point of the previous post, but apparently the comprehension problem is with everything else but you. Funny how that kind of science works.

 

Nope, I got two strawmen positions, one on religion and one on Einstein.

Or, as a religious person, am i not supposed to be smart enough to figure that out?

BTW, atheists claim intelligence comes from dust. That hole big bang, higher level elements created through fusion in stars thar explode spewing dust into the universe? Well, i say that as a Christian. TOUCHDOWN?

 

So you agree with my earlier post then? I see you quoted before two minutes after when I appropriately edited it.

 

Agh, no, what i responded to was exactly what you wrote, and they remain the same.

And, no, i obviously don't ageee with you, because both your statemenrs are clearly loose strawmen devoid of support. That i am aware of the big bang. .. And a creator, well, ill let you fill in gaps as you clearly think you have everything cornered and us stupid Christians are miles behind you.

Only i seem to be ahead of you at each step, first with dust, now with intelligence.

Probably why its best to avoud using strawmen arguements. Just a thought.

 

Nothing you said had anything at all with what I said. In fact, you proved my point that the religious tell us atheists what we believe instead of actually listening to us. How's that?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

This is not what you quoted Neutral, please refrain from making up lies about me in the future.

 

Well, lets try logic, actual logic, shall we.

Atheists dont believe in God because - who the hell knows.

Atheists, the poor victims that they are, are misquoted anf misunderstood - apparently by simply claiming they are misunderstood without referrence to anything to be understood!

Wht the idea that atheists don't believe in God or Gods, is just rediculously complex and quite easily misunderstood you see.

Just like the rule of logic requires a conclusion to be supported. I.e. You actually have to make a case before your case can be misunderstood, thats how science works kiddo.

Thanks for providing yet another opportunity to showcase the lack of science, but the clear indications of emotional animosity, in atheism.

 

Also, what does the mans religion have to do with him being intelligent?

 

Agh, so you went back after it was rebutted and now, still strawmen, and now t makes even less sense. The point about intelligence, atheism, theism lost entirely.

Of course the game now ia to prove tgat other people are liars, not that both statement are totally stupid?

Well, good luck with thatt. You've now managed to insult the intellugence of botn Christians and Atheists, and drug in einstein to absolutely no effect whatsoever. Clearly something has been checkmated