Atheism is a religion

I have already said there is a possibility of a higher power, however there is not any evidence to suggest there is a theistic God.

 

Oh, and where have you looked to determine such a definitive stance of there being no evidence?

If this is a logical position, then you should be able to spell out in exacting detail where you have looked and determined that there is no evidence. My guess is, as always with atheists, this is just a claim bereft of supporting documentation.

 

Well, the first book of Genesis is a wonderful example of how the Bible offers absolutely no verifiable claims for the creation of the universe.

There's just something fishy about birds existing before fish when it contradicts all that is known to science. I imagine all other bronze age mythology would fall into the same faults.

Thats the first thought that comes to mind.

 

My mistake. When I hear the word science I react like a bull at a red rag. Thus let’s clarify that you keep on bringing in science while you have no proficiency in it . Similar case is considered here: http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...gious-views-have-evidence-19.html#post4290667

Ad hom attack would me attacking you personally AND not backing the attack by any facts and arguments. Obviously it is not what I am doing.

Catholics put accent on reasoning and knowledge; we evangelicals disagree and put accent on sole fide. For me these are 2 sides of the same coin. At some degree I agree with I. Kant that there can be no proof of G-d in realm of pure reasoning. All I can do is to demonstrate that your reasoning is very poor, whilst scientists, college professors and intellectuals are void of any reasoning.

Let me repeat: If God exists he would be more complicated than science. Thus no education and knowledge of science OR REASONING can be applied to measuring/understanding/doubting/proving/disproving God. You don’t understand that G-d if he exists is laughing at your reasoning no more than he is laughing at mine. Neither you as a person nor I as a person is a logical machine. I only can inform you that your intellect is endlessly superior to a theoretical computing machine which would have unlimited speed and memory. It is a proven mathematical theorem.

Everyone does. When I am all well I cannot even think that God does not exist, but when I am tired, stressed and weak a doubt slips into my mind once in a while.

Here you’ve accepted that you have no proficiency in science as well as the overwhelming majority of people do not have. (You have been honest while the overwhelming majority of people pretend that they do, because they feel ashamed if they are what they really are – clueless. For some reason they feel unhappy to be what they really are). Yet you keep on trying to explore and understand the physical world (not even God!!!) through science. Can you understand the idiocy? You are not proficient in surgery, but you try to operate appendix. Can you understand the idiocy now? And your unawareness of your poor reasoning and poor and often perverted perception of physical world around you is the result of your being brainwashed, infected by scientists, college professors and intellectuals, the disgusting parasites of the society.

Did ever the simple idea that one comes to know God through the Word of God, through the Bible and Church and though yourself (who you really are standing before God) but not through filling your head with garbage produced by scientists, college professors and intellectuals?

 

Hear hear! The Book of Genesis is such bull-locks, it really is amazing anyone can actually try and defend it.

Genesis:

Right off the bat, the book of genesis has water on the Earth before the sun was even made!

 

You know not all scientists are atheists out to disprove God right? Many scientists say God is not testable or verifiable, so God is not scientific and our science cannot include God because of that. But God could still exist.

Attacking reasoning is what discussion should be about. I could think you're a great person to hang out with but disagree with your reasoning on a lot of things about the world. Personal characteristics can be relevant if you do it right, but calling someone an idiot doesn't qualify. I would only agree that may be justified if I were saying something like the earth was flat or it was the center of the universe. And you end this paragraph with another ad hominem attack...

I can agree with this. But then how do we know that God exists? What method would you use to arrive as this knowledge if you think human reason and science are fundamentally too flawed to understand the nature of the divine?

I don't think doubt is weakness. Doubt is honesty.

Not being an expert does not mean I know NOTHING about it. I would not talk about something if I knew nothing about it, such as say Calculus or advanced physics. I try to only make claims that I feel comfortable with. And on a side note I don't believe science disproves God.

Ok I think this partially answers what method you would use to know that God exists. I would need you to expound on it though so I don't put words in your mouth and I know what to respond to. I want to know things like, if this is the method that you think is the most reliable, why is it the most reliable? What makes it superior to all other methods that claim to arrive at knowledge?

 

Worse still, the earth existed before light. The mythology is only off by about 10,000,000,000 years.

Obviously a good source of information.

 

I am glad you agree with my ad hom when you get to the end of the proof.

I think I was quite elaborate in explaining. What is not answered?
What are other methods?

 

So I'm going to lay out some of the methods that we use to arrive at what we think is knowledge. Reason (deduction and induction, and science is induction), basic everyday perception (no microscopes or anything), and divine revelation. This is not an exhaustive list I'm sure, but it's enough to work with. Now, you claim that the Bible, if I understand you correctly, is the way to know that God exists. So you would be claiming divine revelation is superior to reason, science, and basic everyday perception. I want to know how you know this method of arriving at knowledge is the best, compared to the others.

 

Bolded are key points intentionally omitted by you. Whited out are points I did not make.
How is that now? Clear?
If you stop spinning it would be easier for me to perform operation on your brain.

 

I know you didn't say everyday perception. I was just throwing it out there as an alternative. How do you know that The Bible, God, myself, and the Church are the best way to arrive at the knowledge that God exists? I'm talking about methodology with regards to the most reliable way to obtain the knowledge that God exists, and I guess knowledge in general since I'm assuming you would take the Bible's account of creation over science, and since you see The Bible, God, myself before God, and the Church as the best way to arrive at knowledge, why are these the most reliable?

 

It's a religion?????

Someones smelling too much nail polish remover.

 

That is the first intelligent thing you have ever posted. EVER. Quite by accident I'm sure.

 

Unless of course the 'light' in this case was teh fusion process strating in the sun.

Lets hope your seek for truth does not rest totally upon the examining only certain aspects of the first page of the Bible? And then only by looking at it through a lens of derision that ONLY applies interpretations to it that make it wrong.

Such antics reflect far more on YOU than they do the Bible.

 

And science offers no verifiable proof that would disprove the creation of the universe as described in the Bible. So what is your point?

 

The purpose of the Creation story in Genesis is not to give a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, but to show that the universe was in fact created, that God himself was the creator. If God gave them a detailed explanation of how the universe was created to a group of primitive people living 4000 years ago, how much you want to bet that they would understand? All this is just secondary.

 

Nope. You attributed it to me.
Alternative to what... reasoning?

We went through the list and agreed:
1. science cannot prove or disprove or understand God.
2. God (if he exists) is laughing at our reasoning.
3. you are not a computing machine

The listed above are insufficient for a person (not for us, persons) to come to knowing God .

Thus, I, or any another person cannot convince you or help you to come to know God within realms of any listed above.

Another difficulty is the differences in our views. We should brush them away from our conversation. We should keep on trying to find agreements and stay at the agreements. At your age (of 24) I was at the peak of my proficiency in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_analysis and Higher Physics. It was fan for me. At the same time I was forced to take science, both parts of it – scientific atheism and scientific communism. It was very unpleasant to my feelings experience even I was an atheist. Thus it would be counterproductive for both of us to try to impose opposite views on each other, - science you have enough knowledge to talk about and I hate on one side; higher math and physics you have excluded from your view and from the discussion and I love on another side. If you keep on slapping my cheeks I would have no choice but hit you right into your chin.

One more time:
As the reasoning and science are excluded ‘’one’s basic everyday perception’’ clearly says that if one wishes to come to know G-d that the shortest and the most efficient way is to explore the word of G-d, the Church G-d set and oneself as a person free of any superstitions, prejudgements and fears imposed on one by scientists, college professors and intellectuals and commonly qualified as knowledge.

One more time, please, stop spinning, it makes practically impossible for me to revive your mind.

One can arrive at knowledge only through science and reasoning.
I would take any account of anything over science.
I have never suggested The Bible, God, yourself before God, and the Church as the best way or any way to arrive at knowledge and thus to become a brainwashed zombie-oxymoron.
I was trained not to have knowledge. Higher Math and Higher Physics were not the goal of my training but just a prerequisite, the 1st step in this training.
Look, what use of knowledge do you have, what is in it for you personally?
You don't have answer to me but answer to yourself, like you'r standing before G-d (if he exists) but not before theologians of your religion, scientists, college professors and intellectuals. And that would be the 1st step on the right way.

 

There's a good chance we'd understand now. Where's the real and accurate explanation?

 

Well, I certainly would not expect a text book on particle physics in Genesis. However I would assume putting things in the proper order certainly would not have been too difficult for either a higher power or the people living at the time. Also, who cares if they could not understand? He certainly could have endowed them with the ability to understand if he truly is all powerful.

The story of Genesis is irrelevant due to its inaccuracies.

 

Do you, calling himself "we" understand it... or anything at all for this matter?

 

The solar system is the star dust of a previous star, so no, its not the process of nuclear fusion within the sun. The fusion began long before the planets formed. Light emitted from the sun existed before the earth, light in the cosmos existed before both. Genesis contradicts both science and reason.

Educate yourself.

 

Certainly it was not difficult for G-d to put things in in any order he is willng. Why do you assume that your order is proper for his goals, but his is not?

Irrelavant to what?
What is inaccuracy is measured in? How are you measuring it?
And where do you see a slight inaccuracy in Genesis?

 

When G-d contradicts science and reason of yours you better listen.

Reason says that for the light to be there should darkness, and for the matter to be there should be a void, for a form rises from formless.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Why do all atheists always use this argument as the winning one? Just to demonstrate their misery?

 

What?? "We", as in, scientists/humanity, etc. And what does "it" refer to?

 

I am sorry, exclude me speaking from myself, as well as everyone else who speaks from himself.

It refers to the universe coming to existance and for the same matter everything else you claim you understand . Or may be I am mistaken and you have never claimed that you understand the universe coming to existance or anything for this matter?