~why johnny (atheist) can't beleive ~ and the cure~

Nothing, but it tells quite a bit about mankind.

 

More allegations against atheists, still no evidence. Atheists do not want to destroy your religion and boy do you flatter yourself when you say "it is their main purpose in life".

Here is some evidence to debunk your idea that some are able to comprehend the abstract better

Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people, according to a US study.


They defined intelligence as the ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-irrational-unscientific.html#ixzz3EjCYKFG2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Interestingly is does not include creativity, so maybe religious people are better at making up stories.

 

I hate to jump into a good catfight, but Christians don't want to destroy anyone anymore than Atheists want to do so. What we have are a few loudmouthed, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) individuals who are using certain beliefs as a tool for an excuse to spread their particular agenda of hate.

 

That may apply inside our universe, but applying it to the universe itself is a fallacy of composition, and any attempt to reconcile the problem results in special pleading.

Just about anything, once you realize that life is just an emergent property of matter.

If time was created along with the universe in the Big Bang, then there has never been a time when the universe didn't exist. Isn't that the definition of eternal?

Only if you ignore about 99% of the attributes of God.

 

right, so what caused this god thing to come into being?

ask yourself what could cause a god to exist.

 

I was raised by a Calvinist household that later converted to Catholicism. Due to some personal issues I couldn't be Catholic anymore. I moved away for a while and became atheist. Due to some very personal issues that occurred I found my faith.

 

Same question. I don't know. Now, an atheist would say they know by "disbelieving" there is anything beyond the physical universe. A theist would say they know by believing there is something. Both are acting on faith.

 

An atheist would say that a concept like God, that has no evidence supporting it and does nothing to resolve the question at hand, isn't an answer worthy of belief and that we need to look elsewhere.

 

They would be correct to say there is no evidence, but wrong to disbelieve based on a lack of evidence. The "I don't know" answer is the only logical answer.

 

That's assuming that there is only 2 choices, gods or no gods......and that's not logical.

Believing something to be true with no evidence is a waste of time and stupid.

It is not wrong to not believe based on no evidence...think how the courts work...do they convict on no evidence?

I could say there are green giraffes..c'mon, does that THEN mean that with no evidence there ARE green giraffes?? I suddenly made green giraffes a possibility?

 

When talking about the existence of God or gods, it does come down to either there is or isn't.

There are alternatives such as a non-intelligent force behind it all.

 

I am a deist...of sorts. I also entertained entering the priesthood as a young fool. Instead I entered the Marine Corps. Good decision. While in the Corps, I was exposed to many new 'ideas, philosophies, religious views ( I was Catholic from an Irish/Italian community, you can imagine how ignorant I was (am?). I somehow got my hands on some writings of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Worlds I had no idea existed suddenly popped into my tiny universe. I became an insatiable reader of 19th century philosophy and Eastern religions...and very attracted to Taoism. I simply can't accept the 'pointless universe' of atheism. Being a deist leaves doors open. I like open doors

 

My service in the Marine Corps also led to a deep study of Eastern philosophy. I'm a big fan of Alan Watts and have listened to many of his recordings on Zen, which I've also studied and practiced on my own for years. Of course, saying "practicing Zen" is a non sequitur for those who know anything about Zen!

 

Watts is a trip. I have some old tapes of his recorded on Mt. Tamalpias, Muir Woods I think in the late 60's/early 70's. And yes, to pronounce that you know Zen is to not know Zen

I know quite a few people who's experiences in the Marine Corps has led to profound philosophical conversions. What is it about the Corps that propagates that do you suppose?

 

Where's the rest of my post you quoted?

Believing something to be true with no evidence is a waste of time and stupid.

It is not wrong to not believe based on no evidence...think how the courts work...do they convict on no evidence?

I could say there are green giraffes..c'mon, does that THEN mean that with no evidence there ARE green giraffes?? I suddenly made green giraffes a possibility?

 

Are you one of those who demand all posts be quoted in their entirety?

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

 

"Emergent property." Are you just applying a label, or is your statement based on a metaphysical/abstract process, or are you thinking of the chemical soup origin of life?

 

I'm speaking of the numerous properties which come not from the materials of which they are made, but emerge from the interactions between those materials, i.e.. weight, temperature, color, etc. Molecules which we call organic because they are found in living organisms are also found in non-living organisms and by themselves cannot be considered life. But when combined under the right conditions, life is virtually inevitable.

 

Are "non-living organisms" non-living complexes, viruses, or something else?

That's an unproven assumption/projection, isn't it?

 

That was poor word selection on my part. I was thinking more broadly as in non-living objects like water and rocks, which also contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, just in different arrangements.

Not at all, since every habitable planet we know of so far has life on it.

 

Man this thread is moving right along! l haven't had much time for recreational computer use so if I personally have missed an important reply of yours please post it or better yet PM me with the post # and relate that you would like a reply to your post. Thanks and I apologize in advance.

Why is the definition of God an invalid assumption? Some of the greatest minds of history and of today happen to support those assumptions!

Its ironic that you cling to faith of other universes when there is overwhelming empirical evidence for only ONE (this one). For one thing we are missing over 90% of the mass needed to close this universe. Its on its way to a heat death not a big crunch!

Space is something. There was literally no SPACE before the big bang! That is a difficult concept to visualizes and a reason johnny has a difficult time visualizing and believing in God. He has a terrible time understanding such concepts. I do not think of such things as an intellectual defect, rather Johnny thinks in a different manner than Joe theist.

Please read that again and rewrite, you contradict yourself.

reva

 

Most theists have at least a masters degree and many have a PhD and or a ThD. What I do not understand is the hard headed ignorant claims you and other atheists make that there is no evidence for God! Do your credibility a favor and Google these words; 'evidence for gods existence'. To your utter astonishment I am sure you will then understand how to correct your silly claim. However, if you insist on making such truly ignorant claim, please clean it up and correct yourself by saying that there is little EMPIRICAL evidence for the existence of God. You may just may get something like this ; About 19,500,000 results (0.27 seconds) For EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

REVA

 

that's 19000000 examples of wishful thinking and not a single scrap of evidence. and if you're going to try the old 'non-empiracle evidence' diversion, you've stepped right into a trap of your own making. acceptance of personal testimony as evidence of the supernatural means you accept the evidence of every nutty claim ever made. ergo you believe every supernatural event or creature ever 'experienced' is real.

see how that works?

 

Yes of course I see how that works. You yourself define evidence therefore no one can claim evidence. What a pathetic tactic. LOL you would be run out of any real debate forum with those beliefs! Sorry read your dictionary. That is the ONLY acceptable way to define a word.

reva

 

Here allow me to hold your hand;


Evidenced ev·i·dence

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns]
n
1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
The police have no evidence.

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry


vt (past ev·i·denced, past participle ev·i·denced, present participle ev·i·denc·ing, 3rd person present singular ev·i·denc·es)
demonstrate or prove: to demonstrate or prove something (usually passive)
Their unwillingness to participate is evidenced by their failure to contact us.


Encarta ® World English Dictionary ©

Btw there is other types of evidence other than empirical. FYI empirical means 'a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation'. EVEN EMPIRICAL DOE S NOT MEAN SOMETHING IS 'PROVEN'. Remember or now you know there are other types of evidence such as circumstantial evidence. In case you don't know CE is so valid that you can be EXECUTED BY THE STATE ON NOTHING BUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Shall I go on?

reva