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

Hmmm.... :::: Rev looking around :::: ....no response eh? ~ 'I guess you decided to get back on the porch, lol ! '

 

Most theist have a Phd, Thd or a masters? I presume this is a typo! The reason you do not understand "hard headed ignorant claims you and other atheists make that there is no evidence for God" could well be that you have provided none. When you provide some you will find how easy it is to show what rubbish it is.

A lie no mater how often propagated is still a lie!
It does not matter if you get 3 million results if you Google Evidence for God, what matters is the quality of the evidence, and there is NONE. Repeatedly you make claims and do not back them up with sources or evidence.

To me the very worse type of snakeoil salesmen are the ones that,
Make claims without evidence.
Make claims of special knowledge(prophetic writing)
Warn of apocalyptic doom. (repent the end of the world is nigh)
Boast of there own"qualifications" (I've studied theology, your not qualified to argue with me)
Attempt to use pseudoscience.
Attempt to explain the mind of others who they have very little knowledge of
Boast of their "good works"( when really it is just a cover to proselytize !)
Use a title which implies they are entitled to special respect

These are the people we should guard against, the ones who pray on the weak and vulnerable. Thankfully in the UK the Church of England is a sort of mild mannered Christianity that even the most ardent Anti Theist would find hard to get very angry about. We still have our nutters from Muslims, Christians and Zionists but hopefully they will soon be as rare as rocking horse (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

No it wast a typo I intentionally used the word theist rather than evangelist etc. However I could, may should have used christian apologist etc. In my state the only way to automatically own the title of reverend is to have a masters.

I have shown evidence tens of times in this site threads and replies! So again you are 'oh so' WRONG, lol, relax smile. The reason I suggested Google is that I have been over the evidences I personally use so many times its tiring to do it over and over. But for you I use the evidences of cosmological arguments (specifically the KCA which has never been defeated) Ontological arguments such as Godel's ontological argument. BTW The KCA is defended by several PhDs ThDs with Craig and Koon leading the way. And Kurt Godel is the famous mathematician/logician often said to be Einsteins equal. In fact Godel helped Einstein with several theories and was his walking bud at Princeton. The odds theory ie Roger Penrose (who btw is not a theist etc), Natural Revelation, and several more not the least but may be the least convincing to Johnny atheist, a NDE. NOW PLEASE write those down.

See above. I would guess that proving the Cos and Ont are rubbish might be difficult or impossible for you, for they have resisted much more sophisticated onslaughts than I believe you will be able to mount. Said with all due respect of course.

If even one example is true evidence my case is made and I know that at least five are evidence. Deceit and diversion will not work with me.

Well my friend I am rarely if ever the one to make insult first. When someone insults me or my religion as crank did he deserves a verbal smack on the nose.

Your words would make Himmler and or Goebbel proud. Trust me you do not have to use your values to defend the 'dummies' from the theists. The people can think for themselves and world wide many more than four billion have already been there done that, you know that figure represents 'deity worshiping/spiritual' folk. Whats wrong? Do atheists feel they need to force people to think their way?


reva

 

""""I have shown evidence tens of times in this site threads and replies! So again you are 'oh so' WRONG, lol, relax smile. The reason I suggested Google is that I have been over the evidences I personally use so many times its tiring to do it over and over. But for you I use the evidences of cosmological arguments (specifically the KCA which has never been defeated) Ontological arguments such as Godel's ontological argument. BTW The KCA is defended by several PhDs ThDs with Craig and Koon leading the way. And Kurt Godel is the famous mathematician/logician often said to be Einsteins equal. In fact Godel helped Einstein with several theories and was his walking bud at Princeton. The odds theory ie Roger Penrose (who btw is not a theist etc), Natural Revelation, and several more not the least but may be the least convincing to Johnny atheist, a NDE. NOW PLEASE write those down.

When you provide some you will find how easy it is to show what rubbish it is. See above. I would guess that proving the Cos and Ont are rubbish might be difficult or impossible for you, for they have resisted much more sophisticated onslaughts than I believe you will be able to mount. Said with all due respect of course""""





Most people aren't as smart and sophisticated as you...whatever created them wasn't very good at design or planning ....it was a hit or miss mess.

And it certainly didn't want them to have any proof of it's existence or it would 've made it easy for us dumb little peons to see proof it existed without all the "sophisticated " blathering BS...

A rule I found true throughout my life, ""the more complicated it gets, the less likely it's true or good for you" ...whether it's your phone plan or a wage chart or the mechanic's explanation of what's wrong with your car...or the explanation for a "god".

 

Well it is a strange masters that did not explain what a theist is?

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

By your own estimate there are 4 billion theist's. You think that the majority have a masters or PHd or THd? Perhaps what you mean is Theologian?

No you do not present evidence, you are eluding to some evidence and as in this case dropping in a few names. What specific evidence are you offering. Take Penrose's calculation(an incredibly minor part of his work, almost an intellectual joke) that you present. All it does is show the incredible chance of life existing. This is not an argument for a god at all.

Maybe it is, but until you actually present some actual evidence we shall never know!. And it is not as if I have to argue alone, against Craig for example there are plenty of better scientists who have published work debunking Craig. I provided a link for such debunking in a previous post. As I wrote then Craig is little more than a sophisticated God of the Gaps.

.
And smoke and mirrors wont work with me. It should not take you long to actually submit one piece of evidence and then defend it against criticism.

Crank is more than capable of defending himself. I doubt very much you can convince many that you have delivered him a verbal smack on the nose.

Wow have you put the cart before the horse! It was the very fact that not enough people showed what flimsy pseudoscience and revisionist history that Himmler used, that allowed that vile ideology to spread. And ignoring Goebbels propaganda cost 60 million lives.The Elders of Zion is still used by antisemitism as "evidence" today. Do you not understand that they propagated the same sort of rubbish mysticism and pseudoscience that we are discussing here! Hitler a man of destiny who would lead his people to a thousand years of domination, who demanded personnel worship to him! Where have I heard that sort of rubbish before!

 

Which brings up an interesting thought: Why are there so few atheists? About 2% world wide.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html#xx
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)

 

Because were "special"!

Seriously, I think a combination of tradition, repression and lack of interest.
Certainly in the UK there are an awful lot who would describe themselves as Christians but only think about it or enter a church for weddings and funerals. When you talk to them about religion it simply is not an issue in their life. It must also be quite comforting to think there is "something" after death. The idea that your loved ones are still "somewhere" waiting for you to join them is "nice".

 

that was a lame attempt to avoid the content of my post. do you believe personal testimonies or not?

 

why do you think?

up until 5 minutes ago it was compulsory to be religious - everywhere. better yet, have you seen the graph for the past 5 minutes? and that's while the last generations of 'tradition' religionists is still alive. wait til they're dead and see what happens. there'll be no elderly parents to protect from the harsh reality of a post-faith era.

 

Because most people realize that there is more than meets the eye to existence.

I never got that memo, but am glad to see my theory about how religious extremists, atheists included, love to engage in emotional rhetoric.

 

The KCA is simply more circular reasoning.

The assumption of causality is necessary and yet we already have direct knowledge that spontaneous particle creation from "nothing" is an observable phenomena.

 

The "unaffiliated" category is growing, but the "atheist" number seems consistent in history and globally. I became an atheist because the dogma of religion didn't fit with reality. Most people realize the religious dogma doesn't fit with modern knowledge, but they also understand there is more to life and our "being" than mere physical existence.

 

I see two sides of the same coin here. One side believes in a god based upon thought, thinking, and social conditioning. The other side doesn't believe in god based upon thought, thinking, social conditioning. In this thought, thinking, social conditioning is an intrinsic dependence upon assumptions. So, two sides of the same coin.

Yet there is a different sort of paradigm here, that has nothing to do with thought, thinking, social conditioning, and that paradigm is purely based upon an experience, what has been referred to as a mystical experience, in which different kind of consciousness is revealed. An experience in which thought is not present, but something is merely sensed, and in genuine mystical experiences, the person having that experience is changed for the better.

I believe most religions arose from this rare experience, and then man organized what cannot be organized, dogmas arose, and the killing started shortly thereafter, proving that the organization of such things destroys them.

So, god cannot ever be known, in the general sense of that term. For "knowing" is in the realm of thought, while IMO thought can never know the unknown, nor can it ever know the immeasurable. Seeing this fact is a part of the mystical realm, when one finally understands what thought is, which is nothing more than the response of memory. Thought which is always of the past, can never logically see what is not of the past. The past interprets the present, for if it did not, we could not find our way to work, nor tie our shoes. So thought has its place in life, but has no place in this question of god, the immeasurable. Religion is an invention of thought. God is thought's invention. We created god. Thought created god.

I am not saying there isn't an Immeasurable, just that what we exclaim about that which thought cannot touch is an illusion. A delusion even. Of our own making.

 

Cognitive dissonance can have that effect on people. The definition of God as being "outside of time" doesn't work with the definition of God as "creator of this universe".

It's not ironic when you consider that I don't have any faith in other universes, which the sentence after this one clearly illustrated.

I agree with the first part, but I think it is a bigger problem for Joe theist than Johnny atheist. Once you grasp the concept that nothing really means "nothing", then you will realize this includes all concepts of God.

Please read my statement again and explain how I am contradicting myself.

 

I don't believe in "God" for the same reason I don't believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, Alom, Amun, or any other deity. There simply is no evidence of such an entity that isn't a perfect example of "circular logic".

 

Has the habitability of exoplanets in the goldilox zone and their likelihood of harboring life been ascertained, in spite of great distances from Earth? I don't see how it can be said that we know life is there. Closer to home, NASA long ago rejected the positive chemical test result for life in the soil on Mars.

 

With all due respect by your own words its obvious you are completely and fully confused! Your claim the the KCA is circular reasoning is based on ignorance as well. Btw; (all uses of the word 'ignorance' in this reply indicates 'a lack of knowledge' and not meant as an insult) Heck even your definition of circular reasoning is faulty! Allow me to educate you ? First causality is not an option when we are addressing what happened before the big bang.* Time was created 'AFTER' the big bang, and makes trying to develop a case for causality existing a hard row to hoe! Beware that might be a trick statement!** You said "spontaneous particle creation from "nothing" is an observable phenomena." Who exactly told you that untruth or lie because its one nearly by omission ? You did not nearly clarify and define what you mean by particles, Are you speaking of subatomic particles, or other critters like virtual particles which are generated in the quantum foam, so they too have an cause for their existence. In addition since you did not expand on your claims I can only assume you are speaking of quantum fluctuations which are the last stand for scientific minded atheists denying God exists and their attempts to explain how an entire universe began to exist (via a qf). In any case if not the quantum foam some particles are generated and exist in superposition in the quantum vacuum or come into existence as zpe, all easily refuted and all having cause to begin to exist. The KCA is safe again, LOL!

Notes;

* ... To clarify so we can be more accurate when speaking about the physics of the big bang. When it comes to this type of advanced physics we all are lay people or it seems that way. One thing that attracted me to PF is that the membership is much better educated in the general sciences etc than I see in most forums. In any case when physicists speak of the big bang and meta-verses or time such as what happened before the big bang we should be aware there was no 'before' the big bang or a 'before' time was created. More accurate would be to say something God for example is outside the universe or outside time. That's because saying God existed before the big bang is a misnomer. There is no 'before'.

** beware that might be a trick question/statement. I may agree rather than not agree with that claim/statement etc


reva

 

With all due respect brother Contrails makes up stuff or highly misreads it! If we found any type of life even PROTO-life like a virus (which can be over a thousand times smaller than a bacteria) on Mars or a moon of one of the larger gas giants like Saturn or Jupiter, anywhere 'other than earth', that would be bigger news than the moon landing! It is true that we have discovered life on earth in extreme places, even in deep sea water that is hundreds of degrees and toxic chemically venting from the earths crust. I am sure we will find some kind of life in space eventually and it may not be based on organic chemistry. However the sad fact is we have NOT found life on anything but our god given planet, spaceship earth.

 

That only works if you think the only habitable planet we know of is Earth. As far as we know, the only life in the Universe is on Earth.

 

Sorry Reva but KCA is predicated on the assumption that that causality is necessary. Therefore in requiring such a base assumption it becomes a self referential argument.

Spontaneous particle creation is a known and measured quantum phenomenon.

As for causality of the big bang. I do agree that since time as we know it, did not exist prior to big bang, the notion of causality has no space time reference. Nobody yet knows what came before. Our science is still trying to figure out what came since.

 

The way I see it is that God made life on planet Earth and was so disgusted with the results that God decided never to do it again.

 

I would have thought God was so amused that he'd put man on every planet in the Universe. A universe of Monty Python skits!

 

At least Max was able to understand my statement. Yes, Earth is currently the only habitable planet we know of. We're just beginning to scratch the surface when it comes to the exploration of other planets in this solar system and others. We still don't know enough about them or what potential life they might harbor to discount the possibility of any future discoveries.

 

Well it was not an intentional deception. I believe personal testimonies should be inspected individually. Some are valid and many are not. By valid I do not mean the person in question is intentionally lying. Natural events mistaken as supernatural events, and other things are at play in most modern divine revelations. Howe can I not believe in them when I personally had a NDE myself? Lol.

reva

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't you say that earth was NOT the only habitable planet in the universe? If you want me to understand your words you have to say what you mean and not expect me to know what you mean to say but say something different!

reva

 

I just experienced a divine revelation from Odin, wherein he told me that he is the one true god. Do you believe me, and therefore believe in Odin?

If not, can you explain why?