Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Farmer Geddon

Are You An Atheist?

No Multi-Coloured areas.. if you are not sure then it is a No.

Leonard James

Yes, and i will remain so until somebody presents me with irrevocable evidence for a god of any sort.
Shaker

Yes. Functionally always have been, owing to the sheer lack of reason not to be (i.e. the desperate thinness and poverty, the speciousness, fallaciousness and general silliness of all the arguments advanced in opposition to atheism, the default belief position in relation to the existence of gods as far as I'm concerned).

As Leonardo Di Jamesio said, I shall remain so until I see what I need to see to stop being an atheist (and in this order): (1) a coherent, consistent definition of what it is I am supposed to believe in (i.e. a god) and (2) internally coherent, credibly-sourced, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, shareable, unambiguous (i.e. can't be be otherwise explained by far more rational and economical means) evidence of the existence of (1).

What feeble stuff I've come across in these areas so far in my lifetime convinces me that holding my breath while waiting for such will not be a good idea.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
What feeble stuff I've come across in these areas so far in my lifetime convinces me that holding my breath while waiting for such will not be a good idea.


I think that's wise - to not hold your breath.  It won't be by the words of any of us playing word ping pong on a Message Board that you may, or may not, see the need to stop being an atheist.
IvyOwl

Have ticked yes. My belief is that gods reside in the human mind. Invented on a wider level (often as a means to justify control of others as well as to instruct and comfort) and experienced by each believer according to their needs. There is nothing wrong with that as such ..... only when they insist that theirs is the 'one true way'.

By and large I'm tolerant of peoples beliefs, they are precious to the holders and besides I can't prove them wrong. If it's helping them lead the life they want to and they are not harming others then who am I to gainsay? Well only when they try to foist their beliefs onto me and insist that I am somehow lacking and or missing out because I don't believe as they do. And of course if they are harming others by putting the 'fear of god' into them. Making people feel guilty when no such emotion is needed or appropriate.

When I read/hear peoples 'receiving the holy spirit' type accounts I can relate to them. Both from when I believed it had happened to me (mid teens) but more especially that moment when I realised that I no longer believed. I too experienced a weight lifting of my shoulders and a feeling of walking into the light. I'd  opened up to the true wonders, unfettered by a stone age understanding, of the universe.

That some here will read this and say that I was being decieved my satan is what offends me. How dare they assume that their understanding and way of relating to the mystery at the heart of human life is less valid for me than theirs is to them.
Leonard James

IvyOwl wrote:
Have ticked yes. My belief is that gods reside in the human mind. Invented on a wider level (often as a means to justify control of others as well as to instruct and comfort) and experienced by each believer according to their needs. There is nothing wrong with that as such ..... only when they insist that theirs is the 'one true way'.

By and large I'm tolerant of peoples beliefs, they are precious to the holders and besides I can't prove them wrong. If it's helping them lead the life they want to and they are not harming others then who am I to gainsay? Well only when they try to foist their beliefs onto me and insist that I am somehow lacking and or missing out because I don't believe as they do. And of course if they are harming others by putting the 'fear of god' into them. Making people feel guilty when no such emotion is needed or appropriate.

When I read/hear peoples 'receiving the holy spirit' type accounts I can relate to them. Both from when I believed it had happened to me (mid teens) but more especially that moment when I realised that I no longer believed. I too experienced a weight lifting of my shoulders and a feeling of walking into the light. I'd  opened up to the true wonders, unfettered by a stone age understanding, of the universe.

That some here will read this and say that I was being decieved my satan is what offends me. How dare they assume that their understanding and way of relating to the mystery at the heart of human life is less valid for me than theirs is to them.




As long as they're happy and don't frighten the horses, does it really matter?  
Ketty

IvyOwl wrote:
And of course if they are harming others by putting the 'fear of god' into them. Making people feel guilty when no such emotion is needed or appropriate.


Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.

Coincidentally at last night's church the talk was around fear in relation to God.  A reverent fear is a good thing: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.

I would love to believe that that's true - a sort of equivalent of the "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent"-type scenario - but I don't: I think there's just too much evidence of people being made to feel guilty over perfectly innocent, harmless and natural things by external forces with a vested interest in so doing. The idea that something is inherently wrong and therefore something to feel guilty about can be implanted, I'm sure, and the earlier you do it the more likely it is to take root. Religions and guilt over normal and natural sexual things pretty well universal to the human species (and others, come to that) is of course the obvious example, but there are others.
Shaker

IvyOwl wrote:
Have ticked yes. My belief is that gods reside in the human mind. Invented on a wider level (often as a means to justify control of others as well as to instruct and comfort) and experienced by each believer according to their needs. There is nothing wrong with that as such ..... only when they insist that theirs is the 'one true way'.

By and large I'm tolerant of peoples beliefs, they are precious to the holders and besides I can't prove them wrong. If it's helping them lead the life they want to and they are not harming others then who am I to gainsay? Well only when they try to foist their beliefs onto me and insist that I am somehow lacking and or missing out because I don't believe as they do. And of course if they are harming others by putting the 'fear of god' into them. Making people feel guilty when no such emotion is needed or appropriate.

When I read/hear peoples 'receiving the holy spirit' type accounts I can relate to them. Both from when I believed it had happened to me (mid teens) but more especially that moment when I realised that I no longer believed. I too experienced a weight lifting of my shoulders and a feeling of walking into the light. I'd  opened up to the true wonders, unfettered by a stone age understanding, of the universe.

That some here will read this and say that I was being decieved my satan is what offends me. How dare they assume that their understanding and way of relating to the mystery at the heart of human life is less valid for me than theirs is to them.


  Especially the first paragraph.
Ketty

Shaker, I feel guilty over anything and everything (and no, I've never been a Catholic   ), so I can sympathise with that pov, but we have to learn to take control over such incorrect feelings - so in that sense we are in control, or need to learn to be in control.

Gotta dash.  Laters yeah . . .
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Shaker, I feel guilty over anything and everything (and no, I've never been a Catholic   ), so I can sympathise with that pov, but we have to learn to take control over such incorrect feelings - so in that sense we are in control, or need to learn to be in control.

Gotta dash.  Laters yeah . . .


I'm going to claim victory on this one and plant my little flag on the high ground, because if there's something over which we have to take control, then that thing clearly arises spontaneously, originally without our control, which we then have to intellectualise and realise that we're being silly by being needlessly guilty. It's the spontaneous guilt over what can essentially be trivia which is the thing that I would say can be inculcated from an early age. No expert I, and certainly without being an overt Freudian, but I think a massive amount has to do with upbringing. In the twentieth century there was for a time a widespread belief that there was such a thing as the (deep breath) schizophrenogenic parent - in other words, schizophrenia-causing (-genic, from genesis) parents. That theory is now pretty well universally discredited (there's a not very technical article in The Lancet here, should anyone be interested), but I do think there's such a thing as guiltgenic parents, ones whose overt or more subtle sense of disapproval of this or that (or in the worst cases just about everything) can lead children to pick up, very early on, and develop a deeply-rooted sense of guilt and inferiority: that they're never good enough, never quite up to the mark, never properly good, amenable and obedient and that everything they do is wrong in some way. That sort of shit, I'm afraid, is a very long and painful time in the undoing - if ever.

P.S. The Catholics have traditionally been masters of guilt but there's a wide streak of it in the Jewish sphere, hence the old gag: What's a Jewish porno movie like? Fifteen minutes of hot, steamy sex followed by four-and-a-half hours of guilt. And Jewish mothers: travel agents for guilt trips. And many, many more, believe you me.
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:


Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.


Ketty, my dear, you sometimes say the most idiotic things. Why do you think many religious people believe we are all miserable sinners? Because that's what they've been told by their religion.

Quote:
Coincidentally at last night's church the talk was around fear in relation to God.  A reverent fear is a good thing: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.


I think you are talking about respect rather than fear. Possibly a translation problem.
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Ketty wrote:


Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.


Ketty, my dear, you sometimes say the most idiotic things. Why do you think many religious people believe we are all miserable sinners? Because that's what they've been told by their religion.

In full agreement with you here, Leonardo. (It's not constant but it's pretty well the default ). The Christian concept of original sin - the idea that human beings are 'fallen,' somehow inherently wrong or flawed if you prefer; that humans are prone to 'sin' and that they have a deficiency, a flaw, for which there's one and only one remedy - is easily the single most obnoxious and pernicious thing about it. Even other religions which talk of sin in the sense of disobedience to the will and wishes of its supreme being don't take the line that humans come straight out of the factory defective, as it were. Islam, rather well known I think it's fair to say for coming over all hot and heavy on the old sin thing, doesn't have it. What kind of warped, emotionally hobbled, psychologically maladapted creature do you have to be to come up with an idea such as total depravity? These ideas are not universal in Christianity, obviously, but they certainly exist within it and as far as I'm concerned wouldn't exist in the forms that they do without it, since without such an ideological underpinning even the most jaundiced view of humankind and its doings - and goodness knows I'm no lover of the species to put it mildly - would lead to the view that all human beings everywhere are innately, inherently, by nature utterly and consistently corrupt, degraded and degenerate to such a degree. The late Christopher Hitchens very often used to quote Fulke Greville's famous line "Created sick, commanded to be sound," and he was quite right to hammer this point into the ground in the way that he did because it really does - to him; to me; to a great many - expose the rebarbative nub at the heart of Christianity. Genuinely nice (Christian) people of a naturally kindly disposition make more of the love and the mercy of God, but if they're going to be in any way true to their religion they can't omit to mention that every human being needs to find salvation via Jesus - which is the only way to do it - because they are 'broken' and need 'fixing' by this method. "You're ill and you are even if you don't know or recognise the fact, but here's the cure" has been the sales pitch of every snake oil salesman since for ever.

Quite why people find such a dismal, dispiriting and demeaning view of humanity presumably both plausible and attractive in some sense may be a matter of psychological interest, but to me is temperamentally, emotionally and intellectually repulsive in the extreme. This is why my answer to the question sometimes posed "If you had to pick a religion to follow, which would it be?" is invariably a firm "Well, definitely not Christianity." It's not quite as simple as preferring to be an ape going going up rather than an angel going down (not least because in evolutionary terms there's no such thing as ascent and descent - that's for lifts and escalators, not organisms), but as long as you understand the metaphor, it'll do. The notion that not just this or that person but literally everyone there has ever been or ever will be has committed some aboriginal and primordial crime so heinous that the only way this can ever be made right is by the very creator of the universe coming to earth in the form of a man to suffer torture, execution and at least temporary death is utterly, utterly iniquitous and not something that finds favour with me as admirable, noble or moral in any way. I'd like to think that most people recognise that as a parent, if you inculcate in your children the attitude that they always fall short, always miss the mark and no matter how compliant, well-behaved and amenable they are they're still never going to be quite good enough to please mummy and daddy, you're (a) a bad parent (b) pretty well certain to raise warped, damaged, crippled individuals who are going to have 'issues,' as the contemporary demotic has it, pretty well all their lives. (I personally know people to whom this applies). How then to explain the popularity of a religious worldview which essentially does the self-same thing?

Having decisively rejected the view that humans are inherently and innately defective (because I reject the system of values which claims to determine such things), it's almost inevitable (I know, because it has happened to me many times) that somebody with no knowledge of the fallacy of the excluded middle will imply or openly state that I must therefore believe in the exact opposite, namely, the Rousseauesque view that humans are naturally and innately and inherently good. No, I don't. It's undoubtedly a far more pleasant, more hopeful, more inspiring, healthier-minded view to take but has just as little evidential backing as its opposite. My default position is that human being are simply human beings; they simply exist; sometimes some of them do great, wonderful, even downright extraordinary things; sometimes some of them do awful, even downright wicked things; the more usual scenario is that the vast majority dip very slightly above and very slightly below the baseline of normal, everyday ordinary averageness and mediocrity, even across the course of a single day. As far as I can see these things are decided by almost - but not quite - entirely humanly-created/decided concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, which are built upon millions of years of our primate evolutionary heritage (which is why I say these things are not entirely human), thousands and thousands of years of human society, the moral Zeitgeist of the time, place and culture in which we live, and reason.

As the late and sorely missed Hitch put it, there's a very great deal to be said for seeing us as we actually are - overgrown, hairless apes with too-big brains and too-active adrenal glands, poking around in our overcrowded habitat with too much time on our hands. Clears away a lot of the mists and the nonsense which otherwise tends to accrue  
Leonard James

Hi Steve,

Yes, everything you say is true. I can see it, you can see it, and hopefully many others can ... but the sad fact is that we can't do anything to help the unfortunate and credulous people who have fallen into the snare. There seems no way to get to them.

But as hope springs eternal, we can only go on trying!  
Shaker

It's the back-and-forth and the knockabout of the discussion that makes it fun, Len  
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Steve,

Yes, everything you say is true. I can see it, you can see it, and hopefully many others can ... but the sad fact is that we can't do anything to help the unfortunate and credulous people who have fallen into the snare. There seems no way to get to them.

But as hope springs eternal, we can only go on trying!  


Len.
Derek

[quote="Leonard James:99486"]

Quote:
Ketty wrote:


Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.


Ketty, my dear, you sometimes say the most idiotic things. Why do you think many religious people believe we are all miserable sinners? Because that's what they've been told by their religion.


Len, don't count me in on that description, not that I think you will. I think you are a very moralistic gay atheists who is a massively good example to your sexuality. I know you have no belief in deity but if we die and it exists the I think you are very much safe. I think it a real shame that the world is not filled with not gays like you. How could anyone criticise you.
Leonard James

Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi Steve,

Yes, everything you say is true. I can see it, you can see it, and hopefully many others can ... but the sad fact is that we can't do anything to help the unfortunate and credulous people who have fallen into the snare. There seems no way to get to them.

But as hope springs eternal, we can only go on trying!  


Len.

There comes a time that you realize that no matter what you say nobody listens when they think they are the Lighthouse and you are the Battleship.


I know the feeling well, Ralph!
Leonard James

[quote="Ralph2:99496"]
Leonard James wrote:


Quote:
Ketty wrote:


Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.


Ketty, my dear, you sometimes say the most idiotic things. Why do you think many religious people believe we are all miserable sinners? Because that's what they've been told by their religion.


Len, don't count me in on that description, not that I think you will. I think you are a very moralistic gay atheists who is a massively good example to your sexuality. I know you have no belief in deity but if we die and it exists the I think you are very much safe. I think it a real shame that the world is not filled with not gays like you. How could anyone criticise you.


My other half never stops doing it!

Thank you, Ralph ... but most of the time I keep my warts to myself on here.  
gone

I voted no because I am an agnostic. A deity could exist  somewhere but I don't think humans are in touch with it.
The Boyg

Floo wrote:
I voted no because I am an agnostic. A deity could exist  somewhere but I don't think humans are in touch with it.


Isn't that being a functional atheist though?

From a human perspective if there's a deity that we can't detect in any way then there might as well be no deity. We're into Invisble Pink Unicorn territory.

Unless you think that there's a prospect that we only come into contact with this deity after death.
Shaker

Floo wrote:
I voted no because I am an agnostic. A deity could exist  somewhere but I don't think humans are in touch with it.

I think like a lot of people Floo you might (I don't know this: I'm guessing from the tone of your words here and elsewhere) be construing atheism as a definitive and dogmatic, absolute denial of the existence of any gods and agnosticism as a more modest position which leaves room for some uncertainty. Carl Sagan for some reason seemed to think that this was the case - some people seem to have a real issue with calling themselves an atheist because they perceive it to be absolutist and dogmatic.

In fact atheism and agnosticism aren't end and middle points on a single continuum but two entirely different things relating to two entirely different areas. Most atheists - in fact I would go so far as to say all atheists who have some sort of minimal acquaintance with a bit of basic philosophy - would describe themselves as agnostic atheists, in that they regard the agnosticism as a lack of knowledge and the atheism as a lack of belief. I don't know of any serious atheist who wouldn't say pretty much exactly what you said in your post quoted above, for example. The diagram below sums it up pretty clearly:



Any savvy theist would similarly regard themselves as an agnostic theist: that's to say they claim belief in a god but not knowledge of the same. Knowledge claims either way - "I know that there's a God!" "Oh yeah? Well I know there isn't!" - always lead to entirely predictable but equally entirely justifiable demands to prove them. They never are.
gone

In my atheist husband's case, he categorically denies the existence of any sort of deity. Since his illness he can wax lyrical on the subject, in a way he didn't before, which can be a bit embarrassing! He reckons he had some sort of experience whilst in a coma which convinced him beyond all doubt that no deity or  afterlife existed. I don't believe that to have anymore credence than those who claim to have had religious experiences which prove there is a deity.
Shaker

Floo wrote:
In my atheist husband's case, he categorically denies the existence of any sort of deity. Since his illness he can wax lyrical on the subject, in a way he didn't before, which can be a bit embarrassing! He reckons he had some sort of experience whilst in a coma which convinced him beyond all doubt that no deity or  afterlife existed. I don't believe that to have anymore credence than those who claim to have had religious experiences which prove there is a deity.

Same  
gone

Shaker wrote:
Floo wrote:
In my atheist husband's case, he categorically denies the existence of any sort of deity. Since his illness he can wax lyrical on the subject, in a way he didn't before, which can be a bit embarrassing! He reckons he had some sort of experience whilst in a coma which convinced him beyond all doubt that no deity or  afterlife existed. I don't believe that to have anymore credence than those who claim to have had religious experiences which prove there is a deity.

Same  


He doesn't like it when I tell him that, even though he decries those who claim their religious experience does prove the existence of a deity. He can't see that isn't logical. Sadly with only half a brain he can't always see the wood for the trees!  
Shaker

I agree with your OH that an alleged experience of deity doesn't prove the existence of one because such an experience, being an entirely internal, mental/emotional event, can't connect to anything outside of one's cranium - you can't make up all the links of the chain from the experience to some other thing 'out there' in some sense which is causing it: and most theists are apt to be quite insistent that God isn't a mental construct alone but has some sort of corresponding reality, even if not a physical, material one like my downstairs lavatory seat or the Andromeda galaxy. I know there are some people who call themselves theists who are quite happy to say (they would probably use the word admit) that all gods are human constructs which exist only in people's heads and nowhere else - they're called non-realists - but they're very much in the minority.

An experience of deity, in other words, is only an experience of this or that particular thing which is interpreted by the subject as being such. Perhaps it matters what sort of prior cultural baggage you bring to such experiences: who's to say that maybe atheists don't have experiences absolutely identical in every possible respect to theists when the latter undergo 'religious experiences,' but just have a different set of conceptual tools with which to interpret them?
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:
Ketty wrote:


Nobody else can make us feel guilty.  Guilty feelings come from within and are entirely at our own control.


Ketty, my dear, you sometimes say the most idiotic things.


Thank you Lennie.   I'm sure none of us are immune from that.  

Leonard James wrote:
Why do you think many religious people believe we are all miserable sinners?


Because they are miserable people maybe?  Religious people don't own a monopoly on being sinners who are miserable. There's a lot of 'em about.  

Leonard James wrote:
Because that's what they've been told by their religion.


That's the bondage of religion for you.

Leonard James wrote:
Quote:
Coincidentally at last night's church the talk was around fear in relation to God.  A reverent fear is a good thing: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.


I think you are talking about respect rather than fear. Possibly a translation problem.


No, definitely,  we were talking of fear.  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:


I agree with most of the above, which I've not quoted but the link can be followed.  I say 'most of' because the flag of victory has just been blown over.  

Unedifying, unhelpful "stuff" is absorbed from the very second we're born, if not earlier through our mother's own chemicals.  It can become part of who we are and give us the feelings of guilt, worry, anger, et al when rational observation would demonstrate that it's not at all appropriate to feel like that.   It's It's all to do with the 'battlefield of the mind'.  And we can take control.
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:


Thank you Lennie.   I'm sure none of us are immune from that.  


Indeed not! But religious types have a store of idiotic things to say that atheists are free of.


Quote:
Because they are miserable people maybe?  Religious people don't own a monopoly on being sinners who are miserable. There's a lot of 'em about.  


Once again I agree. But (and there's always a but) only religion actually teaches that we are all miserable sinners.


Quote:
That's the bondage of religion for you.


Binding people to believe themselves born in sin is not only lying, it is destructive, too.


Quote:
No, definitely,  we were talking of fear.  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.


Utter codswallop! Being afraid of something never produced any wisdom. Wisdom is gained by experience and thought, neither of which entail being afraid of anything or anybody.

It is sad to see how you guys have been brainwashed to believe such rubbish.
The Boyg

Hmmmmm! Lennie says this:

Leonard James wrote:
But religious types have a store of idiotic things to say that atheists are free of.


but then goes on to produce one of his regular excerpts from Leonard's Bumper Book of Atheist Platitudes:

Quote:
It is sad to see how you guys have been brainwashed to believe such rubbish.


Perhaps he just meant that atheists have a different store of idiotic things to say to draw on (e.g. that the religious are all brainwashed into their belief)?
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:

Once again I agree. But (and there's always a but) only religion actually teaches that we are all miserable sinners.


Some maybe.  I don't do 'religion' but my faith does not tell me that I'm at all miserable.

Leonard James wrote:
Utter codswallop! Being afraid of something never produced any wisdom. Wisdom is gained by experience and thought, neither of which entail being afraid of anything or anybody.


Yep, you would believe that, and of course for you it's correct.  

For me, I believe that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

Once again I agree. But (and there's always a but) only religion actually teaches that we are all miserable sinners.


Some maybe.  I don't do 'religion' but my faith does not tell me that I'm at all miserable.

Leonard James wrote:
Utter codswallop! Being afraid of something never produced any wisdom. Wisdom is gained by experience and thought, neither of which entail being afraid of anything or anybody.


Yep, you would believe that, and of course for you it's correct.  

For me, I believe that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.


Yes, Ket ... as always, it's horses for courses.  
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:
Yes, Ket ... as always, it's horses for courses.  


Indeed.  
Farmer Geddon

I totally refute Steve's "definitions" of Atheist.

Definitions? There is only one definition of atheist, any others only confuse the issue.

Theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.

So theism is the concept of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

Atheism rejects this ridiculous notion, its not a case of "disbelief, denial or skepticism about the existence of said gods"... Its a absolute rejection of said gods, safe in the knowledge that they can refuse to accept any such childish desires!
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
I totally refute Steve's "definitions" of Atheist.

If I were the pedantic kind (which thank the Lord I'm not, sir), I'd say that to refute something you have to provide actual evidence which demonstrates the original statement to be false.

Quote:
Definitions? There is only one definition of atheist, any others only confuse the issue.

Theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.

So theism is the concept of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

Atheism rejects this ridiculous notion, not a case of disbelief, denial or skeptic about the existence of said gods... Its a absolute rejection of said gods, safe in the knowledge that they can refuse to accept such childish desires!

Good luck with your absolute rejection. Let us know how that works out.
Farmer Geddon

Its working out fine...

Why do you need to believe that god might exist?
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Its working out fine...

Why do you need to believe that god might exist?

Because given the fact that I've yet to see an unambiguous, clear and coherent definition of a god, I can't think of a sound reason for an absolute, categorical and dogmatic rejection of the existence of the same.
Farmer Geddon

So you believe there might be a god then?


Is it just Jesus you reject??
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
So you believe there might be a god then?

I don't know what one is supposed to be. The ones who claim to believe in such things are, in my long experience, conspicuously maladroit at defining exactly what the thing is which they're supposed to believe in.
Farmer Geddon

Is that supposed to be an answer?

Do you think that one of the gods might exist?

If so, which one?


Is it safe to assume you reject the desire that Jesus is a god?
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Is that supposed to be an answer?

Yes.

Quote:
Do you think that one of the gods might exist?

That question has already been answered in the answer which you were confused was an answer.

Quote:
Is it safe to assume you reject the desire that Jesus is a god?

Yes.
Farmer Geddon

Your answer obviously confused yourself, by using inserting nonsense like "maladroit" inappropriately..

The question was simple.. Do you believe there might be a god?

Yours was a clumsy answer, a simple yes or no would have been suffice...
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Your answer obviously confused yourself, by using inserting nonsense like "maladroit" inappropriately..

It's not that rare a word. It means cack-handed, inept, clumsy, inefficient.

Quote:
The question was simple.. Do you believe there might be a god?

And I answered your question already. If you've not heard of or don't understand theological noncognitivism, that's really not my concern, is it? It's easy enough to look up - and, I'd say, to understand once you've done so.

Quote:
Yours was a clumsy answer, a simple yes or no would be suffice...

I fear that anybody who thinks such a question admits of a straight yes or no answer possesses all the philosophical sophistication of the average aubergine.
Farmer Geddon

OK - Bored now...

Laters!
Shaker

Capital.
Farmer Geddon

Well you think you are... trust me, you ain't!




You and Paul are the most compatible atheists I have ever seen in forumland...

 
Shaker

I wasn't referring to me, but to your announcement that you were leaving the thread.
Farmer Geddon

See what I mean about confused...
Shaker

In your case, alas, yes.
Derek

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Your answer obviously confused yourself, by using inserting nonsense like "maladroit" inappropriately..

The question was simple.. Do you believe there might be a god?

Yours was a clumsy answer, a simple yes or no would have been suffice...
 
Shaker

Here comes Tweedledee ...
Derek

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Your answer obviously confused yourself, by using inserting nonsense like "maladroit" inappropriately..

The question was simple.. Do you believe there might be a god?

Yours was a clumsy answer, a simple yes or no would have been suffice...
 
Shaker

Is Ralph's latest offering a good enough use of maladroit for you now, FG?  
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Farmer Geddon wrote:
Your answer obviously confused yourself, by using inserting nonsense like "maladroit" inappropriately..

The question was simple.. Do you believe there might be a god?

Yours was a clumsy answer, a simple yes or no would have been suffice...
 


Isn't Shaker still waiting for you to give a simple answer to the question of whether it was wrong for FG to post about his R&E suspension?  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Isn't Shaker still waiting for you to give a simple answer to the question of whether it was wrong for FG to post about his R&E suspension?  

Oh, come now. Shaker has had extensive experience of never expecting Ralphie to back up anything he rashly asserts and then finds inconvenient to address. Or incomprehensible. Or more than likely both. We don't expect him actually to answer anything: we just enjoy the spectacle.
Farmer Geddon

So what's that phrase you love so much.. oh yeah - evasion noted.

How about answering this question instead:

Do you think that a creator god exists?

Again - a simple yes or no will suffice..  I'm not asking you to name said god.. just whether you think one might exist.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Farmer Geddon wrote:
Your answer obviously confused yourself, by using inserting nonsense like "maladroit" inappropriately..

The question was simple.. Do you believe there might be a god?

Yours was a clumsy answer, a simple yes or no would have been suffice...
 


Isn't Shaker still waiting for you to give a simple answer to the question of whether it was wrong for FG to post about his R&E suspension?  


Yes, take what you have said here as my answer
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
So what's that phrase you love so much.. oh yeah - evasion noted.

Unfortunately that one works better when somebody evades a question you ask and doesn't actually answer it, as I actually did.
Quote:
Again - a simple yes or no will suffice.

OK, never mind an aubergine - how about a potato instead?
Derek

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Isn't Shaker still waiting for you to give a simple answer to the question of whether it was wrong for FG to post about his R&E suspension?  

Oh, come now. Shaker has had extensive experience of never expecting Ralphie to back up anything he rashly asserts and then finds inconvenient to address. Or incomprehensible. Or more than likely both. We don't expect him actually to answer anything: we just enjoy the spectacle.


You are a liar. that whole post is a blatant lie. Now that you have made that claim you should substantiate it with evidence that proves what you have said. If you cannot do that then a dirty mouthed liar is your forte.
Farmer Geddon

In my opinion those who claim to be an athiest, but still claim that a creator god might exist may as well join the Mormons....


BOOM...  how alienate all posters!!


Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
You are a liar. that whole post is a blatant lie. Now that you have made that claim you should substantiate it with evidence that proves what you have said.

Certainly, Ralph or Ralph2 whichever the case may be. No problem at all.

Where did I describe Ketty as an atheist, as you asserted?
Quote:
If you cannot do that then a dirty mouthed liar is your forte.

No, I have a piano for that. That's my forte.
Farmer Geddon

I refer back to my earlier post about being bored... and how this is the later I inferred!!
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You are a liar. that whole post is a blatant lie. Now that you have made that claim you should substantiate it with evidence that proves what you have said.

Certainly, Ralph or Ralph2 whichever the case may be. No problem at all.

Where did I describe Ketty as an atheist, as you asserted?
Quote:
If you cannot do that then a dirty mouthed liar is your forte.

No, I have a piano for that. That's my forte.


You did describe Ketty as an atheist. Your words gave me the impression that you could have been talking about an atheist. You are making yourself look stupid by your persistence.

for·te 1  (fôrt, fôrt, frt)
n.
1.  Something in which a person excels.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
You did describe Ketty as an atheist.

Ralphie, Ralphie, Ralphie. Ralphie, Ralphie, Ralphie, Ralphiekins, Ralphiepoos. This is where you keep going wrong. You keep asserting this as a fact but never provide the evidence to prove it.

Quote:
for·te 1  (fôrt, fôrt, frt)
n.
1.  Something in which a person excels.

In your case you have several things at which you excel, and one - as here - is evasion.
Farmer Geddon

Evasion laughed at here Steve/Shaker..

Do you think there might be a creator god?


Is Jesus one of those Gods?
Farmer Geddon

Shaken..


lt is a ridiculous possibility that a "creator god" might exist?

Is this a 'belief' or is it a Fact?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Here comes Tweedledee ...




Btw Shaker I did answer your 'planting flag' post waaaay back, but it's got lost in this little mêlée à trois.  
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Here comes Tweedledee ...




Btw Shaker I did answer your 'planting flag' post waaaay back, but it's got lost in this little mêlée à trois.  

Mais crème brûlée, defense de fumer  
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

Mais crème brûlée, defense de fumer  


There you go again, making me go weak at the genoux.
cyberman

No
Farmer Geddon

Nice swerve again Steve/Shaker..

Simple question.

Do you believe in a creator God?
Shaker

Oh dear.

The barmaid's apron strikes again  
Farmer Geddon

Oh sweetie..

Yet again you can't answer a simple question..


I wish I was as dim as you..  thank fuck I ain't..
Farmer Geddon

Sad... but not for you..
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Oh sweetie..

Yet again you can't answer a simple question..

Already have, on the fourth page of the present thread

Quote:
wish I was as dim as you..  thank fuck I ain't..

What on earth leads you to believe so? Especially given your usage of a word such as ain't, which hardly bespeaks of non-dimness.

The clichéd crapulous Caledonian act is one which in my estimation wears very thin very quickly. I know it's your usual if rare and occasional 'thing' here (and elsewhere ... in fact everywhere as far as I can see), but do be sure to try again when you have something meaningful and worthwhile (and, if at all possible, sober) to contribute. We'll all be the better for it.
cyberman

Farmer Geddon wrote:
In my opinion those who claim to be an athiest, but still claim that a creator god might exist may as well join the Mormons....

 


I think you are making the error of defining in your mind (if that's the right word for it) 'atheist' as someone who claims that they have certain knowledge of God's non-existence. This is not the case.

There is no contradiction at all in holding both (a) "I have no belief that a God exists" and (b) "I could be wrong, maybe there is one who for reasons best known to itself has failed to make its presence more obvious" to be true.

Theists and atheists are both guessing (what else could we possibly do?).

Asking an atheist "do you acknowledge that a god might exist?" is a disingenuous and dishonest question. dishonest because it is not a question which seeks to reach a truth, but a question which seeks to score points in a word game.

If you were to ask anyone "do you think that there is a possibility that you might be a disembodied brain in a jar being fed false experiences by an evil genius intent upon deception" then they might well say 'yes'; but that would tell you nothing at all about their beliefs. All kinds of things are possible, but that has nothing at all to do with our beliefs, or the strength of our beliefs.

Furthermore, it is a bit of a stupid remark considering you began this thread with the unreasonable demand that people who are not sure must define themselves as atheist! Wally.
genghiscant

I don't believe Gods exist, but I can't prove it, so I could be wrong. That makes me an atheist.
Derek

genghiscant wrote:
I don't believe Gods exist, but I can't prove it, so I could be wrong. That makes me an atheist.


Do you believe in a multi verse?  Do you think that universes can pop in and out of existence?  Do you believe in string theory?
genghiscant

Ralph2 wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I don't believe Gods exist, but I can't prove it, so I could be wrong. That makes me an atheist.


Do you believe in a multi verse?  Do you think that universes can pop in and out of existence?  Do you believe in string theory?


I've no idea what you're talking about.
Derek

genghiscant wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I don't believe Gods exist, but I can't prove it, so I could be wrong. That makes me an atheist.


Do you believe in a multi verse?  Do you think that universes can pop in and out of existence?  Do you believe in string theory?


I've no idea what you're talking about.


Do you think that their might me many universes. Do you think it possible for a universe to be in a different dimension  to ours which pops in and out of our existence.  There is a train of thought  in science that both phenomenon does exist.  There is no real evidence just a hypothesis.  No more unlikely then the existence of God but seriously considered. They cannot prove it but they believe in it.  I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Do you think that their might me many universes. Do you think it possible for a universe to be in a different dimension  to ours which pops in and out of our existence. There is a train of thought  in science that both phenomenon does exist. There is no real evidence just a hypothesis. No more unlikely then the existence of God but seriously considered. They cannot prove it but they believe in it.

Some physicists and cosmologists believe in it - a minority, actually. The majority take the rather more scientific view that this is a hypothesis which stands in need of testing, and there have been those (Neil Turok and Max Tegmark spring to mind) who have come up with ways of testing it which rely on fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The next generation of satellites would be sensitive enough (as WMAP was not) to detect such fluctuations.

So the multiverse hypothesis is absolutely capable of being tested and capable of experimental confirmation according to the usual scientific means. The God hypothesis isn't. In fact the multiverse hypothesis comes out on top in all respects: we have a coherent definition of the term; we know what sort of evidence it would take to confirm it; we know what it would take to disprove it; we know how to go about looking for the dis/confirmation.
trentvoyager

Multi universes and the like are unproven theories or hypotheses.

As I understand many Christians, they would disagree with that description being applied to God.

Christians frequently (I'm not saying you do) state as a fact that God exists.

So I think your attempt at creating a comparison between the two areas fails in this instance.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Do you think that their might me many universes. Do you think it possible for a universe to be in a different dimension  to ours which pops in and out of our existence. There is a train of thought  in science that both phenomenon does exist. There is no real evidence just a hypothesis. No more unlikely then the existence of God but seriously considered. They cannot prove it but they believe in it.

Some physicists and cosmologists believe in it - a minority, actually. The majority take the rather more scientific view that this is a hypothesis which stands in need of testing, and there have been those (Neil Turok and Max Tegmark spring to mind) who have come up with ways of testing it which rely on fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The next generation of satellites would be sensitive enough (as WMAP was not) to detect such fluctuations.

So the multiverse hypothesis is absolutely capable of being tested and capable of experimental confirmation according to the usual scientific means. The God hypothesis isn't. In fact the multiverse hypothesis comes out on top in all respects: we have a coherent definition of the term; we know what sort of evidence it would take to confirm it; we know what it would take to disprove it; we know how to go about looking for the dis/confirmation.


None of this is new to me.  What I said was  "There is no real evidence just a hypothesis" What I have said is true.  Yes,  we know how to test it if true but that is irrelevant  as there is currently  no evidence.  Just like the existence of God has no evidence.  That is the comparison I make.  We believe in a multi verse that is more than likely true yet we have difficulty in believing in God,  which is more then likely true.  

There is,  however,  a method to either prove that God exists or that he doesn't exist.

James 1

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed



4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
None of this is new to me.  What I said was  "There is no real evidence just a hypothesis" What I have said is true.  Yes,  we know how to test it if true

So there's your difference between the multiverse hypothesis and the God hypothesis right there.
Quote:
but that is irrelevant  as there is currently  no evidence.  Just like the existence of God has no evidence.  That is the comparison I make.

Your comparison is false.

Quote:
We believe in a multi verse that is more than likely true

Who is "we"?
Quote:
yet we have difficulty in believing in God,  which is more then likely true.
 

Multiverse = clear definition; knowledge of how it can be confirmed; knowledge of where to look; capable of disproof.

God = none of those.

Quote:
There is,  however,  a method to either prove that God exists or that he doesn't exist.

We need a coherent definition of the term first of all.

And yet another one of your bloody Bible quotes doesn't cut it.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:100086"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
None of this is new to me.  What I said was  "There is no real evidence just a hypothesis" What I have said is true.  Yes,  we know how to test it if true

So there's your difference between the multiverse hypothesis and the God hypothesis right there.


We know how to test a scientific phenomenon by using the scientific method.  We know how to test the existence of God by using the Holy Ghost.

Quote:
Quote:
but that is irrelevant  as there is currently  no evidence.  Just like the existence of God has no evidence.  That is the comparison I make.

Your comparison is false.


Well,  yes,  of course it is.

Quote:
Quote:
We believe in a multi verse that is more than likely true

Who is "we"?


Me and the scientists who are researching it,  and of course Fred and Sue from the undertakers,  Roger the local farmer,  Gerald the hardware shop owner etc etc...

Quote:
Quote:
yet we have difficulty in believing in God,  which is more then likely true.
 

Multiverse = clear definition; knowledge of how it can be confirmed; knowledge of where to look; capable of disproof.

God = none of those.


We have a clear definition of who God is and what his purpose is. We have a knowledge of how to confirm his existence. We know where to look for him and we know how to disprove his existence.  

Quote:
Quote:
There is,  however,  a method to either prove that God exists or that he doesn't exist.

We need a coherent definition of the term first of all.


Who is WE

Quote:
And yet another one of your bloody Bible quotes doesn't cut it.


Why would you expect any different? I am a Christian.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
We know how to test a scientific phenomenon by using the scientific method.  We know how to test the existence of God by using the Holy Ghost.

There's a very good reason why circular "reasoning" (it isn't) is a fallacy.

Quote:
Me and the scientists who are researching it

Only some of those who are researching it believe it to be already true.

Quote:
and of course Fred and Sue from the undertakers,  Roger the local farmer,  Gerald the hardware shop owner etc etc...

I don't know them. Any reason why their opinion on anything would be relevant?

Quote:
We have a clear definition of who God is and what his purpose is. We have a knowledge of how to confirm his existence. We know where to look for him and we know how to disprove his existence.  

(1) Who is this "we" again that you keep using?

(2) What is this definition?

(3) What is this "disproof" to which you refer?

Quote:
Who is WE

Every non-cognitivist atheist.

Quote:
Why would you expect any different? I am a Christian.

Irrelevant. We're talking about science now.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
I am a Christian.


You may find this helpful "Ralph" http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/about3199.html  
gone

I am a Christian.

Ralphie that is hard to believe if Christian values mean you don't tell constant lies and behave badly as you do!
genghiscant

Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.
Shaker

genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.

Ralph's comment, I agree, did seem to imply a voluntaristic view of faith - i.e. that you can choose what you believe. Maybe some people can; I know I can't.
Derek

genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.


Can I ask why you can't?
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.


Can I ask why you can't?


If your perceptions and reason tell you that there is a brick wall in front of you, can you choose to believe that it is not there?

I know you can imagine it isn't there, but that isn't the same. Or you can entertain the notion that it might not be there, and exercise Cartesian doubt about it being part of reality, but again that is not the same. You cannot choose to actually believe it to be not there.

Similarly, if you see an unobstructed landscape on front of you, can you choose to genuinely believe that there is in fact a wall there?

Reason and experience lead me to believe that there is a God. Exactly the same things lead Shaker and genghiscant to believe the opposite. I don't think any of us choose, do we?

Do you choose to believe in God?
genghiscant

Ralph2 wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.


Can I ask why you can't?


To my mind the whole concept of God is absurd. I understand that some people have a need to believe in a supernatural presence that's in charge of events, something that supports them in their lives & welcomes them when they die.

I think religion is an emotional crutch, used by people who need it.

I see no reason for there to be a God, in fact suspension of reason is required for belief.
genghiscant

Quote:
Reason and experience lead me to believe that there is a God. Exactly the same things lead Shaker and genghiscant to believe the opposite. I don't think any of us choose, do we?


How does reason lead you to believe in God?
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.


Can I ask why you can't?


Can I ask why you made four very simple statements

Ralph2 wrote:
We have a clear definition of who God is and what his purpose is.


Ralph2 wrote:
We have a knowledge of how to confirm his existence.


Ralph2 wrote:
We know where to look for him and we know how to disprove his existence.
 

Ralph2 wrote:
We know how to test the existence of God by using the Holy Ghost


to which (3 and 4 are pretty well synonymous) I asked three equally simple questions

Quote:
(1) Who is this "we" again that you keep using?

(2) What is this definition?

(3) What is this "disproof" to which you refer?


and why you haven't yet answered them, although you've replied to subsequent questions?

The reason I ask is that it makes absolutely no sense to ask if you believe or even don't believe in something which doesn't yet admit of a clear, cogent and coherent definition in the first place. You can't demand evidence for something which hasn't been properly set out, definition-wise, to start with. That would be extremely silly, wouldn't it?
Derek

genghiscant wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.


Can I ask why you can't?


To my mind the whole concept of God is absurd. I understand that some people have a need to believe in a supernatural presence that's in charge of events, something that supports them in their lives & welcomes them when they die.

I think religion is an emotional crutch, used by people who need it.

I see no reason for there to be a God, in fact suspension of reason is required for belief.


There is not much to say to that,  to be honest.  Nobody can force you into believing in a God that your mind cannot conceive.  I,  for one, cannot convince you that God exists.  Nobody could have convinced me either.  It is personal.  What I can say is that it is not a emotional crutch. If at the end of my life there is nothing then Why should I care.  I will no longer exist.  If there is something,  well great,  the efforts I put forward will have been worth it.  Either way, living the gospel is a good thing. It produces well rounded,  caring people who benefit the community  they live in and they hurt no one.  

The reason for the existence of God is contained in the perfect Plan of Salvation. It is all very logical and shows why we are here.  To be honest,  it sounds like you need to take a closer look in order to get a better perspective on our reason for being.  But it does not make you a bad person just because you do not have religion.  Look at Leonard James.  An atheist with all the attributes of a Christian.  How can you fault that.  If you are happy as you are then keep doing it.  Life really is short.  If ever you change your mind I,  for one,  would be honoured  to show you how to get a testimony of diety.  Sadly,  I cannot give it to you.  Only you can obtain it.
genghiscant

Quote:
If there is something,  well great,


What if you get to meet God, but it turns out to be Allah? You're then in more trouble than me.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
If at the end of my life there is nothing then Why should I care.  I will no longer exist.  If there is something,  well great

Wouldn't that rather depend on the nature of this "something"?

ETA: Apologies: genghiscant got there before me, but evidently had the same thoughts as I did.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:100117"]

Quote:
[quote="Ralph2:100111"]
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
I cannot prove god exists but I can believe in it,  as can you.


You're failing to understand my position. It's not that I won't believe in God, but that I can't believe. Choice doesn't come into it.

Can I ask why you can't?


Can I ask why you made four very simple statements

Ralph2 wrote:
We have a clear definition of who God is and what his purpose is.


Ralph2 wrote:
We have a knowledge of how to confirm his existence.


Ralph2 wrote:
We know where to look for him and we know how to disprove his existence.
 

Ralph2 wrote:
We know how to test the existence of God by using the Holy Ghost


to which (3 and 4 are pretty well synonymous)


Yes you can I ask why I made four very simple statements.  In order to make a comparison  between a supernatural  and scientific hypothesis.

Quote:
I asked three equally simple questions

(1) Who is this "we" again that you keep using?


Me and most Christian in this instance. It differs with every group of people that are associated with my post. It is not intended to give an appearance of a group of people who disagree with you with the motive of emotional manipulation,  as some people may try and do.

Quote:
(2) What is this definition?


What definition

Quote:
(3) What is this "disproof" to which you refer?


The disproof is the absence of any confirmationary influence in the shape of a holy ghost testifying to your soul that God lives. If you do not get it then you will know that it is all a load of hog wash.
and why you haven't yet answered them, although you've replied to subsequent questions?

I have no answer for you on that one.  I am not committed to answering you within a certain  amount of time.  

Quote:
The reason I ask is that it makes absolutely no sense to ask if you believe or even don't believe in something which doesn't yet admit of a clear, cogent and coherent definition in the first place. You can't demand evidence for something which hasn't been properly set out, definition-wise, to start with. That would be extremely silly, wouldn't it?


The scriptures contain all the information required to define the nature and character of God.
genghiscant

Quote:
To be honest,  it sounds like you need to take a closer look in order to get a better perspective on our reason for being


Why does there have to be a reason for being? What if we're just a coincidence? I know you don't believe it but there's no logical reason to dismiss it.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum