A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

You're really quite emotional, aren't you? Let's try to be more logical and scientific about this. You know, like people of faith.

1. Most people don't take the portrayal of God in the Bible, literally. I don't know a single Christian who believes in a old guy with a beard and a "smite" button on his celestial keyboard. Nor do we believe an all-powerful being suffers from insecurity, jealousy, anger, vindictiveness and so on. The Bible was recited verbally for hundreds of years before being written by an ancient people.
Oh, and we're all for things like electricity, airplanes and pizza!

2. What rights have you been denied by me? By "religious people" that has you so obviously upset?

3. If you don't believe them, why do you care about whether Christians believe you will go to hell for sins? (I don't believe that, btw). Or what they say on streetcorners? There's a homeles guy who holds a sign saying "The CIA will get you!" . Are you pissed off at him for threatening you with the CIA?

4. Someone has put God in your life?!?! Holy smokes! Well I'm sure if you ask Him nicely, He'll leave.
As far as courts, schools and government, I'd be curious to hear how God is currently in these places.

So do try to settle down. I'm concerned you might injure yourself. Tellya what: I'll pray for you just before posting this reply!

God Bless You!

 

How are Christians denying your rights? Because you disagree with them?

Quantrill

 

Alliance Defense Fund and prop 8.

You should open your eye some time to something else besides the bible.

 

I see you like to put square pegs into round holes.

So if this bible was recited verbally for hundreds of years, then why would you believe any of it?

If you don't take the god the bible speaks of as literally, then why did you end your post with 'God Bless You!'?

I see its the old, me me me me syndrome. What rights have **I** denied you. Its not **you** its yout faith collectively in society.

There seems to be a group of religious zealouts out in here socal that likes to show up at sporting events. Can you tell me why religious people should be showing signs like these at Angels, Padres or Chargers game?





You dont think the IDers or Creationist are not trying to put creationism in the science room?

If there is a seperation of Chuch and State, then why does the The US Supreme Court have the 10 commandments on display?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

How is that denying your rights?

Quantrill

 

San Diego Paders and Anaheim Angels are two Major League Baseball teams in Southern California.

What is your point?

 

Lets start off slowly here - Do you even know what prop 8 is?

 

No. Does that mean you won't explain?

Quantrill

 

Google is your friend.

 

What evidence does "I dont believe because there is no evidence" require?

 

You too actually look at what is there, that is not an intellectual position - its laziness.

There is evidence for Gods, and I have shown you the same sight that makes a strong case how many times now? Here it is again:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

So, when your personal position is that there is no evidence at all? That contrasts with both the atheists and theist positions which make strong preponderance of the evidence cases.

The evidence is there, its just inconclusive. Its why a strictly scientific approach lead straight to agnosticism. That is not what you are claiming.

Now, if you are chastizing people for believing in something without evidence - and only one side of that equation mind you - and yet your beliefs are based upon an easily disproveable statement (there is no evidence), then what does this say about your faith choice?

No offense, but when I hear, "there is no evidence for God," what I hear is, "I am too lazy to look and doubt is easier," or, "I am deliberately blind to all but my opinions."

No doubt, you are entitled to a position, but that position is hardly better than religion.

Not too mention, if you disagree with what I just said - then your position is not falsifiable.

 

We are not doing this again.

Friendly advice - learn the meanings of the terms agnostic and atheist. They do not mean what you think they mean.

 

Friendly advice, don't base you life on the assumption that people are stupid. I know thee definitions, indeed, this conversation began with me referring to these larger concepts, and you returning to your individual concerns outside those concepts.

And you individual concern is identical to the claim made of agnostic-atheism - a lecherous illogical concept. There is nothing personal at all about that claim.

Indeed, as we can see, there IS evidence for God.

You can believe what you want, but when you advance it in a debate forum ... well, what do you expect? Skepticism for everything but your beliefs?

So, short of the long, not only do I know the definitions of atheism and agnostic, I know the definition of the preversion of both known as agnostic-atheism.

 

Lets test this supposed knowledge.

What is atheism?

What is agnosticism?

 

So THAT's how faith has invaded your life? A long time ago, someone put the 10 commandments on display? Exactly how much time do you spend at the USSC, that you're so worked up about this?

So let's see. Faith does not impact your life at all. It does not restrict your rights in any way. It is not in schools. It does not interfere with science. There are no policies about faith that effect you.

I really don't see why you're throwing such a tantrum. All the things you complain about either don't exist or don't impact you in any way.

 

Agnostic:
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Now the really interesting part is how, when the evidence question turns to atheist evidential support they sieze on the WORD (a single word mind you) disbelief to create this nonesense.

"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

You will notice a couple of things:

#1 - The article states that there is also something called an agnostic theist - however, no theist on this forum has adopted this position when the discussion turns to faith.

#2 - every atheists on this forum, while demanding evidnece, has, at one point or another, either overtly claimed to be agnostic atheist or claimed its positions (as you did). Every last one of them.

And the problem is, as you do, it doesn;t address the question I laid out for you.


How is this not evidence?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

But there is none, because YOU say so? Isn't that circular process pretty much the utter abandonment of evidenced based reasoning?

By all means, how about instead of asking question, after being warned mind you, that assume that everyone who disagrees with you is too stupid to read and/or understand a distionary (and that we have read nothing else), maybe you could just try making an evidenced based case for your position?

You COULD begin by offering up a rebuttal on why a stated arguement with support is indeed NOT evidence.

 

You want me to prove that I dont believe in a god?

Woo! Correct!

I dont think that is the case. Its certainly not the case in real life - I have met many agnostic theists. "I dont know, but I believe anyway".

So what? They probably are. Agnostic atheism is extremely common. I can only think of a couple of atheist posters here that I wouldnt expect would characterise themselves as such.

Appearance of design does not imply a designer. All these aspects of the universe could occur in either a designed universe, or a naturalistic universe. Their existence tells us nothing about the existence of a deity. It could not be more meaningless.

 

Well, that is teh problem.

Agnostic atheism is a load of crap. It is intellectually dishonest, and, as you prove, it does not deal with the fact that THERE IS EVIDENCE.

It invalidates both atheism, which states that there is no God (which real atheist can actualy make a case for), and agnosticism, which states that the evidence is inconclusive - but obviously, this requires evidence.

Its sheer laziness.

Worse, with this fallacious excue safely tucked away, guess what? Atheists go right on behaving like the very worst of strong atheists, only they have rationalized the behavior - a behavior that requires no evidence and is unfalsifiable.

You are the atheist version of a Creationist - unmoveable by evidence or reason in the slightest. And what do you do with it? Does this cause you follow and emrace the lofty ethic of a diety? Nope, it excuses, indeed leads you to, deride and insult people.

Its nothing but a really bad excuse for what is normally really bad behavior.

 

The evidence is not "inconclusive", it is nonexistent. Trust me - I have looked.

Nobody has ever, in the history of mankind, presented a non-fallacious, objective or empirical proof for the existence of a god. If they had, I'm quite certain everyone would hear of it.

Feel free to correct me, of course. There's no need to bother me with anything thats previously been debunked:

• Kalam's (or any other) Cosmological Argument
• Thomas Aquinas's Proofs
• Arguments from Revelation
• Arguments from Apparent Design
• Teleological Arguments
• Moral Arguments
• Anthropic Arguments
• etc...

Might be that they do - I wouldn't know. Their behaviour has absolutely no impact on the legitimacy of their position.

And let me get this straight. You are equating the position "no evidence = no belief" of agnostic atheism with "belief despite evidence to the contrary" of creationism. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

What bad behaviour is this? I dont recall doing anything but disagree with you. Why does that offend you so?

You have the most extraordinary resistance to the concept of a null hypothesis. Tell me, what is wrong with these statements?

"I do not accept that this drug has any impact on this disease until I see evidence"

"I do not accept that Carbon Dioxide emissions cause Global Warming until I see evidence"

"I do not accept that height positively correlates with weight until I see evidence"

"I do not accept that water is flammable until I see evidence"

"I do not accept that a god exists until I see evidence"

"I do not accept that little green men control you from inside your brain until I see evidence"

"I do not accept that this man is guilty of murder until I see evidence"

There is nothing wrong with any of these positions, despite the fact that some claims turn out to be true and some turn out to be false. It is not necessary, or even desirable, to form a belief about the truth or falsity of a statement before the evidence is in.

A god might exist, certainly, but there has been no evidence to move me from the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis does not require evidence - it is the position one takes until evidence presents itself.

 

The only problem is that there is evidence of disease, of global warming, etc. the fact that it is out there and you claim there is no evidence is where your hyposthesis reveals its fault.

If there is evidence and you claim it is not there? You believe in a denial at any cost. That simple.

But heh, if you don't want to believe in concrete until you trip and it smacks you in the face; if you don't want to believe that there are deserts out there because you never want to leave your home town in Washington State; if you do not want to believe in black holes despite the scientific evidence for them; if you want to believe in a literal interpretation of Creation despite evidence to the contrary .... that is on you.

Agnostic atheism is simply the fundamentalist form of atheism. Glad to see that you, like me, put most atheists on this forum in the same category.

Enjoy delusion as a intellectual arguement.

BTW - none of the arguements you listed were the ones I cited. You are arguing with yourself and not the evidence people present you - but then, the trend of avoiding evidence is EXACTLY the point I am making, am I not?

 

Cool, its your guide. Why are you so distraught about my questioning you that you have to keep claiming that I am emotional about this? Is it possible for you to debate anything with you get worked up and thinking the other person is emotional about something?

Simple question: do you think the god the bible speaks of actually exists? IS it possible for you to give a yes/no answer w/o claiming I am getting all emotionally worked up about this? Lets see if you can actually debate.

Why do you insist it is beyond my understanding? You claim most people don’t 'take the portrayal of God in the Bible, literally', then you finish your post with 'God Bless You'. If you dont 'take the portrayal of God in the Bible, literally, then why say 'God Bless You'? Would you say may the Leprechaun Bless You?

Here we go again with the 'emotionally rattled' nonsense. This tells me you really cannot debate. So instead you would prefer to throw ad hom. But that’s OK.

I’ve been to a lot of baseball stadiums...37 to be exact. Its a hobby of mine. Except for major games like the All-Star Game or the World Series, I’ve never seen any businesses outside a regular season game ever. Ohh except for religious people holding up signs about their faith. Its called, that's not the time nor the place for religion.

What do you think would happen, if a group of baseball fans were out side a church at 9:30 in the morning holding up signs. They would be labels as 'un-godly' and asked how they be so disrespectful to hold up signs out side of church during a sermon. IT seems you like to have it both ways. Sorry, you cannot.. Maybe this is why you would rather throw Ad Homs than actually answer the question.

I see you don't like to keep up with current events.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/23/rick-perry-creationism-classroom

Rick Perry is just the latest righty looney that wants creationism taught in schools, even thou the Supremes said it was unconstitutional in 87. You really ought to keep up with current events.

I see once again you claim I'm 'worked up'. More Ad Homs aye?

If we have a separation of church and state in this country, that would include not having the 10 commandments being displayed in the Supreme Court. Perhaps you didn’t know this, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Their decisions will effect my life, for better or worse. Religious beliefs should not interfere with their job – declaring whether or not a persons rights are being violated or a law is unconstitutional.

Not that I expect you to understand this. Instead of actually reading and absorbing what I wrote, you'll simply throw more ad homs because it seems that is you only defense.

 

So let's see. Your claim was the faith has effected government policies. I asked
"What example do you have of a POLCY that directly effects your life as you claim it NOW does?"
And you reiterate that there is a statue in DC. So while you claim others don't understand, and for all your whiny little "Poor Me! I'm a Victim of Religion!" crap, you have yet to respond to a counter with a single point that supports ANY of your BS. Hmmm. I need to help you here.

Let me dumb down debating for you because you obviously ain't the brightest star in the woodpile. Here's how a debate goes:

1. You state a position. In this case, that religion has invaded your life, your schools, your science and US Government Policy.
2. Then I counter. In this case it was easy. You're wrong. It doesn't do those things. Prove it.
3. Then you address the counter and support your claim with some kind of evidence. This is where you FAIL.
4. Then I would provide my supporting evidence but in this case, I'm just laughing a lot because you suck so badly.

When it comes to debating, you suck. But it's okay. You have other redeeming qualities. You play a pretty good victim and you whine superbly!

So now I have addressed all your points. Yes I've used some humor as I'm generally a happy and humorous kinda guy! But I have addressed your claims nonetheless.

This would be where you come up empty and dodge my counters or Cut & Run. I would Cut & Run if I were you. You're pretty owned on this one.

If you would like any more lessons on debating, just let me know. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

 

Your continues insistence that I am somehow always getting emotionally upset over this. Why are you distraught that I am questioning your beliefs?

We have the bible to understand 'god'. Only those you say god is beyond the understanding of humans is just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. They are simply trying to hide the fact that the bible is bunk and they know this. So to keep their fairy-tales alive in their minds, they have to come with nonsense like ' god is beyond the understanding of humans'.

Now I'm cutting and running? I think you need to go back and see what I posted. I meet each of your answers head on. And w/o failure, you are still about how 'emotional' I am.

You really need to stop.

Then you understand why I bring up. And w/o failure, you are still about how 'emotional' I am.

And w/o failure, you are still about how 'emotional' I am.

Its currently not, however, it should stay that way. As I stated before, the religious right is constantly trying to get creationism on the table for debate. If you dont see that, then you really need to keep up with current events.

You should read what I post. Perhaps a reading class would help? Yes?

I think you need one, because the Supreme Court post seemed to go right over your head.

 

Just so everyone knows, NoPartyAffiliation is not a sock of me

Give 'em hell!

I will rest easier knowing that the prediction that people who profess things like this:

http://www.atheists.org/religion

Will indeed find that they are more often taken to task as the message spreads.