Zone1 Atheists have nothing to say against faith in God

[schmidlap]

Then prove there is no god. Before toy make fool of your sef by claiming you cant prove a negative we can and do it all the time. We use null hypothesis or a significant negative correlation. Go ahead

Humans proving that there are no gods or many gods is futile because gods, by human definition, transcend human limits.

All gods can both exist and not exist simultaneously because gods can do what humans can't do or understand.

Humans cannot impose their limits on gods - such as insisting that they must either exist or not exist.

 

[Hafar1014]

Humans proving that there are no gods or many gods is futile because gods, by human definition, transcend human limits.

All gods can both exist and not exist simultaneously because gods can do what humans can't do or understand.

Humans cannot impose their limits on gods.

All true thats why it called a belief in favor or against

 

[GLASNOST]

..... some religionists seem to assume that, if they can'r explain something, it must be the work of gods.

Yep. Religionists criticize Atheists because they think life was created from nothing but what do Relionists believe? That God was created from nothing.

 

[schmidlap]

All true thats why it called a belief in favor or against

Humans can fancy whatever they like concerning gods, myself included.

 

[schmidlap]

Yep. Religionists criticize Atheists because they think life was created from nothing but what do Relionists believe? That God was created from nothing.

Some humans are upset by not knowing, so they concoct stories that comfort them.

Gods don't seem care.

 

[Cougarbear]

I won't presume to speak for atheists, bur some religionists seem to assume that, if they can't explain something, it must be the work of gods.

If something can be done or was done without the knowledge of science, then of course it is God. What you seem to not understand is God is the organizer of everything in this universe and knows all science pertaining to this universe. He uses that science to do his work. Take the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. There was no understanding of the sperm or the eggs with the people of that time. They had no microscopes. Therefore, they had no way of performing in vitro fertilization. But, that's certainly the way it happened. The Father certainly didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary. Mary was a virgin when she delivered Jesus. I know this bothers Catholics and I suppose mainstream Christians but I see nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization and it makes perfect sense. The Bible says the spirit came over Mary. Yes, the doctor, the Holy Ghost, performed the procedure. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that's what mankind got and over time has learned to be like the God's (like us) as stated in Genesis. We are learning to be gods and still and always children of our Father in Heaven.

 

[schmidlap]

If something can be done or was done without the knowledge of science, then of course it is God.

So, before scientific discoveries, gods had to do a lot, but science eased their onerous workload over time?

... What you seem to not understand is God is the organizer of everything in this universe and knows all science pertaining to this universe. He uses that science to do his work. Take the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. There was no understanding of the sperm or the eggs with the people of that time. They had no microscopes. Therefore, they had no way of performing in vitro fertilization. But, that's certainly the way it happened. The Father certainly didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary. Mary was a virgin when she delivered Jesus. I know this bothers Catholics and I suppose mainstream Christians but I see nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization and it makes perfect sense. The Bible says the spirit came over Mary. Yes, the doctor, the Holy Ghost, performed the procedure. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that's what mankind got and over time has learned to be like the God's (like us) as stated in Genesis. We are learning to be gods and still and always children of our Father in Heaven.

If you like your story, that's fine.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LDS believe in evolution. Here it is step by step:
1. We were originally intelligences (pure energy and Einstein always existed)
2. We evolved when Father and Mother in Heaven had spirit children and our intelligences were placed in our spirits (a much finer material than earthly bodies)
3. We could not evolve or progress into receiving heirship of Father's Kingdom until resurrected. So, we evolved into physical beings here on earth and placed into our physical earthly bodies to learn knowledge of good and evil (everything we can learn)
4. After death, our spirits separated and put in a spirit world or prison because we are without our physical earthly bodies. But, there will be a time of resurrection where our spirits will be joined with our dead bodies and we will rise with the Lord's dead body to resurrection.
5. Most in the resurrection will be in heaven and a place of glory but damned from evolving or progressing any further. Some will reach the highest degree of heaven, the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom and will be able to evolve and progress into Godhood type state over their own universe as joint heirs in our Father's kingdom.
6. Next step, unknown at this time.

That's nice. Believe what you like. If it makes you happy, im happy for you.

 

[ding]

You keep saying that Eddington, Weizsäcker, Pauli and Wald created the universe but It is only you who says that in your fantasy.

Apparently you can’t read.

 

[ding]

And i have no idea what gods are or are like, if they exist.

I just know the Bible God is a vile character.

Apparently you don’t know how to read either.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Apparently you don’t know how to read either.

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[ding]

Yeah, that must be it.

Clearly because it couldn’t be that they crafted narratives about historical events to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience, justice and their relationship with God, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Clearly because it couldn’t be that they crafted narratives about historical events to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience, justice and their relationship with God, right?

Sure, and one lesson they taught is that the God character in the Bible mythology is a gross dick.

Quite unintentionally, of course. But that was the state of their primitive, stunted morality.

 

[ding]

Sure, and one lesson they taught is that the God character in the Bible mythology is a gross dick.

Quite unintentionally, of course. But that was the state of their primitive, stunted morality.

Or you didn’t understand the lesson they were teaching. You are a tiny minority and your perception is clouded by bias. Try using Google AI to test the validity of your opinions.

 

[Cougarbear]

So, before scientific discoveries, gods had to do a lot, but science eased their onerous workload over time?
If you like your story, that's fine.

God's had to do a lot? What does man do for God when it comes to organizing the Universe? And, because we know how to impregnant a virgin without sexual intercourse doesn't mean we have to do that for God now. Weird comment.

 

[schmidlap]

God's had to do a lot? What does man do for God when it comes to organizing the Universe? And, because we know how to impregnant a virgin without sexual intercourse doesn't mean we have to do that for God now. Weird comment.

Your version of the gods seems to have an inordinate amount to do with impregnation.

It is a frequent motif - The impregnation of Danaë by Zeus is a significant event in the ancient Greek story.

 

[Cougarbear]

Your version of the gods seems to have an inordinate amount to do with impregnation.

It is a frequent motif - The impregnation of Danaë by Zeus is a significant event in the ancient Greek story.

Your fixation on the miracle birth is weird. In the huge expanse of time and universe, you seem fixed on one event. LOL! I gave you a perfectly fine example and a simple explanation. Yet, you reject it because it doesn't your fight.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or you didn’t understand the lesson they were teaching.

Yeah, I don't think that's it.

You do. Got it.

I think it's one of our first and therefore unsurprisingly worst attempts at science and philosophy and ethics and codification of morality.

Same goes for old religious texts across the board, generally.

I'm reading them all wrong?

I just don't need any of them. I find them to be novelties. Artifacts of our past.

 

[ding]

Yeah, I don't think that's it.

You do. Got it.

I think it's one of our first and therefore unsurprisingly worst attempts at science and philosophy and ethics and codification of morality.

Same goes for old religious texts across the board, generally.

I'm reading them all wrong?

I just don't need any of them. I find them to be novelties. Artifacts of our past.

Yes. You are reading them wrong. Just because you don’t need them or find them to be artifacts of the past is no reason to read them wrong. If you are secure in your beliefs then there is no reason to read them wrong.

 

[ding]

Yep. Religionists criticize Atheists because they think life was created from nothing but what do Relionists believe? That God was created from nothing.

Actually I don’t criticize atheists. I beat down militant atheists.

We don’t believe God was created. We believe the universe was created from nothing.