The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[lewisnotmiller]

No, it's not a non sequitur. One may respect people despite those persons' ignorance. One is showing lack of respect for others and lack of self-respect by spending inordinate amounts of time where the opposition is en masse (a religions forum) and speaking against ALL of those persons' fundamental creeds, without any evidence.

People who do this are usually called "in a cult".

You've said it three times, but I think you need to do a spin, and click your heels for it to become real. Or maybe that's Beetlejuice. Dunno.
Speaking for myself, I don't see theists as 'opposition'. Which is not quite the same as saying SOME theists definitely are, on a more personal level. But then again, some atheists are too.

Small note, though...unlike vampires and garlic, atheists are not repelled by the word 'religious'. Speaking for myself, I find it very interesting.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Then you will just have to remain believing that magic happened with water and rocks, and life just spontaneously generated itself . A process never described, never replicated, never observed, anywhere, in a lab or in nature.

When it inevitably happens, I'm sure creationists will argue that we may have created life, but not souls, or some such other thing to discount the obvious.

 

[blü 2]

When you and I see people without proof venturing over and again to argue with people they know vehemently disagree, we say such people are "cultists".

This goes beyond mere atheism to a religious-like cultic stance.

Do you therefore wish to talk these things through with us? If I put a reasoned case to you based on evidence, will you reply with a reasoned case based on evidence?

If you show me I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. If I show you you're wrong, will you do the same?

Emphasis on information, not on emotion. Just a quest for accurate statements about reality?

If so, just give the word.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you therefore wish to talk these things through with us? If I put a reasoned case to you based on evidence, will you reply with a reasoned case based on evidence?

If you show me I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. If I show you you're wrong, will you do the same?

Emphasis on information, not on emotion. Just a quest for accurate statements about reality?

If so, just give the word.

Of course, please present:

1) Your evidence that God does not exist.

2) Your reason, without emotion, for spending time on a forum meant for religionists to gather, to tell everyone they are wrong and you have superior, more accurate knowledge.

3) Your reason, without emotion and not based on emotion, for spending time questing for knowledge from me, when I am positing emotion and love to you, the love of Christ, which surpasses (gulp!) knowledge!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
atheism - definition of atheism in English | Oxford Dictionaries

So you have evidence to debunk such belief?

Evidence = This facet of disbelief has no evidence to support it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Views are not equal to people. It is a non sequitur. Cheers.

non sequitur: a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it

Your statement was a non sequitur.

 

[blü 2]

Of course, please present:

1) Your evidence that God does not exist.

My pleasure.

My first point is that if "God" in your question is imaginary, I freely admit imaginary gods exist, in that people imagine them all the time.

If you mean "God" has objective existence ─ if "God" exists in reality, independently of anyone's imagination ─ then I don't know what you might be referring to.

For example, if "God" has objective existence, it follows that you can give me a satisfactory demonstration of "God" in reality, doesn't it? Yet no one ever does.

And I've never heard a coherent account of how a real "God" might exist. For example, what objective test will tell us whether any being or phenomenon is a "God" or not? If "God" has objective existence then there must be such a test, and it must work for any interested observer, not just believers.

What is that test?

2) Your reason, without emotion, for spending time on a forum meant for religionists to gather, to tell everyone they are wrong and you have superior, more accurate knowledge.

To pass the time.

(And I have a bee in my bonnet about fundamentalism, but this conversation has no need to go there.)

And to learn. As I said, if you show me I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. Better still, I'll thank you because I've learnt something.

3) Your reason, without emotion and not based on emotion, for spending time questing for knowledge from me, when I am positing emotion and love to you, the love of Christ, which surpasses (gulp!) knowledge!

To see if you can tell me anything I don't know.

And I hope you're engaging in this conversation to see if I can tell you anything you don't know.

 

[Darkstorn]

I still think the true plight of atheism is theists like the OP telling them how they think.

For example, i bet the OP doesn't think it nice at all for me to put words into his mouth and then invent the premise of my argument from that instead of what actually happened. So he shouldn't do it either if he wants fair treatment.

 

[ChristineM]

Evidence = This facet of disbelief has no evidence to support it.

How is this none truth equal to evidence?

It actually has considerable evidence, you, yourself are part of that evidence.

Proof by exhaustion shows us that in 10,000 years plus of god worship, literally billions of believers have failed to provide any verifiable evidence (you like e numbers so that's approximately 10e14 failures). It would only take one success to blow this evidence out of the water. And incidentally destroy atheist at a stroke.

Then we have mathematical evidence, E=MC2 shown that the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you (or anyone else/any matter)

How about childhood leukaemia? No compassionate god would create such a disease to inflict on his worshippers, noir would he create those worshippers to be susceptible.

Then we have the mosquito, for essentiality the same reason.

 

[shmogie]

When it inevitably happens, I'm sure creationists will argue that we may have created life, but not souls, or some such other thing to discount the obvious.

Nope, it won't happen BUT if it does it says nothing about random life from unknown chemicals, environment and atmosphere, and says EVERYTHING about Intelligent Design. Many Decades of highly educated scientists working in the best laboratories with the best equipment with the sole focus of designing and creating this cell. That isn';t nature, that isn;'t random, that isn't as the theory of abiogenesis proposes.

 

[ChristineM]

Of course, please present:

1) Your evidence that God does not exist.

2) Your reason, without emotion, for spending time on a forum meant for religionists to gather, to tell everyone they are wrong and you have superior, more accurate knowledge.

3) Your reason, without emotion and not based on emotion, for spending time questing for knowledge from me, when I am positing emotion and love to you, the love of Christ, which surpasses (gulp!) knowledge!

Mind if i step main here?

1/ see above

2/ wrong, it is meant to discuss religious topics, i don't believed the mission statement specifically bars non religious in fact i will repeat it here

As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another.

Note the wording... "diverse beliefs"

3/ that is the very reason, i call it deliberate ignorance to put faith (in this case a bronze age faith) before educationb, learning and knowledge.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope, it won't happen BUT if it does it says nothing about random life from unknown chemicals, environment and atmosphere, and says EVERYTHING about Intelligent Design. Many Decades of highly educated scientists working in the best laboratories with the best equipment with the sole focus of designing and creating this cell. That isn';t nature, that isn;'t random, that isn't as the theory of abiogenesis proposes.

Its happening, already succeeded synthetically and also using additional chemicals.

Nor are those chemicals unknown, DNA has three types of chemical component: phosphate, a sugar called deoxyribose, and four nitrogenous bases, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.

Those chemicals can be manufactured from the simplest basic elements. Including nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus manufactured in first and second generation suns.

And in thousands of years, billions of faithful have failed to prove God dun it. Science had been trying (using known chemicals and with conditions as accurate as is currently known) for less than 50 years? And have at least partially succeeded.

 

[shmogie]

How is this none truth equal to evidence?

It actually has considerable evidence, you, yourself are part of that evidence.

Proof by exhaustion shows us that in 10,000 years plus of god worship, literally billions of believers have failed to provide any verifiable evidence (you like e numbers so that's approximately 10e14 failures). It would only take one success to blow this evidence out of the water. And incidentally destroy atheist at a stroke.

Then we have mathematical evidence, E=MC2 shown that the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you (or anyone else/any matter)

How about childhood leukaemia? No compassionate god would create such a disease to inflict on his worshippers, noir would he create those worshippers to be susceptible.

Then we have the mosquito, for essentiality the same reason.

Sigh, here is plenty of evidence, many choose not to accept it. God exists outside the universe, where the laws of he universe do not exist., Einstein recognized this. God created the world perfectly, it has sadly generated since. God isn';t responsible for this degeneration, but he has allowed it to occur, for a time. God is concerned about the heart and soul, not so much the physical body, we all suffer in one way or another, as a result of this degeneration.

 

[ChristineM]

Sigh, here is plenty of evidence, many choose not to accept it. God exists outside the universe, where the laws of he universe do not exist., Einstein recognized this. God created the world perfectly, it has sadly generated since. God isn';t responsible for this degeneration, but he has allowed it to occur, for a time. God is concerned about the heart and soul, not so much the physical body, we all suffer in one way or another, as a result of this degeneration.

Your evidence for god existing outside the universe please

Where did Einstein ever say a god existed outside the

So you are saying god is not omniscient? Fair enough

 

[shmogie]

Its happening, already succeeded synthetically and also using additional chemicals.

Nor are those chemicals unknown, DNA has three types of chemical component: phosphate, a sugar called deoxyribose, and four nitrogenous bases, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.

Those chemicals can be manufactured from the simplest basic elements. Including nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus manufactured in first and second generation suns.

And in thousands of years, billions of faithful have failed to prove God dun it. Science had been trying (using known chemicals and with conditions as accurate as is currently known) for less than 50 years? And have at least partially succeeded.

No, it has not succeeded. You obviously have little knowledge of how a cell operates. Throw the chemicals you mention into a mixture of any proportions you choose, then add any chemicals you choose, and take millions of years,and see if a functioning cell result's, it won't and it can't. Why ? because the proteins that cause a cell to function, must be programmed by the information in the DNA, to allow the cell to function. This is extremely complex information, encoded perfectly to activate the protein, to receive the decoded information, to operate the machinery of the cell.There is NO bio chemical process that provides this information. In the alleged prebiotic mix the knowledge of what chemicals were present, is unknown, the environment is unknown. There is NO WAY that information could have existed before the cell existed, and if it didn't there could not possibly be a cell. The experiment you think was the scientific creation of life was a 10 year collaboration of many trained scientists, who had to borrow the DNA from a living cell to make their cell function. They did not create the DNA, nor the information, they took it from another living cell. Your example fails. God did it

 

[shmogie]

Your evidence for god existing outside the universe please

Where did Einstein ever say a god existed outside the

So you are saying god is not omniscient? Fair enough

Einstein said that since all the laws of physic broke down before and immediately after, there was no way any human would know what exists outside the universe, therefore since the Bible says God existed before the Universe was created, and Einstein says what exists out of the universe is unknowable, he, nor anyone else could deny that God was there, based upon ANY evidence. Yes, I believe that God by choice or nature is not omniscient. However, you need to look the word up, it doesn't fit in this conversation.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it has not succeeded. You obviously have little knowledge of how a cell operates. Throw the chemicals you mention into a mixture of any proportions you choose, then add any chemicals you choose, and take millions of years,and see if a functioning cell result's, it won't and it can't. Why ? because the proteins that cause a cell to function, must be programmed by the information in the DNA, to allow the cell to function. This is extremely complex information, encoded perfectly to activate the protein, to receive the decoded information, to operate the machinery of the cell.There is NO bio chemical process that provides this information. In the alleged prebiotic mix the knowledge of what chemicals were present, is unknown, the environment is unknown. There is NO WAY that information could have existed before the cell existed, and if it didn't there could not possibly be a cell. The experiment you think was the scientific creation of life was a 10 year collaboration of many trained scientists, who had to borrow the DNA from a living cell to make their cell function. They did not create the DNA, nor the information, they took it from another living cell. Your example fails. God did it

Synthetic life
How Craig Venter Created Life | DNA Science Blog
Note this synthetic life is able to self replicate and evolve

More recently, dna was created

First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab

They DID create the dna

Don't tell me what i think. It's very ignorant of you.

So prove god did it and no hiding behind make believe nonsense of a thing that lives outside our universe, that is not evidence, that is "doh, i don't know so i guess"

 

[shmogie]

Synthetic life
How Craig Venter Created Life | DNA Science Blog
Note this synthetic life is able to self replicate and evolve

More recently, dna was created

First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab

They DID create the dna

Don't tell me what i think. It's very ignorant of you.

So prove god did it and no hiding behind make believe nonsense of a thing that lives outside our universe, that is not evidence, that is "doh, i don't know so i guess"

Is it FUNCTIONAL DNA that developed it's own information, no. I don't tell you what I think, I tell you what I know based upon periodic comprehensive research

 

[ChristineM]

Einstein said that since all the laws of physic broke down before and immediately after, there was no way any human would know what exists outside the universe, therefore since the Bible says God existed before the Universe was created, and Einstein says what exists out of the universe is unknowable, he, nor anyone else could deny that God was there, based upon ANY evidence. Yes, I believe that God by choice or nature is not omniscient. However, you need to look the word up, it doesn't fit in this conversation.

You are knacking one fantastic leap here.

Actually it fits perfectly with the conversation and you are denying the Bible to claim god is not omniscient .

Interesting that you consider the bible truth saying god existed before the universe (actually the Bible does not mention the universe) but false saying god is all knowing

Edit: knacking = making

 

[lewisnotmiller]

...Einstein recognized this...

An argument from authority wouldn't bother me much either way, but I think you're taking his words out of context.
At best he made allowance for the unknown. I do the same, in a variety of ways, yet would consider myself an agnostic atheist.