Atheists are just as deluded as theists...

[BULLDOG]

That’s because there is no evidence you would accept.

You're talking in circles. If you come up with something, let me know.

The last thing you want to do is circle the drain with ding, trying to parse his goofy rhetoric. The moment you point out something doesn't make sense, he will just tell you that you didn't understand it correctly and change the meaning.

Which is easy for a magical thinker to do, since reason and evidence do not constrain magical horseshit.

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

 

[ding]

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act.

Interesting. The atheists I know simply do not accept a belief in magical God's and see no need to do so in order to explain anything at all, an idea which oays no respect to the nature or description of the personalities of gods.

There is nothing magical about God. God may be supernatural but he also created nature. And from his creation he has left us more than enough information to discover the intelligence behind existence.

 

[ding]

You're talking in circles. If you come up with something, let me know.

The last thing you want to do is circle the drain with ding, trying to parse his goofy rhetoric. The moment you point out something doesn't make sense, he will just tell you that you didn't understand it correctly and change the meaning.

Which is easy for a magical thinker to do, since reason and evidence do not constrain magical horseshit.

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

You just called me a nut bag. I don’t find that to be very open minded despite what anyone else tells me.

 

[ding]

You're talking in circles. If you come up with something, let me know.

The last thing you want to do is circle the drain with ding, trying to parse his goofy rhetoric. The moment you point out something doesn't make sense, he will just tell you that you didn't understand it correctly and change the meaning.

Which is easy for a magical thinker to do, since reason and evidence do not constrain magical horseshit.

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

I don’t see anything special about me so I really don’t know what you are talking about when you wonder about my skill set.

 

[Meriweather]

Interesting. The atheists I know simply do not accept a belief in magical God's and see no need to do so in order to explain anything at all, an idea which oays no respect to the nature or description of the personalities of gods.

From my perspective it appears atheists reject God because He is not magical. Further, because He is not a Genie who wraps us in cotton batting and protects us from everything from scraped knees to amputations and death, there is no reason for His existence.

For people of faith, God as Creator means little compared to God with us. For atheists, Why have a God at all if He is not with us for magical purposes.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

I start with the make-up of a human being: Body, mind/intelligence, spirit. Body (mass) comes from mass. Where does intelligence come from? Doesn't intelligence come from intelligence? This brings us to spirit coming from spirit. Intelligence can be argued that it evolved from chemical matter. Then what about spirit? Some argue that there is no "spirit", simply body and intelligence. There can be no evidence of spirit, because evidence requires matter, and there is no matter in spirit. Here we come to a standstill. The way I see it is that I have an intelligence that is forever arguing with itself, or, I have a spirit that takes what intelligence presents and comes to a decision that prompts me to action.

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act. Therefore, working at getting to know God (even if He does exist) is pointless since God won't meet their expectations of a God.

I'm sure that is very profound for someone who is a true believer because that is what they were taught as a kid. At one time it would have made sense to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From my perspective it appears atheists reject God because He is not magical.

Your perspective is way off. And it feels .more like you contrived it to suit your narratoive, because that literally could not be further off from why people generally do not accept beliefs in gods.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

I start with the make-up of a human being: Body, mind/intelligence, spirit. Body (mass) comes from mass. Where does intelligence come from? Doesn't intelligence come from intelligence? This brings us to spirit coming from spirit. Intelligence can be argued that it evolved from chemical matter. Then what about spirit? Some argue that there is no "spirit", simply body and intelligence. There can be no evidence of spirit, because evidence requires matter, and there is no matter in spirit. Here we come to a standstill. The way I see it is that I have an intelligence that is forever arguing with itself, or, I have a spirit that takes what intelligence presents and comes to a decision that prompts me to action.

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act. Therefore, working at getting to know God (even if He does exist) is pointless since God won't meet their expectations of a God.

Basically it comes down to their belief that unless everything is perfect there can be no God.

The problem with atheists who believe they have complete information to criticize what God has created is that it is an emotional response in that it ignores all the good that does exist.

Rather than seeing the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy that life brings, they only see the things they dislike.

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

 

[Meriweather]

Basically it comes down to their belief that unless everything is perfect there can be no God.

The problem with atheists who believe they have complete information to criticize what God has created is that it is an emotional response in that it ignores all the good that does exist.

Rather than seeing the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy that life brings, they only see the things they dislike.

For me it boils down to people either wanting to know God, whoever He is (I am who I am), and those who don't see seeking God as worth the time and effort (and it does take both time and effort, not to mention patience). Then, like Elijah, they find Him in the tiny whispering sound, not in big, astonishing events.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm sure that is very profound for someone who is a true believer because that is what they were taught as a kid. At one time it would have made sense to me.

Hmm. Not something I learned as a kid, but I'm probably a slow learner. Why doesn't it make sense to you now?

 

[BULLDOG]

You're talking in circles. If you come up with something, let me know.

The last thing you want to do is circle the drain with ding, trying to parse his goofy rhetoric. The moment you point out something doesn't make sense, he will just tell you that you didn't understand it correctly and change the meaning.

Which is easy for a magical thinker to do, since reason and evidence do not constrain magical horseshit.

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

No big deal. I find it entertaining to give nut bags free reign and see just how far they will roam. I spent more than a month of IMs letting Dale Smith exhaust every reason he had to believe that chem trails are real. I was honestly prepared to accept any provable evidence he might have. Sadly, it all came down to "those clouds sure look funny to me", but entertaining still.

Nut bags?

A telltale trait of militant atheists is that they condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.

So because I have different beliefs than you and challenge your beliefs in a respectful manner you believe I am a nut bag?

Wouldn’t the nut bag be the person who condemns respect for someone else for no other reason that they didn’t believe the same thing?

In this case, a nut bag would be someone who insists that I believe in a God, and their specific religions dogma just because they say it is so. If you care to redeem Christianity of that silly reputation, or you have something other than that specific explanation, I would be glad to hear what you have to say.

 

[BULLDOG]

The last thing you want to do is circle the drain with ding, trying to parse his goofy rhetoric. The moment you point out something doesn't make sense, he will just tell you that you didn't understand it correctly and change the meaning.

Which is easy for a magical thinker to do, since reason and evidence do not constrain magical horseshit.

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

Thank you both for proving my point that there is no evidence you will accept.

Still wondering how you acquired such an amazing skill. How's this? Ask Dale how fair and willing to examine new information I am. I've always been open to examining new information. If you got nothing, say you got nothing.

I don’t see anything special about me so I really don’t know what you are talking about when you wonder about my skill set.

Your ability to know that I will accept nothing as proof, even though I am confident that I will gladly give anything you have to offer a fair and honest evaluation.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sure that is very profound for someone who is a true believer because that is what they were taught as a kid. At one time it would have made sense to me.

Hmm. Not something I learned as a kid, but I'm probably a slow learner. Why doesn't it make sense to you now?

I've had time to actually study the bible. In depth study will produce more atheists than anything else I can think of.

 

[Meriweather]

Your perspective is way off. And it feels .more like you contrived it to suit your narratoive, because that literally could not be further off from why people generally do not accept beliefs in gods.

No, my perspective is not "way off". It comes from many conversations with many atheists. Basically, the first thing atheists begin with is, "Evidence"--like we are talking science, not philosophy. Moving an atheist off the search for evidence brings them to a place of not rejecting God because there is no evidence to the point of rejecting God because He is not magical, either.

 

[Meriweather]

I've had time to actually study the bible. In depth study will produce more atheists than anything else I can think of.

What do you mean by "in depth." Did you study the original languages, histories, and cultures? Or was it a study of the modern English from a twentieth/twenty-first century cultural perspective?

 

[Meriweather]

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

True, but why elect to see beauty, complexity, harmony and joy, but refrain from working to see/know God? It is not a choice of one or the other; it can be both.

 

[buttercup]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

It's your proof. Convince me. I've already heard "I just know it" and "You have to accept the bible as fact" and all the crap along those lines, but if you can come up with something rational and believable, I'm listening.

I’m not trying to convince you. I couldn’t care less.

You made a statement that they are open to being convinced and I am curious what kind of evidence it would take.

Because it is my belief that there is no evidence you would accept. Which means you are not open to being convinced.

You are free to believe what you want. I told you I was open to being convinced. I'm guessing you just don't have anything that makes sense. If you did, you would present it.

In addition to creation itself, including things that are clearly the result of intelligence and not dumb luck… God reveals his presence to people on an individual basis, and opens people's eyes. But one thing is for sure, pride is blinding. Atheists need to drop the pride, first off, and if they genuinely and sincerely want to know the truth, they will find it, God will open their eyes.

 

[ding]

You don't understand what an atheist is. If you are not convinced that a God, any God, exists, then you are an atheist. Some don't believe a God is possible, but that is not the defining characteristic. Many, or even most are open to being convinced if someone would come up with something other than "because I believe it" but an atheist has no need to prove or disprove something he doesn't even believe in.

I start with the make-up of a human being: Body, mind/intelligence, spirit. Body (mass) comes from mass. Where does intelligence come from? Doesn't intelligence come from intelligence? This brings us to spirit coming from spirit. Intelligence can be argued that it evolved from chemical matter. Then what about spirit? Some argue that there is no "spirit", simply body and intelligence. There can be no evidence of spirit, because evidence requires matter, and there is no matter in spirit. Here we come to a standstill. The way I see it is that I have an intelligence that is forever arguing with itself, or, I have a spirit that takes what intelligence presents and comes to a decision that prompts me to action.

Most of the atheists I know (family and friends) tell me that the problem they have with God conceptually is that He doesn't act in the way they want or expect a God to act. Therefore, working at getting to know God (even if He does exist) is pointless since God won't meet their expectations of a God.

Basically it comes down to their belief that unless everything is perfect there can be no God.

The problem with atheists who believe they have complete information to criticize what God has created is that it is an emotional response in that it ignores all the good that does exist.

Rather than seeing the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy that life brings, they only see the things they dislike.

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

Exactly, which is why it is odd that some people believe God can’t exist because bad things happen to good people.

 

[buttercup]

You don't have to believe in a God to see the beauty, complexity, harmony and joy in life.

So you believe that all of existence, all that is seen and unseen, the beauty, complexity, order... things like DNA, the human mind, etc....everything is just the result of chance? It takes far, far, far, far more faith to believe that. In fact, that is absolutely blind. But that is the problem… atheists are spiritually blind.

 

[ding]

The last thing you want to do is circle the drain with ding, trying to parse his goofy rhetoric. The moment you point out something doesn't make sense, he will just tell you that you didn't understand it correctly and change the meaning.

Which is easy for a magical thinker to do, since reason and evidence do not constrain magical horseshit.

I agree, and he is pretty goofy, but I'll give him an honest shot if he can come up with something different than all the same "YOU GOTTA WANT TO BELIEVE" crap.

Then you are begging for it. Get ready for a nonsensical stream of what ding believes is evidence for the existence not just of god, but for god precisely has he sees god. Ding does not aim to convince anyone...he aims to confuse and obfuscate. At the end of this Gish Gallop, ding will then remind you that belief in god is "faith", which directly implies that there is no good evidnece.

And if you want to spend your time trying to dissect the cognitive dissonance required to put on such a charade, be my guest.

No big deal. I find it entertaining to give nut bags free reign and see just how far they will roam. I spent more than a month of IMs letting Dale Smith exhaust every reason he had to believe that chem trails are real. I was honestly prepared to accept any provable evidence he might have. Sadly, it all came down to "those clouds sure look funny to me", but entertaining still.

Nut bags?

A telltale trait of militant atheists is that they condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.

So because I have different beliefs than you and challenge your beliefs in a respectful manner you believe I am a nut bag?

Wouldn’t the nut bag be the person who condemns respect for someone else for no other reason that they didn’t believe the same thing?

In this case, a nut bag would be someone who insists that I believe in a God, and their specific religions dogma just because they say it is so. If you care to redeem Christianity of that silly reputation, or you have something other than that specific explanation, I would be glad to hear what you have to say.

Well considering that you used that term while having a conversation with fort fun about me, I hope you will forgive me if I don’t believe you didnt mean it to be directed at me. But putting that aside my point still stands because even with your explanation all you are really doing is rationalizing your behavior by saying they deserved it.

I don’t believe Christianity needs any redeeming because its good has far outweighed its bad. And let us remember that it is Christians and not Christianity that has been responsible for the good and the bad.

I much prefer to drain the dirty water rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.