Atheism on the rise in every single US state.

[LnGrrrR]

There is a shared belief that a higher power does not exist.

That's not a system, though. Atheists have a shared belief system as much as everyone who believes the sky will be blue tomorrow has a shared belief system.

Edit: Reworded post to make it more clear.

[Blake]

Capacity and will are two different things.

cmon now.... you are better than playing the semantics game.

[I Love Me Some Me]

That's not a system, and technically, I don't have a belief that a higher power does not exist. I don't know. There very well might be. However, I don't have belief in any specific being like that. (The English language is poor in this case, as there's two different kinds of 'belief'.)

Atheists have a shared belief system as much as everyone who believes the sky will be blue tomorrow has a shared belief system.

That's a bad analogy. Everyone has KNOWLEDGE that the sky will be blue. Atheist don't have knowledge that a god doesn't exist...they believe one doesn't.

If you say you don't know, that makes you agnostic.

Having beliefs isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend you don't when it's blatantly obvious that you do.

[Blake]

That's a bad analogy. Everyone has KNOWLEDGE that the sky will be blue. Atheist don't have knowledge that a god doesn't exist...they believe one doesn't.

If you say you don't know, that makes you agnostic.

Having beliefs isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend you don't when it's blatantly obvious that you do.

I hate that society as a whole feels the need to stick labels on everyone.

[IronMexican]

Tlong, that's the general usage. However, technically speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. (Look at the root words.)

In your case, you'd be an agnostic atheist most likely. You don't know if God exists or not, and you don't have a belief in him.

Does that make me Agnostic? I don't care if he exists or not and I don't believe in him.

[I Love Me Some Me]

cmon now.... you are better than playing the semantics game.

It's more than just a semantic difference. They are two different things.


As much as I WANT (free will) to dunk a basketball I am not able to do so (capacity).

[I Love Me Some Me]

I hate that society as a whole feels the need to stick labels on everyone.

Hater.

[Phenomanul]

go back and read the thread. I've done nothing of the sort.

You haven't?? Your cynical smugness speaks for itself... You may not realize it... but your presence here has not really enlightened the discourse... For one, your condescending tone against angel_luv is not really warranted. I mean, why bother asking questions only for the sake of scorning those who answer them???

you are lacking do entation that peewee made that claim......

Really??? You mean he didn't make that very assertion in this very thread? If that isn't 'do entation' I don't know what is....

but I guess according to you, that would not be sufficient proof that the claim never took place.

you fail. It's really that simple.

I'm amused by the boldness of your self-perceived wit... It's a shame it's grotesquely outdone by your lack of reading comprehension... or worse, your lack of logic... could it be that bias has clouded your ability to see the simplicity of this concept merely because you can't face the possibility that what I stated is logically true?
Now go along and find a way to mirror this quote too...
If no one is 'there' to see a tree fall in the forrest, it doesn't take away the fact that it did. The tree falls [an event takes place] regardless of whether or not someone is there to do ent it.

in other words, he also cannot prove that aliens have never visited Earth.

Can anyone prove that they haven't?

do you believe that aliens visited Earth?

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the question at hand. But just for the sake of argument, either answer: "yes" or "no" is equally acceptable. Besides, we don't need a rehash of Fermi's Paradox in this thread also....

[LnGrrrR]

That's a bad analogy. Everyone has KNOWLEDGE that the sky will be blue. Atheist don't have knowledge that a god doesn't exist...they believe one doesn't.

If you say you don't know, that makes you agnostic.

Having beliefs isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend you don't when it's blatantly obvious that you do.

For the 10th time... I am an AGNOSTIC... ATHEIST. I do not know (agnostic) and I do not believe (atheist).

Sheesh people.

Anyways, the English word for belief is somewhat poor. Technically, I could say you BELIEVE that the sky will be blue based off prior knowledge, and you are extrapolating that data to future events.

The point that atheists have a belief, but not a belief system, stands valid, I feel.

[LnGrrrR]

Does that make me Agnostic? I don't care if he exists or not and I don't believe in him.

Agnostic atheist.

Most people would call you an agnostic, but technically, that makes you an atheist.

Edit: I think not caring would fall under the agnostic, as not caring would lead you to not have knowledge of whether someone/thing is out there or not.

[Blake]

It's more than just a semantic difference. They are two different things.

As much as I WANT (free will) to dunk a basketball I am not able to do so (capacity).

in this context, I don't think so because the definition of sin is very general and is not purely a physical act.

either way, I'm sure you are well aware what I am getting at.

[Blake]

Hater.

zing

[clambake]

I cannot explain to you why some prayers get answered as the praying person and others do not.


However, I do believe the following:

Cancer and murder and all pain is a result of the fall.
The fall happened when Adam and Eve exercised their free will and rebelled against God's will.
So death, especially a painful one, was never God's will for man but rather is a consequence of sin.

All deaths are a result of sin in some way or another.
I don't mean that people who die have sinned and that is why they die, but rather that we are all victims of the world we live in- i.e. our bodies age and wear out, there are famines that cause death from starvation, etc.
There was no disease before the fall of man.

None of this was present in the Garden of Eden, the home God created for Adam and Eve- the home that they forfeited in their rebellion.

I don't believe it was God's will that I lose my father when I was only sixteen years old.
My dad's death was a result of stress, poor diet, and years of smoking- again all things that are a byproduct of Adam's disobedience.

that is absolutely the most cult like analogy i've heard from you.

[Blake]

You haven't?? Your cynical smugness speaks for itself... You may not realize it... but your presence here has not really enlightened the discourse... For one, your condescending tone against angel_luv is not really warranted. I mean, why bother asking questions only for the sake of scorning those who answer them???

you changing the subject to my posting here definitely does nothing.

please refrain from making false accusations about my posts.

Really??? You mean he didn't make that very assertion in this very thread? If that isn't 'do entation' I don't know what is....

then you don't know what 'do entation' is.

and you also haven't really read the posts in this thread.

I'm amused by the boldness of your self-perceived wit... It's a shame it's grotesquely outdone by your lack of reading comprehension... or worse, your lack of logic... could it be that bias has clouded your ability to see the simplicity of this concept merely because you can't face the possibility that what I stated is logically true?
Now go along and find a way to mirror this quote too...
If no one is 'there' to see a tree fall in the forrest, it doesn't take away the fact that it did. The tree falls [an event takes place] regardless of whether or not someone is there to do ent it.

I doubt anyone is amused by your lack of wit.

I'll go ahead and assume you meant "did the tree make a sound", but either way, it's a fail.

Can anyone prove that they haven't?

Asking the other person in a philosophical debate to prove a negative of any kind is an automatic fail.

see: invisible flying spaghetti monster

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the question at hand. But just for the sake of argument, either answer: "yes" or "no" is equally acceptable. Besides, we don't need a rehash of Fermi's Paradox in this thread also....

If someone starts out with "IMO" then yes, it's acceptable. If the sentence is finished with "because there is verifiable proof and we can't possibly be alone in the universe" then that would be unacceptable.

[IronMexican]

Agnostic atheist.

Most people would call you an agnostic, but technically, that makes you an atheist.

Edit: I think not caring would fall under the agnostic, as not caring would lead you to not have knowledge of whether someone/thing is out there or not.

Thanks I had to go change my religion on Myspace because of this.

[ALVAREZ6]

None of this was present in the Garden of Eden, the home God created for Adam and Eve- the home that they forfeited in their rebellion.


My dad's death was a result of stress, poor diet, and years of smoking- again all things that are a byproduct of Adam's disobedience.

It scares me that some people believe this...

angel, I'm assuming you believe our earth is only 5,000 years old?

[I Love Me Some Me]

in this context, I don't think so because the definition of sin is very general and is not purely a physical act.

either way, I'm sure you are well aware what I am getting at.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm stating you'll have free will in heaven...I think you disagree with that, but I'm not sure why.

[Phenomanul]

What's up with your constant use of the word fail? What are you? a teen?

Grow up. Like I said... smugness eeks out of every one of your posts...

you changing the subject to my posting here definitely does nothing.

please refrain from making false accusations about my posts.

I changed the subject? You're the one that entered the conversation that I was having with PeeWee... not the other way around.

As for 'false' accusations??? Of what? Calling you out for tolling? Let me see....

Did you or did you not quote somebody by asking a question... only to immediately quote something else and reference your silly question from the previous post... patting yourself on the back in the process... finally to end up writing down some other condescending blip... wondering why no one had answered your first question???

So yeah... I called you out for your trollish behavior... unless of course, you actually feel that is how constructive dialogue is attained...

then you don't know what 'do entation' is.

and you also haven't really read the posts in this thread.

I didn't specify the scientific standard behind the meaning of the word, nor did I attempt define it. PeeWee's initial comment simply said "there is no do entation that GOD ever...." a statement which I later challenged as untrue.

I doubt anyone is amused by your lack of wit.

Oooooh! Did I strike a nerve?

I'll go ahead and assume you meant "did the tree make a sound", but either way, it's a fail.

I wrote it down exactly how I meant it... Or are you implying I should always use clichéd analogies 'as written' without giving any thought as to how they relate to my argument?

I'm talking about the historicity of events... I'm challenging the notion that someone must witness something before it can go down in the annals of history as having occurred. Billions upon billions of events go undo ented each day... not reading about them, or not having all of the necessary 'scientific data' to prove that they transpired, does not in itself 'prove' that those events did not occur.

By that premise... talking about some random falling tree was more poignant to my argument than trying to question whether or not it produced sound as it fell... the latter effect can be repeated/reproduced... but the event itself?? well, it goes down in history the very moment it happens... and that occurs whether or not someone is there to do ent it.

But your reluctance to accept that simple concept goes beyond your ability to say, "OK, I can see your point"... Deep down your aversion to my logic is based solely on the fact that we answer the "GOD Question" differently... meaning any form of concession... is too much concession in your mind...

If GOD ever came to earth to present Himself to mankind... lack of do entation for said event would not by itself suggest that the event never took place. Perhaps said evidence (you like that word better ) is buried somewhere, perhaps it was destroyed, perhaps no one wrote about it, or perhaps someone did (only to have future generations doubt its varacity). Either way you look at it... there is no way to prove that the event never took place...

Asking the other person in a philosophical debate to prove a negative of any kind is an automatic fail.

see: invisible flying spaghetti monster

I didn't ask him to prove a negative. I'm saying lack of proof, isn't proof enough to claim something never occurred... Apparently though, your skull is too dense for you listen.

As a matter of fact, I never said that my belief in GOD was based on having physical proof of His existence. My belief in His existence occurs on terms of faith... particularly because no amount of personal experience would ever hold enough weight to validate my belief to others.

Believe what you will...

As for the flying spaghetti monster... purposely inventing a "mock" subs utionary GOD-figure pretty much negates any possibility that "it" exists.

If someone starts out with "IMO" then yes, it's acceptable. If the sentence is finished with "because there is verifiable proof and we can't possibly be alone in the universe" then that would be unacceptable.

Well then, since PeeWee didn't start his initial statement with an "IMO" we're back where we started...

[Blake]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm stating you'll have free will in heaven...I think you disagree with that, but I'm not sure why.

Then I guess I'm not sure what your definition of free will is.

Mine is that you have the choice to do whatever it is you want,*if you have the capacity to do so*.

I may have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that there will be no more sin in Heaven.

How exactly is the ability to sin removed from the people in Heaven? Why will Christians no longer have the *capacity* to sin?

Even though punching someone in the face in Heaven probably will not hurt and not be a sin, I can think of some sins that I should still have the *capacity* for.

[Blake]

What's up with your constant use of the word fail? What are you? a teen?

Grow up. Like I said... smugness eeks out of every one of your posts...

what's up with you calling out my posts instead of answering them?

Think of me as your adult teacher when I say you fail in your arguments.

I changed the subject? You're the one that entered the conversation that I was having with PeeWee... not the other way around.

this is a discussion board. I didn't intercept any PMs.

As for 'false' accusations??? Of what? Calling you out for tolling? Let me see....

Did you or did you not quote somebody by asking a question... only to immediately quote something else and reference your silly question from the previous post... patting yourself on the back in the process... finally to end up writing down some other condescending blip... wondering why no one had answered your first question???

So yeah... I called you out for your trollish behavior... unless of course, you actually feel that is how constructive dialogue is attained...

do you feel that this is constructive dialogue?

I don't think you know what "trolling" means.

I didn't specify the scientific standard behind the meaning of the word, nor did I attempt define it. PeeWee's initial comment simply said "there is no do entation that GOD ever...." a statement which I later challenged as untrue.

right, Peewee said "there is no do entation that God ever...."

that's not the same thing as you initially accused him of

Oooooh! Did I strike a nerve?

No, I don't take anyone's lack of wit personal.

I wrote it down exactly how I meant it... Or are you implying I should always use clichéd analogies 'as written' without giving any thought as to how they relate to my argument?

wow, then it was an even worse failed attempt at an analogy.

I'm talking about the historicity of events... I'm challenging the notion that someone must witness something before it can go down in the annals of history as having occurred. Billions upon billions of events go undo ented each day... not reading about them, or not having all of the necessary 'scientific data' to prove that they transpired, does not in itself 'prove' that those events did not occur.

By that premise... talking about some random falling tree was more poignant to my argument than trying to question whether or not it produced sound as it fell... the latter effect can be repeated/reproduced... but the event itself?? well, it goes down in history the very moment it happens... and that occurs whether or not someone is there to do ent it.

But your reluctance to accept that simple concept goes beyond your ability to say, "OK, I can see your point"... Deep down your aversion to my logic is based solely on the fact that we answer the "GOD Question" differently... meaning any form of concession... is too much concession in your mind...

If GOD ever came to earth to present Himself to mankind... lack of do entation for said event would not by itself suggest that the event never took place. Perhaps said evidence (you like that word better ) is buried somewhere, perhaps it was destroyed, perhaps no one wrote about it, or perhaps someone did (only to have future generations doubt its varacity). Either way you look at it... there is no way to prove that the event never took place...

all to say "oh yeah? prove that God doesn't exist"

which is always a fail. Ask just about anyone.

I didn't ask him to prove a negative. I'm saying lack of proof, isn't proof enough to claim something never occurred... Apparently though, your skull is too dense for you listen.

apparently you are too dense to understand what proving a negative means.

As for the flying spaghetti monster... purposely inventing a "mock" subs utionary GOD-figure pretty much negates any possibility that "it" exists.

no it doesn't. I could say the same thing about Zeus or Bigfoot. Pick one......either way, you cannot disprove their existence.

Well then, since PeeWee didn't start his initial statement with an "IMO" we're back where we started...

No we aren't. Peewee doesn't have to say "IMO, there is no do ented proof of God's existence."

[I Love Me Some Me]

Then I guess I'm not sure what your definition of free will is.

Mine is that you have the choice to do whatever it is you want,*if you have the capacity to do so*.

I may have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that there will be no more sin in Heaven.

How exactly is the ability to sin removed from the people in Heaven? Why will Christians no longer have the *capacity* to sin?

Even though punching someone in the face in Heaven probably will not hurt and not be a sin, I can think of some sins that I should still have the *capacity* for.

Perhaps my dunking a basketball example was as good as it should be. More accurately, evil will be defeated and no longer exist. Your volition will exist exactly as it does now. And, I'll use your definition of free will...you currently have ti free will to do whatever it is you want, if you have the capacity to do so.

So, I want to build a house, and I want my living room to be in the shape of a square-circle. Now, obviously there is no such thing as a square-circle, so I can't do that.

Since the problem of evil will not exist...since there is no such thing as sin...your capacity to commit sin no longer exists. Your will is still free, but as it exists now, you will be limited to exercise that will according to choices that actually exist.

The trouble you and others have with this is that you're all for God dealing with the problem of evil when it comes to murder, and genocide, and torture, and all the REALLY evil stuff. But when it comes to the FUN evil stuff, you'd prefer that He just leave you alone.

[Phenomanul]

what's up with you calling out my posts instead of answering them?

Think of me as your adult teacher when I say you fail in your arguments.

Ummm no... how about I think of you as a jerk instead...

this is a discussion board. I didn't intercept any PMs.

So then your accusation that I changed the subject was thrown out in jest???...

do you feel that this is constructive dialogue?

I don't think you know what "trolling" means.

I respond in kind... I never implied otherwise. angel_luv, however, didn't do anything but express her opinion... and you somehow felt compeled to scorn, mock and ridicule her statements... What's worse is that you tried to pass your own opinions off as fact. In the process you demonstrated your propensity for being a classless jerk. But hey... with a few exceptions here and there, that at ude seems to go hand in hand with your belief set. Way to go!

right, Peewee said "there is no do entation that God ever...."

that's not the same thing as you initially accused him of

I didn't accuse him of anything....

The Christian god hasn't made its presence known to anyone.

You know very well that this statement can't be proven either way.

Yes it can.

There has never been a do ented case of the christian god making himself known to earthlings.

And, don't give me that trinity crap about Jesus being god because that's the biggest cop out in the history of cop outs.

I challenged the footing of his statement. There is a difference. You however, have gone out of your way to wage a meaningless war of attrition because of it...

I never said I had the proof... GOD isn't some scientific subject that needs to be studied and 'measured'... HE is above it all.

No, I don't take anyone's lack of wit personal.

Nor would I expect you to understand the severity of your problem... Jerks seldom do.

wow, then it was an even worse failed attempt at an analogy.

I'm sorry if the concept is beyond your grasp... Don't worry maybe one day you'll understand the subtle differences of why I had to change the point of emphasis on that old tired cliché... that day may come when you actually invest the time to actually read people's responses, instead of just sneering at them... but since we've established that you are a jerk, that day may not come soon enough...

all to say "oh yeah? prove that God doesn't exist"

which is always a fail. Ask just about anyone.

Beliefs of the masses aren't always the correct ones.

apparently you are too dense to understand what proving a negative means.

Simply post when I requested that of PeeWee...

no it doesn't. I could say the same thing about Zeus or Bigfoot. Pick one......either way, you cannot disprove their existence.

I don't care if people believe in them or not... nor do I care to disprove their existence... Frankly, it is irrelevant to my belief set.

No we aren't. Peewee doesn't have to say "IMO, there is no do ented proof of God's existence."

So you subject my stance to random standards but don't apply them across the board... I see....

sigh....

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks I had to go change my religion on Myspace because of this.

Kudos!

[LnGrrrR]

Perhaps my dunking a basketball example was as good as it should be. More accurately, evil will be defeated and no longer exist. Your volition will exist exactly as it does now. And, I'll use your definition of free will...you currently have ti free will to do whatever it is you want, if you have the capacity to do so.

So, I want to build a house, and I want my living room to be in the shape of a square-circle. Now, obviously there is no such thing as a square-circle, so I can't do that.

Since the problem of evil will not exist...since there is no such thing as sin...your capacity to commit sin no longer exists. Your will is still free, but as it exists now, you will be limited to exercise that will according to choices that actually exist.

The trouble you and others have with this is that you're all for God dealing with the problem of evil when it comes to murder, and genocide, and torture, and all the REALLY evil stuff. But when it comes to the FUN evil stuff, you'd prefer that He just leave you alone.

Wait a second. If I was able to brainwash someone into not performing any sort of evil acts, as if he could not think of them, would you consider him to have free will?

[MiamiHeat]

I seriously cannot believe adults still believe in fairy tales.

I was smart enough to figure all of this out, by myself, when I was 14.

Respectable study after study, always shows that over 95%-98% of all leading scientists and those elected to the National Academy of Sciences in the USA DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD.


You know who makes up the largest percentage of believers on planet earth?

Everyday citizens

However, the everyday citizen is normally a good person. loves almost everyone, or everyone, on this earth and would help you in any way they can. If you ever needed help, they would probably be there for you.

It's just people like them are....simpletons, sheeple who are led by others smarter than them.