Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Audie]

Why can't it be the case God does exist AND there is no evidence for the existence of God? Isn't this the reason why we have faith?

You cannot have evidence for the non-existence of something. I don't understand why theists make this argument. I can't prove monkeys will never fly out of my butt. It could happen at some point in my life probably without my permission. But I can't prove it will never happen. You can't prove a negative. No one can prove God does NOT exist. It's logically impossible.

If you are going to argue a pro-God position with these intellectually superior (at least in their own minds) atheists, then please take care with the logic you are using in your arguments. It's embarrassing to humanity when you say something that is simply logically impossible.

Atheists do not "LIE". Here is another embarrassment. Please be mindful that opinions cannot be "lies". Just because atheist have a different opinion or subjective judgment on your beliefs does not mean they are lying. It just means they choose differently than you do.

do you really think those are his arguments, rather than cut and paste?

these intellectually superior (at least in their own minds) atheists,

Like it takes much!

Come now That is not more fair minded or reasonable than
if I said all "theists" claim that they this or that.

In the event, it is damning with faint praise to say
someone is intellectually superior to some of our
fundys here.

I do know Christians for whom I have the greatest
respect, re their intellect and integrity.

I am sure that is so for any of those here who are not
or a theist persuasion.

 

[sojourner]

OK, so what *do* you mean when you use the word 'God' or 'deity'?

Is it just some psychological trick we play on ourselves?

Or is it something external to ourselves like a chair?

I mean the Divine. That’s the language I use. It’s internal — and external. It’s Existence itself. It’s us, but it’s beyond us. It’s reality that’s really real.

 

[Audie]

Though your argument is the same old entry level argument, its still better than the one you think you are defending.

First grade level claims are only worthy of a first grade response, if that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but if you have been shown the truth and reject God's Word and continue in unbelief you will be judged by your unbelief.

Shown the truth? When! How!

 

[Heyo]

Sure. But to explain it would take a book. You wouldn’t buy the information, so why waste bandwidth?

Maybe Audie wouldn't buy it but if it had even a shiver of validity to it, it would storm all bestseller lists and make the author richer than J.K. Rowling and more revered than the pope.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wait.... was it .... a vorpal rabbit?

I thought the rabbit did snuff it, by way of the Artifact carried by Brother Maynard.

Some are vorpal, even while they gyre and gimble all mimsy.

There is a lot of controversy among giant, invisible white rabbits about the validity of the story of Brother Maynard. Some believe it is real, while others dismiss it for lack of evidence. It is difficult to question them as they are often late for very important dates.

 

[Aupmanyav]

On the contrary, meditative techniques are good for showing what the brain can do. And it can certainly make up things under some conditions. They hardly show anything outside of the mind, though.
Drugs can give such experiences, as can meditation, or extreme physical exertion.

Meditative techniques can do only one thing, focus your mind on what you are thinking and suppress all other thoughts. Beyond that they cannot do anything. If a person says that he/she had a 'divine experience', then the person is hallucinating. The person has not been able to control his/her mind.
Extreme heat and cold also gives rise to hallucination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such an abrupt change from your words to what you
cut 'n paste without attribution!


The atheists will LIE with answer their no doubt.

Show us you can write a grammatical sentence
if you know so much.

Pure projection on from such a nice poster At least that part.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You’ve historically dismissed every experience that has been thrown at you here.

What experience has been thrown towards Audie? Perhaps that could help me too.

No. God created us with free will, and we simply don’t perceive.

No. God blinds some people to his glory and makes their hearts hard. I do not know why God does that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True. I dont agree with semantics like that. I think its a stupid argument.

You should read what one person is writing without having prejudice and maybe you will understand what they are saying first.

Actually I should have looked at your avatar better. Mainly the color made me think that I was responding to another. He uses that sort of argument. Sorry to respond a bit too strongly.

 

[Heyo]

Do you believe in "time" ? Where is it? I can't hold "time" in my hand the same way you and I hold an "apple". When I hold an "apple" in my hand we both can look at it and say "apple".

I also "believe" in radio waves. I can't hold them in my hands; I can't even perceive them with my senses. I need an apparatus to do that. But with that apparatus I can detect them and others can do that independent from me.
Same with time. There exists an apparatus called watch that can measure time.

"Time" is just like the word "God". Everyone swears it exists, it's universal, and it's eternal, but nobody knows where it is in reality. It only exists in reality because we say it does. Just like "God", "time" only exists in our use of human language.

Nope. Time is not like god. Time can be measured and people agree about the measurement. There is no way to measure god, at least non that people agree upon.

"God" is different than every other word in our dictionary in the following sense. The word "God" represents every single thing that ever was or ever will be in thought and in reality. The word "God" represents every possible possibility realized or that could potentially be realized. The word "God" is a container word of every possible thought and experience that is possible.

How do you know that? Is there a consensus among theists for that characterization?

 

[Polymath257]

Again with the “deities.” I’m not talking about deities.

God is usually thought of as being a deity.

And there’s the sense that there’s something grander than we can wrap our minds around. And that something does carry more than one designation. I said there’s a common nomenclature — not that there’s a unique nomenclature.

Yes, it is a sense. The question is whether that sense gives reliable information about reality.

And we can’t really perceive them. We can only perceive images (metaphors) of them.

What 'them'? I don't even know whether we are talking about something that actually exists.

We don't 'perceive' metaphors. Metaphors are literary techniques we *use*.

The images of subatomic particles are definitely NOT metaphorical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if you give up your livelihood to minister full-time and subsist only through the good graces of your flock.

The CRA doesn't require that for ministers generally, so I don't see why they'd impose it specially on "atheist ministers" as some sort of special case.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe Audie wouldn't buy it but if it had even a shiver of validity to it, it would storm all bestseller lists and make the author richer than J.K. Rowling and more revered than the pope.

There have been several bestsellers.

 

[sojourner]

The CRA doesn't require that for ministers generally, so I don't see why they'd impose it specially on "atheist ministers" as some sort of special case.

Wait... isn’t “atheist minister” sort of mutually exclusive?

 

[firedragon]

Actually I should have looked at your avatar better. Mainly the color made me think that I was responding to another. He uses that sort of argument. Sorry to respond a bit too strongly.

Oh no. I thought you misunderstood. But now it is my place to apologise.

Have a super day.

 

[Polymath257]

I mean the Divine. That’s the language I use. It’s internal — and external. It’s Existence itself. It’s us, but it’s beyond us. It’s reality that’s really real.

OK, 'existence itself'. You identify that as 'divine'. I'm not sure why, as the word already has an established meaning and it isn't 'existence itself'.

But there is something more bothersome here. 'Existence itself' just is. It has no personality. It isn't conscious. And it has no meaning (except what we give to it). It just is.

At which point, I just have to ask, so what? We exist. Now what?

 

[firedragon]

First grade level claims are only worthy of a first grade response, if that.

Cheers.

 

[sojourner]

What experience has been thrown towards Audie? Perhaps that could help me too

Anyone who has had a religious experience.

No. God blinds some people to his glory and makes their hearts hard. I do not know why God does that

I don’t believe that. That’s Calvinist nonsense. We blind ourselves. And, if you don’t believe in God, why do you believe this? Your argument looks to me like a straw man argument..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wait... isn’t “atheist minister” sort of mutually exclusive?

That was the point I was trying to get at with @3rdAngel : atheism isn't a religion, but if we would get the perks and special treatment that religions receive, I might be willing to let @3rdAngel call it one.