Nobody should ask someone for proof of their religion. Religion doesn't work that way. Christinity assumes there is a god. It does not provide a method of proving or disproving that - it's a fundamental assumption of the system. One doesn't prove or disprove root assumptions from within the system. And, science can't be applied either, as science has no way of testing to see if there is a god.
So are you saying what it looks like you are saying? That neoatheists are a few cards short of a full deck since they ALWAYS ask, wait no they DEMAND proof from theists, never from themsleves? and that didnt address my question It always comes right back to that 800 pound gorilla sitting on the neoatheists heads doesnt it.
Yes. I say that over and over again. There is a lot to talk about to ensure we get along rationally. Attacking beliefs is at best useless and is more likley to be destructive of the process. I'm not sure what you mean here.
So, are you going to try to call me religions and then attack what YOU call my religion?? Isn't that what we just went over as a ridiculous approach? I'm just curious what rules you are going to use in "proving" I'm "irrational".
Ok, lets assume that the atheists don't have any proof and thats a bad thing. If theists can't supply any proof for their beliefs, then its basically game over for them anyway. Its not much of a victory if you don't have any evidence either. I guess we can all not be atheists and not go to church.
Hell I dont know anything about you, but I do know the Neoatheist mantra. NeoAtheists claim superior reasoning and logic prowess while at the same time admit they have no proof for their convictions, a condition people typically identify as hypocitical.
Its not a bad thng, I could care less, makes no difference to me, but then on the other hand if atheists are going to use logic and reason as a basis for their beliefs then there is a problem and thats where I come in to point that out 100 times a day because neoatheists gas tanks are filled with high octane cognitive dissonance and incredulity. As was said earlier by someone else atheists have their own churches too
So, youu accept that my view on god may be at least not provably wrong ... ... but you think I'm likely to be a hypocrit???
So you are saying its not a bad thing to have no evidence and you just don't care? Who said that atheists are right about everything? They are human too and can be wrong about stuff too. I've heard many dumb arguments from atheists. But it doesn't matter. Without any evidence for any religion, then it really doesn't matter in practice. We are still not going to church on sunday, whether we are atheist, agnostic, or just don't care. Like maybe 5 atheists, and most of them showed up to a Christian church because their family members talked them into it. The rest stay home on Sunday and binge-watch Disney+.
Thats what (the abbreviated version) of religion is, beliefs that result in actions without the ability to prove the actions are valid beyond a shadow of doubt. yeh 5 LOL Atheist 'mega-churches' undermine what atheism's supposed to be about A so-called godless church wants to establish more US congregations. These 'places of worship' come across as a joke LOS ANGELES (AP) — It looked like a typical Sunday morning at any mega-church. Several hundred people, including families with small children, packed in for more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational talk and some quiet reflection. The only thing missing was God. That impulse, however, has raised the ire of those who have spent years pushing back against the idea that atheism itself is a religion. "The idea that you're building an entire organization based on what you don't believe, to me, sounds like an offense against sensibility," said Michael Luciano, a self-described atheist who was raised Roman Catholic but left when he became disillusioned. "There's something not OK with appropriating all of this religious language, imagery and ritual for atheism," said Luciano, who blogged about the movement at the site policymic.com. That sentiment didn't seem to detract from the excitement Sunday at the inaugural meeting in Los Angeles. Hundreds of atheists and atheist-curious packed into a Hollywood auditorium for a boisterous service filled with live music, moments of reflection, an "inspirational talk" about forgotten — but important — inventors and scientists and some stand-up comedy. During the service, attendees stomped their feet, clapped their hands and cheered as Jones and Evans led the group through rousing renditions of "Lean on Me," ''Here Comes the Sun" and other hits that took the place of gospel songs. https://news.yahoo.com/atheist-mega-churches-root-across-us-world-214619648.html Thats the funny thing about neoathesits, they simply come out here and talk without doing their due diligence, usually looking quite foolish in the process as they are consistently proven wrong.
Im not talking about you, please stop trying to drag me into personalizing this, its not, its about neoatheists and their mantra, if you reporesent them I am talking about what you represent, not you personally, do you understand? Not being able to be proven wrong does not make anyone correct LOL You can either prove your position as fact or you fail.
False duality? Yet it is the duality that is argued and debated. Emergent order seems to be a take off of blind chance. That order emerges from chaos without intelligence being involved at all. And an order at all levels not some singular order. It just seems to me that trying to get rid of some intelligence being involved in some way leads into having more faith than you see with those who think intelligence is involved . For me getting rid of some creative force led into absurdity that demands greater faith. And hence that razor. It does seem like the principle of intelligence being involved in creation is reflected in our own intelligence. In the ability to figure out some of the mechanics of our universe in a tenative manner including the language of mathematics that itself is intelligence. The universe spawned a life form with the kind of consciousness that can literally to some extent understand the mechanics of what it is a part of. I doubt this happened by pure blind chance without intelligence being involved.
Or... it could simply be that anything which does not conform to our preconceptions of god/intelligent design os dismissed as blind chance Imo, we know nothing about things we know nothing about. And one thing that we know nothing about is all of the questions like the origin of the universe, the origin of life, what happened before the Big Bang, etc. It's possible that there is some Intelligent designer, but it is also possible (and in my opinion far more likely) that our ideas about intelligent design are based upon preconceptions about reality based upon our very limited human interaction with reality. Intelligent design is one possibility... but we have only our own experience to tell us it is the only viable possibility Or perhaps it only requires the acceptance that there may be realities far beyond our comprehension... such as the origin of the universe Precisely! Our idea of intelligent design reflects our own experience of life You know... there are lots of things that happen which seem (and are) astoundingly improbable. What are the chances that your great great great great great grand parents would have met and ultimately produced you? I happen to be writing this while in a hotel in Thailand.... what are the chances of you having this conversation from where ever you are with someone in Thailand? What was the probability that a species like the dinosaurs would first evolve, then dominate, then virtually go extinct? What is the probability that primordial stars would explode... and create waste products that would eventually clump together to create the earth..., and eventually you and me. What is the probability that there is no single atom that remains part of you from birth to death.... and yet you remain the same
BTW.... Does it seem likely that an intelligent designer would design a system that first had no dinosaurs... then evolved dinosaurs to an extent that they dominated creation... then had his intelligently designed system virtually extinguish the dinosaurs. That does not sound like a series of events governed by some plan that was laid out from front to end in every exquisite detail. Of course, most advocates of intelligent design will come up with a rationale to explain this circumstance, such as... we cannot understand the magnificent plan of god, or some other excuse. But, what ever the rationale that is devised... it all comes back to a offering a counter intuitive explanation of why a proposed intelligent design seems to have randomly gone down innumerable blind allies... just as we would expect to be the case if this whole universe evolved based upon what you call “blind chance.” As far as I can see it, your theory of intelligent design is not only not the only explanation for the facts.,. It is not even the best explanation for the observed facts.
I actually am of the opinion that almost nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hell, this whole thing could be an illusion or a simulation. What I'm looking for is at least some reasonably good evidence where I can be at least 90% certain, ideally at least 95% certain. I don't need to be 100% certain. There are about 500 million atheists in the world. So 500/500 million is a church attendance rate of .0001%. At the same time about 29% of atheists attend religious services at least sometimes. And a few hundred people doesn't make a church a "mega church." https://www.prri.org/spotlight/why-do-some-atheists-go-to-church/
at one church????? yeh thats a mega church, especially since they are newly created and only been around for a few years. 500 million? sounds like atheism isnt a very popular religion, and with the logic and reasoning we see on this board thats perfectly understandable.
I was raised Mormon, and groups of congregations from a certain area were called wards. Wards consist of about 100-400 people. And there are usually a few wards per building that meet at different times. And there are many mormon buildings in every town. So is every mormon building a "mega-church"? I think a mega church should have thousands of people attending at one time, like filling out a really big room or stadium, not just a few hundred. And I'm pretty sure they only have a few hundred because they are new, and those numbers will drop off as atheists yet bored with their weird "church." I myself am an agnostic and not all non-religious people go as far as atheism, and even the non-religious are vastly outnumbered. But even those religious people are becoming less and less active and a lot more moderate so its ok. People really are just inclined toward religious belief, but kind of get lazy about it.
Two cases come immediately to mind: - Jericho - the slaughter of the Midianites (except for the virgin girls, who were divided between the Israelite generals) In both cases, we are told that God rewarded these acts of slaughtering large numbers of men, women and children -- including prisoners.
