Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

just as 'words' are the tools of mankind to articulate with.


ie.... mankind created the dude on a thrown

i can pick up a magnet and use the 'force'. i can experience it.

You cant experience a dude on a thrown.

dont need one

currently have idiots on the internet ranting on a god, they never met. that's your proof.

ie..... we are doing what not even jesus could

You are using scientific understanding to write these posts. YOUR god could not help you with that, science did!

 

You want to talk about ever changing standards? Lets talk about the thousands of sects of Christianity.

Besides, there is not going to be a standard among people that have been grouped together because of something they don't do. You often say atheism is a religion and you seem to claim that a persons religion defines their character.

The problem is that atheists as a group don't have common beliefs. They have a single common disbelief. Trying to say all atheists should be the same is about like saying all non-smokers should be the same, or all people that don't like sports, or all people that don't eat meat are the same.

I know I have told you all of the above before now, but because it doesn't match your idea of what you think an atheist is, you have and will continue to ignore it.

If you are going to define me, I am going to define you. When you do it, it's "reality". When I do it, it's a "strawman".

That is a fine example of hypocrisy.

 

You see Bishadi... that statement above is where most of your misconceptions are originating. Your poor choice of words or your interpretation of words that you have previously received.

"dude (dd, dyd)
n.
1. Informal An Easterner or city person who vacations on a ranch in the West.
2. Informal A man who is very fancy or sharp in dress and demeanor.
3. Slang
a. A man; a fellow.
b. dudes Persons of either sex."

See, you very use of words in an attempt to describe God fails, because God is not confined to a physical body such as 'a man' or 'person'; God is spirit, nebulous, formless,

When you learn more about God (by listening to the voice of God) then and only then will you start to see the error of your ways.

 

Then what is the point of this thread, exactly?

 

To show atheists that their demands for proof of the existence of God; while denying the use of scripture as evidence: Science is not the only "yardstick" in this life.

 

No, YOU say that we say this.

 

Well, Do you KNOW that there is no God?

 

Of course not.

 

Then all you have as an instrument of rebuttal to the existence of God is mere speculation...? Guesswork? No evidence? Then what do you have?

 

I am open to the concept of some sort of creator existing, but I see no evidence FOR that fact. None of the religions have any evidence for their claims, so why believe them? And even if one religion is right, it's basically up in the air about which one that is. There is something like 38,000 denominations of Christianity with differing and opposing views about what is "true".

 

No evidence is what we have.

Sorry, I just couldn't let such a giveaway go.

 

They don't seem to get it, do they? If they can't demonstrate that their god exists then we are under no obligation to believe them.

 

Moreover, no one is under any sort of obligation to even deal with such suppositions.

 

The other problem is that they believe that their belief is the default position.

 

Indeed, that and the insistence that such beliefs are beyond the reach of criticism.

 

Wrong! You should have stated: "The other problem is that they KNOW that their belief is the default position."

 

That is splendid. Then you also admit that you have no evidence to substantiate the claim that there is no God. Then because you have no evidence, then the claim is void and empty, worthless.

 

Wow! You guys are batting a 1000 tonight:

"1Cr 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. "

 

You don't seem to get it. Nobody said that you have to believe us. Believe as you want to believe. Your choice.

 

Except when you consent by virtue of joining such discussions. Then you like the others are obligated by the same set of obligations... to wit.... prove your claim.

 

Nobody has made this claim here.

 

"here"? As in this forum? or "here" as in this thread?

 

In this thread. So, it's a bit perplexing when you randomly tell people to provide proof for claims that haven't been made in this thread.

 

Well, look back at this posting: http://www.politicalforum.com/4911136-post111.html

The discussion at that point was the evidence for the non existence of God, the plain unadulterated answer was that "no evidence is what we have."

"we" would indicate that the poster was speaking for more than one person, possibly even a large group of people. Perhaps an assumed authority to speak for others, but nevertheless the term 'we' was used in stating that there is a complete lack of evidence to support a claim that there is no God.

BTW: I never told anyone to provide proof. I merely asked what evidence was available.

 

no. it is not because a book says so.

it is more difficult to publish in a peer reviewed journal than to publish your personal opinion in a book.

and writing up a thesis is no easy matter either.

lols ... it takes imagination to make up a series of myths.

it takes hard work and research to get something up to the required standards for a respectable scientific publication.