Zone1 atheists don't have proof of God... because they refuse to look at the proof

[SaxonJackson]

^ the irony

Come on ... you can do it. When did the first living organism appear and what did it eat? How long did it live? Did it just **poof** appear out of thin air with all of those complicated reproductive organs already in place? Come on ... you can do it.

 

[Augustine_]

Did it just **poof** appear out of thin air with all of those complicated reproductive organs already in place?

No. You are the only one claiming it did, according to your chosen religion.

 

[SaxonJackson]

No. You are the only one claiming it did, according to your chosen religion.

Still nuthin'. I see you're all talk and NO action. You've said nor done anything that has swayed me in your direction. I'm beginning to think you're a bag of hot air.

 

[Augustine_]

You've said nor done anything that has swayed me in your direction.

Again, the irony.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Again, the irony.

Good. So now that we know there isn't any counterpoints to the idea of a literal God ... let us continue to discuss His greatness. Life begets life. God is life and all living things exist because of Him, and without Him, they could not exist. If you really want to know who God is ... you should pray a fervent prayer and ask Him to reveal His Spirit to your spirit. They're connected, even if you don't know it (yet).

 

[Augustine_]

Good. So now that we know there isn't any counterpoints to the idea of a literal God ...

That's a fucking leap

 

[Grumblenuts]

When pressed, atheists will admit to being agnostic

I still think you've got that backwards. They amount to much the same in any case.

Where do you fall on the ‘nonbelief’ scale? - Freedom From Religion Foundation

In June, a research study on religious nonbelief identity in the U.S. was published by the Departments of Psychology and Learning and Leadership at th...

ffrf.org

 

[Meriweather]

Faith inherently rejects needing a rubric for proof at all. When pressed, atheists will admit to being agnostic, while theists will demand you adhere to whatever they've been indoctrinated to believe.

Ironically, the majority of those who believe in God, also accept evolution. Has this vast majority been "indoctrinated" to believe in evolution? Further, the faithful (unlike the typical atheist) have no problem with those who do not accept evolution.

In the Jehovah Witness population, 92% are strict creationist; Evangelicals, 76%; Mormons, 78%. In all other Christian denominations (ie the majority of Christians) accept evolution by a wide margin. At least half of Muslims do, more than three-quarters of Jews do, 80% of Hindus do.

So what belief(s) do atheist insist are "indoctrination". Thou shalt not kill? Blessed are the merciful? Love one another? What is hateful to you, do not do to another? Why, exactly, are atheists so dismissive of religious philosophies? People of faith have a code which they endeavor to live by. Why do atheists feel the need to mock this?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why do you feel the need to mock this?

secular

adjective

1. 1.
   denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

necessarily ..such as the Golden Rule.

atheist

noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

indoctrination

noun

1. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant. By the 1830s it came to mean the act of forcing ideas and opinions on someone who isn't allowed to question them.

Don't like being mocked? Quit lying.

 

[Meriweather]

Why do you feel the need to mock this?

I mock nothing, nor infer that atheists have been brainwashed because I have no need to do either. As I have said before, atheism has been and still is part of the family I have always known. I grew up with believers and non-believers having not only respect--but great respect--for one another, what we believed, what we did not believe. There has never been any reason or desire to demean the other when entering into a discussion.

What does bother me here is that so many seem to believe that all people of faith believe in young creation, when it is the minority of believers who do. Our religious faith has little--if anything--to do with evolution. We follow a philosophy along with scientific knowledge. One does not eclipse the other.

Do atheists here truly believe that for some rare and off-chance decision to believe that they would have to give up their knowledge of evolution? If so, that is nonsense, because as I said, the majority of the people of faith do accept evolution. We still believe evolution is God's work, but evolution is very much accepted.

 

[Hollie]

Ironically, the majority of those who believe in God, also accept evolution. Has this vast majority been "indoctrinated" to believe in evolution? Further, the faithful (unlike the typical atheist) have no problem with those who do not accept evolution.

In the Jehovah Witness population, 92% are strict creationist; Evangelicals, 76%; Mormons, 78%. In all other Christian denominations (ie the majority of Christians) accept evolution by a wide margin. At least half of Muslims do, more than three-quarters of Jews do, 80% of Hindus do.

So what belief(s) do atheist insist are "indoctrination". Thou shalt not kill? Blessed are the merciful? Love one another? What is hateful to you, do not do to another? Why, exactly, are atheists so dismissive of religious philosophies? People of faith have a code which they endeavor to live by. Why do atheists feel the need to mock this?

I think it's important, not ironic, that we're precise in our language and descriptions. To claim that religionists "accept" biological evolution is misleading.

Broadly, the basis of evolution is that living things evolve from earlier and different living things - the exact opposite of supernatural creation. Biological organisms are a modification of something that pre-existed it. The fossil record shows this. The methods by which we establish great age, though not really controvertial in science, are, never-the-less challenged by religionists.

I know of no religions based on biological evolution, just as I do not know of religions based on chemistry, plate techtonics, or general relativity.

The faithful, (the typical religionist), would likely have a conflict with "accepting" that their various gods provided no means or methods to demonstrate their supernatural creation. They generally do not have a world view that encompasses the findings of science disciplines such as biology, geology, astronomy, etc. These represent the basis for our rational existence and our biological history that is traced back millions of years, not 6 000 years.

What beliefs shape the "code" of religonists who present a history war, conquest and brutality? The bodies left in the wake of religious wars litter the landscape like a field of summer dandelions. Why are relgionists so dismissive of the "peace and love" propaganda they talk but don't walk?

 

[Meriweather]

I know of no religions based on biological evolution

There are no religions based on biology evolution, because religion is a philosophy not an investigation of the physical realm. We leave that to scientists. Religion deals with the spiritual, especially as it relates to behavior and our attitudes towards God and one another.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Bible contains a variety of books: Stories, anecdotes, poetry, song, law...and instruction. Some of the instructions tell how to get the most out of life. If the instructions work...that is about the only "proof" that those who seek "proof" are likely to grasp. My advice to those who seek "proof" is to seek God instead. Other than that, I agree with you that a book is not proof. A book contains information, not proof.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

[Meriweather]

The faithful, (the typical religionist), would likely have a conflict with "accepting" that their various gods provided no means or methods to demonstrate their supernatural creation. They generally do not have a world view that encompasses the findings of science disciplines such as biology, geology, astronomy, etc. These represent the basis for our rational existence and our biological history that is traced back millions of years, not 6 000 years.

Bishop Ushher did not understand Hebrew and based his calculations on what he thought the translation into English signified.

Second, religious belief is that God is Creator, and there it stops. Religion doesn't t go searching for how God created because the purpose of religion is not to explore the physical realm but the best way to live with each other in this realm. If someone want to explore the physical realm further, not a problem, any more than if someone wants to explore new and tasty ways to serve crickets. People of faith believe there is more to life and to living than simply surviving and learning about the physical. We believe there are two realms--the physical and the spiritual.

 

[Meriweather]

What beliefs shape the "code" of religonists who present a history war, conquest and brutality? The bodies left in the wake of religious wars litter the landscape like a field of summer dandelions. Why are relgionists so dismissive of the "peace and love" propaganda they talk but don't walk?

Power and wealth are the causes of war, not religion.

No greater love has anyone than to lay down their lives for a friend. That is why the rich and powerful recognize the importance of getting people to love their country...except in our case when the powers that be no longer want us to love our country so that we simply lie down and accept what they have planned for us. Is giving in an apt description of peace and love?

 

[Meriweather]

"Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is true."

When it comes to philosophy (and religion is one), we try living each proverb, each commandment. We hold fast to that which is true.

 

[Woodznutz]

There are no religions based on biology evolution, because religion is a philosophy not an investigation of the physical realm. We leave that to scientists. Religion deals with the spiritual, especially as it relates to behavior and our attitudes towards God and one another.

Then the scientists invent an irrational explanation for things well outside their ability to explain.

 

[Woodznutz]

Tell us about all the competing religions/ gods which contradict your religion / gods.

Apply the "reasoning" where those religions / gods are presumed true.

Which of those will you convert to?

I'm quite content with Christianity.

 

[Woodznutz]

Interesting that you use pornography to justify your odd position . But inadvertently you chose well .
We recognise mental Pornography when we examine Cults like the one the poor Essene Monk is used for when made to act as the cult poster boy .

Inadvertently?

I'll paraphrase the judge.
"I can't define creation, but I know when I see it."

Study human anatomy and you'll 'discover' creation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I mock nothing,

There has never been any reason or desire to demean the other when entering into a discussion.

What does bother me here is that so many seem to believe

Weasel words and "mock" was your word choice (straw man).

Do atheists here truly believe

Again, atheists lack belief by definition. Cut the hateful crap. "Truly" -- LOL
You truly can't help yourself, I know. Pomposity simply oozes from your pores of its own steam.