Zone1 Atheists have nothing to say against faith in God

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What evidence would you accept?

A tough question.

What evidence would you accept that I can cut a woman in half and put her back together?

If I did the trick for you, you would rightfully say it can be explained another way.

Such would be the case with any purported "evidence" of magic, including magical gods.

 

[rightwinger]

That's a great argument if you are a third grader.

What argument you got without a magic man?

 

[ding]

What argument you got without a magic man?

And by magic man, do you mean some dude with a white beard and a long white robe floating on a cloud?

None.

I have grown up beliefs. You don't.

 

[ding]

(He was summing up your argument)

That wan't my argument. That might be your strawman but mine is considerably more intelligent.

 

[ding]

That's not evidence of a magical mystery being. You have merely replaced one mystery with another.

But it is evidence of the source of existence. You don't possess the intellect for this conversation. I suggest you move along.

 

[ding]

A tough question.

What evidence would you accept that I can cut a woman in half and put her back together?

If I did the trick for you, you would rightfully say it can be explained another way.

Such would be the case with any purported "evidence" of magic, including magical gods.

Obviously it was too tough for you to answer.

 

[Hafar1014]

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist for logical reasons. They can't be just whatever society says they are.

Morals are not logical they are contextual. The same act can be moral or immoral depending in the context. They are what society says they are thats called the law.

 

[Hafar1014]

It's literally all around and inside you. There's no evidence you will accept. You are without excuse.

Evidence is not required to have a valid belief

 

[Hafar1014]

That wan't my argument. That might be your strawman but mine is considerably more intelligent.

No concrete and catagorical

 

[Hafar1014]

But it is evidence of the source of existence. You don't possess the intellect for this conversation. I suggest you move along.

Thats not evidence

 

[ding]

Morals are not logical they are contextual. The same act can be moral or immoral depending in the context. They are what society says they are thats called the law.

Maybe read up on normalization of deviance and then get back to me. Because according to you, you believe morals are relative. The problem with that is that even when immoral behavior was accepted as moral (take slavery or genocide as examples) there were people during those times that knew it was wrong.

 

[ding]

Thats not evidence

No shit. Maybe follow the discussion more closely.

 

[ding]

Evidence is not required to have a valid belief

Is there anything that you will trust without good reason?

 

[ding]

No concrete and catagorical

Did you want to finish your thought?

 

[rightwinger]

And by magic man, do you mean some dude with a white beard and a long white robe floating on a cloud?

None.

I have grown up beliefs. You don't.

You can define your own magic man
Same thing

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That wan't my argument. That might be your strawman but mine is considerably more intelligent.

Not when you say anything and everything is evidence, is definitely is not.

You can try to dress that up all you like with pseudo intellectual pap, but, remove all the lipstick and glitter, and that is, indeed, your argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thats not evidence

Correct.

"I don't understand, therefore God"

Same as when people thought god caused disease or healed disease.

 

[DennisPTate]

More to the point, isn't atheism just one more religion? They believe in the unprovable. They can no more prove their faith in the universe being just an object coming from mere dust as most religious people can prove the existence of God--- both are essentially just different faiths. The main difference being that:

1. Formal religions are generally a faith in a /personal/ universe, headed by some deity, supreme intelligence, and cause of all causes headed by a supreme consciousness and compassion.
2. Atheism is really just another religion, a faith in an /impersonal/ universe, where all comes about by accident and random chance, and random combinations resulting in order.

BOTH recognize the role of consciousness, just that while theists believe our finite consciousness came from a supreme, higher consciousness, atheists believe that our consciousness came from random chance and spontaneous generation.

THE DIFFERENCE being that while theists believe in an absolute moral order with God being the guiding light, atheists believe morality is relative with no one but man himself to set the rules, define the boundaries, and to guide human activity.

Atheists who have a brush with death are coming back with fascinating stories that some of them tell openly.

1. About A. J. Ayer​

Atheists have deathbed experiences and near-death experiences just like everyone else does. The philosophy of Positivism, founded by the famous atheist named A. J. Ayer, is the philosophy that anything not verifiable by the senses is nonsense. Because NDEs mark the end of the senses, Positivists believe the survival of the senses after death is nonsense. But this philosophy has been challenged by its founder A. J. Ayer himself. Later in life, Ayer had an NDE where he saw a red light. Ayer’s NDE made him a changed man:

An Analysis of the Near-Death Experiences of Atheists - Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife profiles An Analysis of the Near-Death Experiences of Atheists . Did you enjoy reading this post, we have more!

near-death.com

 

[ding]

You can define your own magic man
Same thing

I'd rather define what a militant atheist is for you. Because I'm not keen on wasting my time trying to convince a fly that honey tastes better than shit. I'm happy enough for the fly to keep eating shit.

 

[ding]

Not when you say anything and everything is evidence, is definitely is not.

You can try to dress that up all you like with pseudo intellectual pap, but, remove all the lipstick and glitter, and that is, indeed, your argument.

How can what the creator created not be used as evidence? Could I not use something you created to learn things about you? Do you understand what evidence is?