...full immersion.....
There you are using that pharse again. I will never support the claim "there is no god" that would be stupid, i will however support the claim "there is probably no god"
I will happily provide the defense for what i have claimed (that there is probably no god) but i want to make that clear from the outset as you seem to have 'what i claim' a bit mixed up by suggesting i claim statements of fact rather that probibility. It is the theist not the atheist that make statements of fact about that that which they can not know.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
You know what I'm talking about. But to acknowledge that would completely destroy your belief system.
I say that is what you claimed because that is what you stated....I quote "atheism comes about by rational thought".....now, what YOU support is not relevant.....atheists claim there is no god, you have said that belief is brought about by rational thought.....either you ought to retract that statement or provide evidence of how that is brought about rationally.....is that not logical?.....
all you need to do is retract "atheism comes about by rational thought" and replace it with "I think it is rational to believe a god probably does not exist"....then I have nothing to argue about.....
[quote]
Originally Posted by Noir View Post
There you are using that pharse again. I will never support the claim "there is no god" that would be stupid, i will however support the claim "there is probably no god"
I will happily provide the defense for what i have claimed (that there is probably no god) but i want to make that clear from the outset as you seem to have 'what i claim' a bit mixed up by suggesting i claim statements of fact rather that probibility.
bullshit on wheels....It is the theist not the atheist that make statements of fact about that that which they can not know.
theists are honest and admit they are making statements of faith....it's the atheists who pretend it's "rational thought" instead of a statement of faith.....
Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 03-04-2010 at 11:46 AM.
...full immersion.....
that could prove interesting....have we had that argument before?....we've had so many I can't remember....I will happily provide the defense for what i have claimed (that there is probably no god)
...full immersion.....
No, the two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I know there's a God. I know I'll go to heaven.
However, I hope, as do all Christians, that as many people as possible be saved and go to heaven as well. I don't want anyone to go to hell, I don't wish for anyone to go to hell. We are told to share the good news with people, in order to increase their chance of attaining heaven. We certainly don't do that in the hopes that you'll say "no way" and head off to the pit.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Righto, am no back and so will be able to continue the discussion that there is probably no god.
I'll open with the most obvious point. Complexity. Everything that is complex in our universe was once simple, and over time, billions upon billions of years, has become more complex. Now i will be the first to say that we do not know the origins of the Universe, however, that does not mean that we should postulate the belief that an infinitely more complex deity was created before the universe.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Okay Noir, I'll bite. I can see your point of view, it is logical if you are drawing the conclusion that God is separate from the Universe. But what makes you come to that conclusion as the only possible description of God? Sure Genesis, if taken 100% literally, suggests that an all-powerful, all-knowing God decided that "He" was lonely one day and decided "He" needed some company and good cheer. But if we stick to the literal description, aren't we constricting God to fit our limited human understanding? God is indeed all-powerful, and all-knowing, but there is no reason that we humans for a second should pretend to understand God, or God's will. We simply cannot know the origin of God, because God will forever remain beyond our full grasp. That doesn't mean that God cannot comfort us, or that we shouldn't anthropomorphize God to help bring ourselves closer to God spiritually in any way that we can grasp and understand and come to know God on a personal level. I personally (as made clear above) do not take the teachings of ANY sacred text literally, as we humans cannot claim to speak for God directly, prophet or no; as humans we are by nature imperfect, so God's word can only be filtered through our (limited) human understanding. God is a paradox in that God will always be beyond our understanding (yes, forever and ever Amen) but also closer to us than our own heartbeat. I think that is why people have trouble coming to terms with God, religion and spirituality (besides the fact that all 3 are loaded terms, each with its own negative connotations): we are too close to see these things with our eyes. It's like trying to look at your own cheeks, or your lips, without a mirror; more closely, it's really like trying to look at your own eyes. The closest we can come to the mirror that we need to see God is to look at others, and to look at the world around us. It's really hard to put into words a feeling, or an understanding. Even logic has its limits when trying to express these things, as I'm sure you'll admit. As a believer, I have no fear of logic, or of debate; I don't need anyone to prove to me that the sun rises, or that the sun sets--I witness it myself every day. Not to be corny here, but I am a witness to God in everything that I do, see, & feel.
Sean