FACT: Atheists are Lost

That is a pretty lengthy piece of reading. Do you have any specific chapter and verse that would cause you make such claims?

 

Fact is atheism isn't a religion.

Fact is "marketing" is an inescapable aspect of the human condition and of our civilization. In fact its one of the cornerstones of it.

 

it was almost all magic, you would be hard pressed to find verses that were not magic, like the magic apple, the snake magically losing his legs, man being created from dirt, the list goes on

 

Fact is when I asked 3 years ago for participants to provide their religious perspective on the word "truth", Atheists, agnostics, theists, and others who participated while presumably reading the OP wherein the question was asked. Those participants never challenged the question and therefore have been acquiescing to the fact that they were providing a religious perspective on the word 'truth'. Those participants who have declared that they are Atheists, have therefore provided the religious perspective that is associated with the name Atheism. Therefore, Atheism has been deemed by those participants, through an act of acquiescence, to be a Religion.

 

So you are now saying that words are magic. The only thing I see when I read the book of Genesis is words formatted in what you call 'verses'. Those are merely words. Surely you must be jesting when making such a claim.

 

Wow, what reasoning.

a definite nomination for the coveted "most convoluted rationalization" award.

amusing tho.

 

Are we debating whether or not atheism is a religion? I thought this was whether or not atheists where lost? Which in itself is a very subjective point of view.

 

Good grief. How many times must we go through this. You don't accept the evidence for a Christian God.

 

The we shouldn't need a panel of scientists to determine what science is correct. There should be no conflict in the scientific community, yet there is. How do you reconcile that fact?

 

there is no evidence of a Christian God, it's a belief based on faith... not evidence

- - - Updated - - -

I never said any magic happened, only that the bible says it did, don't get the two confused

 

Faith in the evidence provided by God, aka all that exists.

 

Debate is essential for science. We are still learning about our world. If we knew it all, there would be no need for science. Where these gaps in knowledge occur is where debate arises. Also, scientists are people, so feelings can be hurt and they can be influenced by prejudices. Debate help expose these prides and prejudices.

I am not concerned about an institution whose members debate amongst themselves. It is institutions where the members never debate and just follow along blindly that worry me.

 

"it was almost all magic, you would be hard pressed to find verses that were not magic, like the magic apple, the snake magically losing his legs, man being created from dirt, the list goes on"

Excuse me... you even cited examples after declaring "it was almost all magic". In order to make such a declarative statement, there is the inference that you have positive knowledge pertaining to what happened in the book of Genesis.

 

I have an image in my mind portraying you as being heartbroken over the fact that you cannot refute what has been recorded over the past three years in that thread entitled "what is truth". Oh well... your musings above are about on par with the inability of those participating atheists in correcting the error of their ways over a three year period.

 

"all that exists" doesn't prove your particular flavor of God exists, it just proves "all that exists" exists

- - - Updated - - -

if you would read the story of Genesis you would have this "positive knowledge pertaining to what happened in the book of Genesis." too

 

Wouldn't you think the existence of multiple types of religions and subsets within the religions is evidence that debate exists within religion? Nothing to be worried about there.

 

And since you have this image in your mind, it must be true?

Once again, your love of semantics and unresolvable philosophy combine to create a false sense.

In general there are two kinds of truth. There is capital T Truth that concerns itself with philosophy/religion and is accepted as revealed by scripture therefore directly delivered by that religions god. This kind of Truth requires no evidence or proof since it is received thru holy revelation and is absolute, to the receiver believer.

Then there is truth (small t) which concerns itself with the natural world and human interactions with it and amongst themselves.
This truth is based on observation, experiment, experience, data, analysis and knowledge acquisition. It concerns itself in the vast majority of instances with verifiable facts. This truth is the basis of science and technology which drives our understanding of the natural universe.

Then there are things that are deemed to be true despite not having definitive "smoking gun" proof.
This is the area in which Capital T believers such as yourself, point to when attempting to justify their total acceptance of revealed Truth despite massive amounts of contradictory evidence that individually may not be wholly exculpatory but collectively form a cohesive, logical, argument.

This can be seen in creationists insistence on the great flood. At least 6 scientific disciplines have contributed to conclusively prove that no such flood occurred. Individual contributions are not definitive, but taken collectively there can be no doubt. This of course opens the door to creationists as they can be selective in the kind of evidence they attempt to refute. Nothing like watching a creationist trying to discredit the science behind radiometric dating, where they attempt to defy the laws of isotopic decay - its that voodoo that they do, so well.

 

Yes, just yesterday I was channel-surfing past a bunch of religious TV stations and I realized that I'm bothered by the fundamental dishonesty of people claiming they KNOW the b.s. they are saying is true. Okay, you might HOPE it's true, you might WANT it to be true, but at the end of the day, YOU WERE NOT THERE. It's just stuff that some one told some one who told some one who told some one (times 100) who told you that it was true. Hearsay to the nth degree.

There is a really sick and twisted brain-washing mechanism that occurs when you convince some one that their goodness and salvation rest upon them never doubting the truth of what you are telling them. So internally, these people panic when they feel perfectly sound and reasonable doubts arise from within and they learn to close themselves off to that voice because it scares them. Note, these "people" I'm talking about are usually children and they are being told these "truths" by their closest authority figures, their parents, at an age when they do not have the capacity to question. By the time they are old enough to question, many of them have simply gotten too good at suppressing doubt and reason to "awaken" to the truth of their brainwashing.

Ultimately, it makes absolutely no sense in any way, shape or form for your goodness or salvation to rest upon "faith" on how historical events occurred thousands of years earlier. That's simply not a virtue. Is it virtuous to believe that Alexander the Great was the first Roman emperor? Is it virtuous to believe that the very first humans originated in Australia? True or false, believing one way or the other on historical events is not a measure of goodness or merit. However, it makes absolute sense when you realize what an amazing tool for brainwashing and mind-control and mass loyalty of enslaved spirits this sort of "spiritual requirement" can be. Diabolical. Whoever, conceived this notion of "faith" as a condition of salvation is the closest thing to a true devil.

Ken

 

All that exists is better evidence for God than no God. Surely you realize how futile this argument is... hence my, good grief comment. You've been around this forum long enough to be interested in some other discussion than this... at least one would assume.

 

A hijacking took place and took the topic OT.

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't God that provided the evidence, it was Vishnu.

 

we know that "all that exists" exists, much easier for energy to pop into existence then for a all knowing super God to pop into existence, then magically create everything else

.

 

There is a difference? Religion is like the old advertising slogan about selling the sizzle not the steak except that in the case of religion there is no steak.

 

Why should there be no conflict in the scientific community? There has always been conflict about scientific understanding of the functioning of the universe. As a principle one could almost say science is all about resolving differences on issues regarding the physical universe.

 

That is why it is so important to indoctrinate religion into the young minds before they have developed critical thing skills. Always surprised they haven't come out with tapes that mothers can play indoctrinating the fetus in the womb.

 

hey, that sounds like a money maker, you better patent that one...

.