Yeah and we did establish that so I suppose this 'topic' is unofficially closed
|
Yeah and we did establish that so I suppose this 'topic' is unofficially closed
Hmmmmm I wonder why you are so eager for this topic to be closed...Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
If it is closed for you : fine. Than we won't see you back reacting here anymore.
And - although you may think that would be a great loss to humanity - many will feel otherwise.
Why would others not be allowed to continue here in this discussion ?
:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D
ˇ
I did use the word UN[officially AND I DID state that there is nothing more to add to my question which has gone off topic which YOU yourself criticize me for on YOUR posts
SO
Hmmm I wonder why you want to keep this topic open when there is nothing more to add to
Answering my question without being off topic or repetitious??
So continue with your discussion but if it is off topic then DON'T criticize my being off topic on your posts or
I WILL refer back to this post:rolleyes: :D
NOhelp,
You can ask a mod to close the question since you are the original asker.
BUT I am waiting with great anticipation to hear Cred0's great words of wisdom :D
Hereby my apologies. I did not realize it was your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Still I find it an interesting subject...
:rolleyes:
ˇ
Basically I started this to get Christians to realize that their going on and on trying to prove God is a waste of time because as I have always said you can not prove God but as you can see a few here DO try to. As has been stated AND I have stated many times God could be standing right in front of some non believers and atheists and they would STILL deny he exists so what is the point of debating objective/subjective.
I will not even argue the age of the earth because as I have said before I believe the earth and whatever else was created before the 6 day creation. Like a phase 1 and 2
That is my belief and to me it adds up.
Non believers are atheists !Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
And yes : a most probably non-existing entity could stand in front of someone and be invisible. Everything is possible, though not very likely.
:)
ˇ
Not entirely true. NOhelp is also a non-believer: there are many gods that she does not believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I believe in God I just don't care to get into all the debates and I see no need to try and prove anything.
I will state what I believe every now and then. I will say the Bible says every now and then. I just don't see the point in the endless disagreeing and everybody going away still believing what they did in the first place.
I figured Cred would be the first to say there is a distinction between non believer and atheist because when people say "I knew an atheist that became a Christian" he is the first to say that they were not really an atheist then. So if they weren't really an atheist and they became a Christian what would they have been then?
AtheismQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
A Theism
A= no or without
Theism is belief in god/gods
Atheism means no belief in a god or gods or being without belief in a god or gods.
The term Non-believer does NOT refer to only one (Christian) god. It refers to all gods.
The term means : no belief in god/gods.
Hence therefore a Non-believer is an Atheist, and an Atheist is a Non-believer.
:)
ˇ
Why do you - once again - try to put words in my mouth ?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
People can change their mind... Agnostics are actually acknowledging that they do not know what is "true".
But in essence : if people are really fully convinced of their world view, they would never change it. That goes for both theists and atheists !
:)
ˇ
I remember you saying that years ago on Answerway when somebody said something about atheists someday believing in God. Your reply was about real atheists would never become Christians.
So, at any rate, however you want to word things... wouldn't an agnostic be considered a non believer and distinguished from non believing atheists --which was my point of distinction in the long run.
But where is the context of that statement ?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
And yes : really convinced Atheists will remain Atheists, just as really convinced Theists will remain Theists (well : in general of course).
There are three different groups in respect to religion :Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
1 - Theists : those who believe in god/gods.
2 - Atheists : those who do not believe in god/gods.
3 - Agnostics : those who can not decide if god/gods exist.
Personally I am somewhere in group 2 leaning towards group 3 : based on the (lacking) evidence I do not believe in the existence of god/gods. I also do not see any need for their existence. The "Oxham's Razor" effect , I suppose...
And I doubt if ever there will be real objective supporting evidence for any of these positions.
:)
ˇ
Okay points taken
But my point is that I used the word non believe instead of agnostic
Because I have a hard time thinking of the right word at times
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours".
Why don't you give credit to Stephen Roberts for this quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
aˇtheˇist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
According to the definition of atheist, I am not an athiests so I think Stephen roberts made a foolish statement. :rolleyes:
Lol... ***Sigh*** you really amaze me. I don't know why this simple concept is so hard for you to grasp. The majority of Scientists BELIEVE the earth is 4.3 billion years because they BELIEVE the assuptions they use as a basis for their investigation, are accurate. Are the assumptions used in the methods of dating the earth accurate?? NOBODY KNOWS and there is NO WAY of VERIFYING the VALIDITY OR ACCURACY of these ASSUMPTIONS.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
Let me remind everyone what an assuption is
Asˇsumpˇtion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:
Presumption; arrogance.
Logic. A minor premise
I am not arrogant, all I am saying is the 4.3 billion year date is not a 100% FACT and any honest scientist will tell you this. Many scientisits believe the SIX assuptions used are accurate.. they have no way of knowing.
IF the assuptions are in fact accurate then, yes the earth is 4.3 billion years however like I have said 100 times there is no way to verify the accuracy of these six assuptions. If all of the six assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.
So if you believe the earth being is 4.3 billion years old is a FACT that means you have FAITH that the assuptions used are accurate because you don't KNOW that they are accurate.
I didn't give him credit because I didn't remember who said it and I didn't have the time to look it up. I did however remember the quote. Didn't realise I had do to a bibliography for my work.
Showing again that you don't have a decent education. Which I guess it's not your fault, it's really the fault of our school systems and public policy. That's a topic for another time though.
aˇtheˇist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Let me explain in a way that you might understand.
SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of Zeus. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping Zeus.
SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping FSM.
Do you understand the quote now?
It all depend on how you define a Non-believer and an Atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Note that the term "denies the existence of" is not a correct description of either a Non-believer or an Atheist. This incorrect description may be caused by the pressure of the religious majority in mankind. Some Non-believers and Atheists indeed deny the existence of god/gods, but the majority of them does not.
The correct description of non-believer is "One who does not believe in god/gods".
That excludes all people who believe in one or more god/gods.
The correct description of an Atheist is "One who has no belief in god/gods or is without belief in god/gods. (There is a slight difference between these two).
Conclusion : a Non-believer is an Atheist, and an Atheist is a non-believer.
All that Christians do is believe in one more God than Non-believers/Atheists do. (Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote?? )
:rolleyes:
ˇ
When you quote somebody and you do not know who said it you can either sayQuote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Someone once said
Or you can type
Quote [then the quote] in the search engine and see if it comes up
You can do the same with lyrics to songs
Lyric [then a few words of the song]
All that Christians do is believe in one more God than Non-believers/Atheists do. (Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote?? )
No Cred you did not have to because you put it in your own words.
Of course you can here and now make this your own quote and have others reference YOU :D
Or you state : "Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote ???"Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
:)
ˇ
Yeah something to show that you acknowledge it as a quote
:D
I figured you all were smart enough to realize when I put it in "quotes" to realize it was a quote since I put it in "quotes". I guess I need to dumb it down and make sure I have time to put bibliography next time.
English Works! Writing: Punctuation & Grammar Review
Updated June 1, 2001
CopyrightŠ 1997-present by English Works! At Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.
It is not about dumbing it down. It is about not looking like plagiarism, using quotations alone does not prove it was said by somebody else.
Fine, you got me I was trying to pass it off as my own work and I always put my own words in quotes. If you like you can go back over all my posts and look for other grammar mistakes as well, I'm sure there are plenty. Knock yourself out.
Back on topic I can't disprove a all powerful god but this guy does a good job disproving Christianity.
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 1 of 3
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 2 of 3
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 3 of 3
For those that can't tell these videos are not my work and I'm not sure they are the work of the guy that posted them either.
The fact that he used quotations told me it wasn't his words. It's common usage on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The topic question is "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?"
But I ask myself why that is asked, as the question "objective/subjective how does it prove God?" has not been answered yet??
:rolleyes:
ˇ
I believe it HAS been answered
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The topic question is "objective/subjective how does it DISprove God?"
But I ask myself why that is asked, as the real question "objective/subjective how does it PROVE God?" has never been answered yet !
Seems more that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."
So where is that O.S.E. than??
:rolleyes:
ˇ
And where do you get the idea that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."??
You're asking how we can prove that god is *not* the power/force behind everything which makes the assumption that he is by default. Is this not correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
This is the whole crutch of russel's teapot - there's no point in trying to disprove anything that has no evidence for believe it exists in the first place - otherwise we'd be spending all our time trying to disprove celestial teapots etc.
So yes, your question does suggest you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God.
Last post page 19
I agreed that the replies of it not being able to be answered answered the question and I believe I have stated that a couple times here myself as well as others.
I cannot disprove God.
I cannot disprove Allah.
I cannot disprove Odin.
I cannot disprove Krishna.
I cannot disprove Zeus.
I cannot disprove Baal.
I cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
They are all simply stories that I find to be incredibly unbelievable. And you feel the same way I do but with only the one exception. You have no logical justification for choosing God over Krishna. You've done so because of what the people you grew up around believed.
Nobody is asking you to disprove Krishna. It doesn't fall on you to do so. It is the responsibility of Hindus to prove he does exist. You are free to disbelieve in Krishna without proving he doesn't exist.
If you want to change those rules, feel free. But, you're going to have to disprove every deity besides the Christian God before you ask me for anything. Then you get to ask me to disprove that one.
So you don't disbelieve or deny the existence of Vishnu? What about Wotan and Thor? I didn't realize you were THAT much of a theist Sassy! -lolQuote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Actually, there is MUCH about the principles of gravity that are not yet understood. In fact, the properties of gravity are more perplexing to scientists than evolution is!Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
So is evolution.Quote:
No.. lol you are making an invalid comparison here.. Photosythesis is an observable scientific fact
Neither does evolution.Quote:
... and does not rely on any unverifiable assumptions.
I really don't mean to, and it's becoming obvious you understand more about science than your posts lead one to believe. Still... I don't know how you are comfortable being among the overwhelmingly small minority who question evolution and the age of the earth. At some point you have to ask yourself why all these other scientists are willing to treat them as fact. No?Quote:
I don't know why you are deliberately exaggerating my statement and taking it out of context.
[QUOTE]I just think if you are going to quotes someone word for word the least you can do is give them credit instead of trying to pass the statement off as your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I would think it is your education level that is questionable considering you don't know that quoting someone's work without giving them credit is called plagiarism and it is illegal. You should have learned that in college.Quote:
Showing again that you don't have a decent education. Which I guess it's not your fault, it's really the fault of our school systems and public policy. That's a topic for another time though.
Quote:
aˇtheˇist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Let me explain in a way that you might understand.
SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of Zeus. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping Zeus.
SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping FSM.
Do you understand the quote now?
NO.. Correction "Sassy disbelieves but does not deny the existence of Zeus. However Sassy is not an atheist because she believes in God.
The word atheist is actually from the greek word Atheos which means GODLESS. So to say just because I don't believe in some gods, make me "godless" is a missrepresentation of reality.
Also I don't deny the existence of Zeus (or whoever), all I can say about Zeus is I don't know whether he exists or not, so if anything I am agnostic in that respect. ;)
True so why say they dont exist when you dont know and can't prove it?Quote:
Originally Posted by shw3nn
In your opinion yes, but there are atleast 5 billion people who would disagree with you.Quote:
They are all simply stories that I find to be incredibly unbelievable.
this again is your subjective opinion, there is nothing factual about this statement. I for one never grew up around Christians but i am one now. So this fact has already faulsified your empty unsupported claims.Quote:
And you feel the same way I do but with only the one exception. You have no logical justification for choosing God over Krishna. You've done so because of what the people you grew up around believed.
And you are free also to disbelieve in God without having to prove he does not exist. But dont come on a religious forum and CLAIM God does not exists unless you are willing and able to prove it.Quote:
Nobody is asking you to disprove Krishna. It doesn't fall on you to do so. It is the responsibility of Hindus to prove he does exist. You are free to disbelieve in Krishna without proving he doesn't exist.
No need to do that.Quote:
If you want to change those rules, feel free. But, you're going to have to disprove every deity besides the Christian God before you ask me for anything. Then you get to ask me to disprove that one.
You dont believe in God ... Good for you
we believe in God ... good for us
lets just leave at that.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 AM. |