I admire atheists for devoting time for "God"

[ppp]

https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/marshall-herff-applewhite

The link above is about Marshall Applewhite's 1997 Heaven's Gate Cult which drank poison so their souls could hitchhike on passing Hale-Bopp comet.

Some Christians talk in tongues to God. Lets try that to hear what God has to say. lkflsjdf lsjflsjfd (writhing on the floor, babbling incoherently, as accepted by
Christians as God's language): Jonah lived in the belly of a whale, Heaven's Gate was right, yet atheists still persist in their belief that something seems silly.

Yes, a guy living in something's stomach is silly. Souls are silly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, a guy living in something's stomach is silly. Souls are silly.

Yes, as long as you accept that silly is subjective and not science, objective or rational.

 

[ppp]

Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

False. Atheism is the position of not accepting that gods exist. Which includes all of the people who still believe in supernatural claims (buddhas, spirits, sidhe, ghosts, afterlives, karma, etc) yet do not believe in any gods.

It is obvious that there is no required connection between atheism and any of the forms of materialism.

 

[ppp]

Yes, as long as you accept that silly is subjective and not science, objective or rational.

No.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False. Atheism is the position of not accepting that gods exist. Which includes all of the people who still believe in supernatural claims (buddhas, spirits, sidhe, ghosts, afterlives, karma, etc) yet do not believe in any gods.

It is obvious that there is no required connection between atheism and any of the forms of materialism.

I didn't say that. Retract it or I report you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

Yeah, evidence please.

 

[ppp]

Yeah, evidence please.

I see no compelling reason to provide evidence to reject a claim for which no evidence was provided in the first place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see no compelling reason to provide evidence to reject a claim for which no evidence was provided in the first place.

How do you know that it is silly? As back to your post.

 

[ppp]

How do you know that it is silly? As back to your post.

What do you mean by know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by know?

As per objective evidence as through the definitions of objective here: 1a, 2a, 2b.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

 

[ppp]

As per objective evidence as through the definitions of objective here: 1a, 2a, 2b.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

No, thank you. I am not interested in equivocation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, thank you. I am not interested in equivocation.

Please give evidence, reasons and so on.

 

[ppp]

Please give evidence, reasons and so on.

That's too vague.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, thank you. I am not interested in equivocation.

That is too vague.