BETEARS wrote on Jan 28^th, 2012 at 8:19am:









BETEARS,
Your logic is still flawed.


example #1,

Scenario;
If we both now live in a country where there were no houses [e.g. because everybody in this country lives in caves], i could tell you that i am a 'builder' of houses, and that i am entitled to claim that i am a builder of houses, ......because i have built houses.

i.e.
THAT IS 'KNOWLEDGE', WHICH I HAVE, THROUGH EXPERIENCE.

Not my 'wisdom'.

My experience.

And you could maybe say;

"Oh yeah, well if you are a builder of houses, where are the houses which you have built? Because this is a 'country' without houses, and i can't see any of your 'houses' here. Not anywhere."

The fact of logic is that even though you can't see the houses which i have built, is not proof that i cannot be, or that i am not, a builder of houses.

Your position/perspective is that you have never seen a house.

My position/perspective is that the houses which i have built exist in another country.

i.e.
THAT IS 'KNOWLEDGE', WHICH I HAVE, THROUGH EXPERIENCE.

Not my 'wisdom'.

My experience.


The fact that you cannot, or have not been to that other country, and have not seen the houses which i built, is of absolutely no consequence.

If i have built houses, i can claim that i am a builder of houses.

Even if you cannot see any of those houses.




example #2,

Exploring belief and personal conviction....

Prior to Columbus discovering the Americas [well, discovering central America anyway] the American continents did not exist.
....well, not within the mental consciousness of Europeans.

n.b.
Effectively, THE AMERICAS DID NOT 'EXIST', in the consciousness of Europeans, prior to Columbus discovery of the Americas.

And i am sure that when Columbus returned to Spain, that initially many of his interlocutors were unable to 'conceive' of his 'new world', beyond the horizon.

And indeed, when they first heard the 'tale', many Europeans refused to believe, that Columbus had discovered a 'new world'.

I suppose that some of them may have 'reasoned'.....





+++

And it is the same concept when trying to convince a 'natural' man of the existence of a spiritual realm.

Trying to convince a 'natural' man of the existence of a spiritual realm, must be, i am sure, similar to the initial experience of Columbus when he returned from the new world.

e.g.
"I cannot believe in the spiritual experience of others, because >> i << have not experienced it."


i.e.
It is precisely the 'wisdom' of the carnal man, which prevents him from being willing to search, for something, which he already 'knows', 'cannot' exist.

LOL



+++


Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

[quote

Muso,

You? Technically an atheist? On what basis do you make that claim. If you do not know there is no God you cannot be atheist. At best you would be agnostic, room for God or no God. In other words you don't know so atheism is beyond you.

There are many who claim to be atheist who cannot rule God out. You seem to be one such, therefore just posing as an atheist. You either are or yu aren't. Tell me, what evidence is there of a God. Only go back as far as the dawn of time and highlight anything that shows a shred of proof of this being.

Don't you see how simple this actually is? No evidence, no proof, no God. If someone produces such I'll change my views.
[/quote]

Aha!  You contradict yourself all over the place. That highlighted statement shows that you would change your mind if the evidence changed.  That's not "know". Pull the other one.

It's like saying there is no Pluto in the 18th Century.  That's fine, but nobody is saying that there can't be another planet beyond Neptune (or Uranus depending on which part of the 18th Century you're in. 

By your definition, you're an agnostic. By my definition, you're an atheist.

My definition is "An Atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in God". It's quite simple. No mention of existence and no mention of certainty. So you can have agnostic atheists.  You're obviously new to this, so have a read:

An agnostic is a person who doesn't know if God exists. An Agnostic atheist is a person who doesn't know for sure that God exists (for all he knows there could be a God) but he doesn't believe in God (ie god or gods have no relevance in his life).

From what I see, you haven't considered any other Gods outside Christianity because all you do is harp on about the Bible like some Richard Dawkins clone. [/quote]


Moronic response. Quoting Wikipedia as his source of truth. He clearly does not know who are the biggest contributors to WP. They are the Catholic Church and the CIA. Look it up before you sneer. In other words you get your info direct from the Pope.

Agnostic atheists. Oxymorons, same as him, no oxy required though.

Contradicting myself all over the place? You quote one line. Why exaggerate when a wildly sweeping statement is better?

Besides which there is no contradiction at all.

You see life actually changes and as we discover things we all have to change our views or start to sound like you and the starter of this thread. Who has no guts, hasn't read the Bible and cannot even attempt a few simple questions.

He's just a bloody TROLL. Don't you know even that? Faux atheists are worse than any serious Christian. You see those Christians are secure in their faith. You are not. You do not know a thing about atheism, reading Wikipedia!! What next?

Go away and do some real research and don't ever quote Wikipedia on anything, it's worse than the Bible as at least the Bible attempts a good message. Just the facts in it are not facts at all.

Go away little man, troll away.

Oh dear Yada,

What a rant. And what do you say? Nothing at all actually.

You have no proof so go away and find some. You see invisible evidence is not real. It's part of the same delusion you suffer.

You say I don't know where to look. But do you tell me where to look? Ahhh, no, you don't. DO that and I'll try it, if I haven't already.

You use the same circular argument the TROLL does. We didn't know about x or y etc therefore God must be real.

No connection at all. Things are proven one by one and proving one does not make all fantasies real. Sorry, try another door, that one's locked. And not seeing radio waves is irrelevant. We hear them Richard the Third. We hear them, thus evidence.

You're quite right about different perceptions. You suffer a delusion, widely shared. I do not. Well spotted. No one ever noticed that before. Idiot.

And you raise the issue of not seeing stars in the daytime sky.. Yet part of the time we can see the moon, supposedly created by your God to signify dark and night time.

So you have just admitted the Bible is a fraud. And you didn't even know you were doing such.

And your example is just kindergarten drivel. If a tree falls..... It would fall on you for you wouldn't hear it.

No Yada, we have an aversion to lies actually and we are at peace within ourselves.

All those who follow your beliefs have doubts, therefore the word "faith". Tell me what of all those priests are having sex with little boys if they believe the Bible? I didn't see a passage that allowed that. Do they just confess and get forgiven? No, usually moved to another parish.

That's faith, broken any time.

And you quote the Bible at me. Fool.

Here's one line that destroys the whole religious delusion:

It's in Revelations and written by the same guy who ranted on about Armageddon (a real place at that time ) and doom.

Read it through and you will find this one line that gives the truth :

"The number of the Beast is the number of a MAN, and that number is 666".

Many pontificate on what the 666 represents but the most common theory is it means NERO, the vicious Roman emperor of the time.

But that is irrelevant, who it is does not matter. He states clearly the Beast is a MAN. Therefore dead, therefore no hell, no heaven, no God.

Read it and weep dick.

You've never read the Bible either have you?

In case you didn't know every Roman Emperor took the title "God", thus they were worshipped as a God. This is exactly why the story says Jesus was killed. Because he claimed to be the son of God.

And what of Soren. Silent Soren. Run away Soren, Trolls get nailed and exposed and their life expires on a site. You are a dead troll. Go bury yourself.

You could try accepting my challenges but you'd lose wouldn't you so you won't go there. Coward TROLL.

Thank you,

An admission, if intended cynically (Pathetic attempt). If this is the best you can do then I am indeed way too strong for you and that TROLL who is stil running, away.

There is no GOD and has never been.

No belief, no knowledge, no guts. What do you morons have any of?

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 11:45am:



Dawkins is noi hero of mine. I don't have any heroes. Dawkins is an idiot for engaging as he does. His subject is evolution, not religion.

Can't you read?

You admit some atheists know there is no God. Well, you are writing to one right now. God is a delusion for weak minds.

I do know there is no God. Even people of this thread tell me I haven't looked in the right place. But do they say where that is? No, they don't. Why? Because it's a lie.

Then you bang on about me being obseesed or some such crap. Sorry, I didn't write this thread or start it. That's the person obsessed.

I was never a Christian, never had any religion at all. Didn't care, wasn't interested. Had a need to find God as so many said he was there. He wan't, and iasn't. I searched for him with hope and found nothing.

You say nobody cares. Then why are you all writing here, claiming this and that and denying my syance when you know nothing of it?

I have no need of reassurance at all. I kbow God is a fiction. I jusr refute what you morons write for something to do for a short while. It's amusing to see the contortions you put your minds through.

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2012 at 11:45am:



Muso, I just pass the time waiting for the writer of this thread to engage on a civil evel and discuss his claims.

Look up the word belief. It implies there may be something else. A fact though leaves no doubt. I care not what others write or say. Atheists do not gather to cinstruct rules or agree upon any given line. It's a personal thing ONLY. But being atheist means knowing there is NO God. Else atheism is not present.

Your own words :

"A person who knows that no god exists is certainly an atheist, but only describes a tiny proportion of atheists."

You clearly admit people DO KNOW there is no God. I am one such. And when did you pill every atheist to find out what proportion believes what.

I abhor fake atheists and will expose them at every opportuniy as they are liars.

Same with Christians who claim things they don't know either.

Now you've admitted I am right, run away.