JMAN05:


1. Unicorn argument makes no sense, since there are no words attributed to that mythological beast. If there were, we will see how reality affects what the 'unicorn' said or did. That way, we can know how it is that it made everything in our universe. I can prove you wrong.

Just open up you thinking faculty. While it is true that aside from verifiable facts and empirical proves, speculation could even via funny routes. However, let's look at the words of a scientist on this issue:

Sir Barnard Lovell said "Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: “If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning."

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

My brother the precision in the universe, and how the earth is well situated, is miraculous. How can energy/matter make these happen? It is not just a tale of 'oh energy/matter has always been there', but does it makes any sense to you that unintelligent energy can coordinate an explosion that results to something as orderly as our universe? Do you reason these out at all? Because to me, that's not plausible.

I fail to see why we have to attribute fascinating things in our universe to a creator if we have no objective proof of it. If we assume that God had no creator and always existed, why can't we assume the same about the Universe itself?
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
"Infinite Regression" isn't any more of a problem than an "Infinite God". What was there before the Big Bang? There was another Universe that expanded and contracted into another Big Bang. Forever. Never ending. Never beginning.
The key here is that if we accept the assumption that God had no cause, needing no creator because there was never a time/space in which He did not exist, we may also accept the assumption that the Universe itself had no cause, that it was never created because it was always here. If one can be infinite, without beginning or end, then they may both be infinite. We may say that the Universe itself has always existed and has no more need of a creator than God.
Does this disprove the possibility of a God? Not necessarily. It leaves us with the only rational conclusion being firm agnosticism. We must accept that we do not know and can never know. Given the inescapable nature of this conclusion, we must not invest mere conjecture and wishful thinking with Belief, as if such speculative ideas as the existence of a God were actually true.
Even more important is that we do not allow fairytales, invented by humans, to stand as any form of authority about what characteristics this potential diety may embody or what such a being might want from us. Religious faith is the single greatest source of evil ever created by mankind as a weapon against itself. It takes a religion to make good men do great evil while believing they are rightious.
It all starts with accepting the unproven (and unprovable) assumption that there exists a known creator with known attributes and known expectations. We would all be far better off with a little more doubt.

JMAN05:

2. Suppose we were to take the position that there is no Creator. Then we would be obliged to say that the universe has always existed, that the matter in it is eternal. Yet clear evidence shows that matter has not always existed. For example, we know that some elements of the earth are unstable, that is, they are radioactive. Uranium, for example, keeps giving off radioactive particles until it eventually turns into lead. But if matter had always existed there would be no radioactive elements left today. The radioactivity would have all ‘run out’ long ago, even as water eventually runs completely out of a leaking barrel.

Another evidence is the different temperatures found in the universe, from the blazing heat of the sun to the frigid cold of outer space. The scientifically accepted laws as to the way heat operates (called the laws of thermodynamics) state that heat always flows from a hot body to a cooler one until both are at the same temperature. Now, if the universe and the matter in it had existed eternally, there would be (according to “thermodynamics”) the same temperature everywhere, and a very cold one at that! But, thankfully, that is not the case. Our sun keeps on pouring out heat and energy, as do myriads of other stars. This proves that the universe, and the matter composing it, had a beginning.

Okay
1. This Universe (which is way more vast than we could possibly imagine) is almost everywhere completely unsuitable for life, and even here on this planet Earth, we can exist only on in a thin crust of a planet that is two-thirds made of water (yet we have no gills).
2. It took nine billion years to make the Earth, and then another four billion before Humankind appeared. The timetable makes no sense: If the Universe was designed for life, it ought to have simply started with life.
3. When it comes to the sun, which religionists are sure was created to warm us, "of all the energy [it emits], only two photos in a billion are used to warm Earth, the rest radiating uselessly into space". The theory that God done it this way on purpose simply doesn't make sense.

Evolution is a much better explanation of how life evolved, and is a theory based on evidence, unlike the "God designed life" theory, which is based on pure speculation. Not only that, but it simply reeks of the usual human prideful wishful-thinking to imagine that the creator of a billion galaxies made all of it with our particular species in mind. If we did change the Universal constants, then, for all we know, even more intelligent life could have evolved in even more different ways. In other words we have no knowledge at all to indicate that the current set-up is optimal for life.

JMAN05:

3. What about entropy? The second law of thermodynamics also implies that things heads towards disorderliness. Yet, we see orderliness

From big bang to orderly universe, and from orderly universe. Yet unintelligent energy made them all. This energy that came from no where must be omniscience. And it keeps violating the second law of thermodynamics. Impeccable! So impeccable!

Okay, even if we grant that an intelligent designer exists, HOW did he do it? What's the actual process involved here? Give me the nitty gritty science of it. Of course, you can't, because the alleged designer is a supernatural being its literally magic. There is no content to this there is no explanation its just "Abracadabra!" and a sky wizard conjures fully developed adult specimens out of thin air by magic. Also, it leaves the origin of the designer unaddressed. You are explaining complexity, by postulating something more complex in its place and declaring it needs no explanation. The argument is self refuting.
Even if there is a designer he's an incompetent one. Women die in childbirth (which makes sense the act of perpetuating the species might literally kill you. Some design). Your jaw isn't big enough for all of your teeth. You're prone to bad backs because you're a biped. If you're male you can look forward to prostate problems in later life because the prostate surrounds the urethra. Again some design; wrapping an organ that expands through life around a collapsible drainage pipe. The vertebrate eye, what a horror story, especially considering molluscs have eyes and none of the problems ours have.

JMAN05:


1. Unicorn argument makes no sense, since there are no words attributed to that mythological beast. If there were, we will see how reality affects what the 'unicorn' said or did. That way, we can know how it is that it made everything in our universe. I can prove you wrong.

Just open up you thinking faculty. While it is true that aside from verifiable facts and empirical proves, speculation could even via funny routes. However, let's look at the words of a scientist on this issue:

Sir Barnard Lovell said "Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: “If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning."

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

My brother the precision in the universe, and how the earth is well situated, is miraculous. How can energy/matter make these happen? It is not just a tale of 'oh energy/matter has always been there', but does it makes any sense to you that unintelligent energy can coordinate an explosion that results to something as orderly as our universe? Do you reason these out at all? Because to me, that's not plausible.

2. Suppose we were to take the position that there is no Creator. Then we would be obliged to say that the universe has always existed, that the matter in it is eternal. Yet clear evidence shows that matter has not always existed. For example, we know that some elements of the earth are unstable, that is, they are radioactive. Uranium, for example, keeps giving off radioactive particles until it eventually turns into lead. But if matter had always existed there would be no radioactive elements left today. The radioactivity would have all ‘run out’ long ago, even as water eventually runs completely out of a leaking barrel.

Another evidence is the different temperatures found in the universe, from the blazing heat of the sun to the frigid cold of outer space. The scientifically accepted laws as to the way heat operates (called the laws of thermodynamics) state that heat always flows from a hot body to a cooler one until both are at the same temperature. Now, if the universe and the matter in it had existed eternally, there would be (according to “thermodynamics”) the same temperature everywhere, and a very cold one at that! But, thankfully, that is not the case. Our sun keeps on pouring out heat and energy, as do myriads of other stars. This proves that the universe, and the matter composing it, had a beginning.

3. What about entropy? The second law of thermodynamics also implies that things heads towards disorderliness. Yet, we see orderliness

From big bang to orderly universe, and from orderly universe. Yet unintelligent energy made them all. This energy that came from no where must be omniscience. And it keeps violating the second law of thermodynamics. Impeccable! So impeccable!

You had better don't waste your time arguing with atheists. They're as dogmatic as the religionists they criticize. They don't even believe the soul exists let alone God/First Cause/The Beginning! Quite risible.

gensteejay:

You had better don't waste your time arguing with atheists. They're as dogmatic as the religionists they criticize. They don't even believe the soul exists let alone God/First Cause/The Beginning! Quite risible.

Dogma - a principle or set of principles "laid down by an authority" as "incontrovertibly true."

Atheism is not dogmatic. It fails on both highlighted phrases.

Atheism was not laid down by an authority. People can come into atheism all on their own. Atheism has no rules, it only has a definition which is literal: an absence of a belief in the existence of any gods. No God, no Satan, no Thor, no Odin, no Vishnu, no Osiris, no Zeus, no Amaterasu, no Bathala, no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

A lot of theists keep forcing the notion that atheism in itself a religion, and that is certainly very illogical. But it’s like if you like football, you're a football fan. If you like Cricket, you’re a cricket fan. But atheism would be like someone who is not interested in any sports. That’s all. It’s not some movement, it’s just like an absence of interest. So you can call such a person a non-sports fan. That’s what an atheist is … just not a theist.

Also, in case you’ve forgotten, we are all born atheist. Theism is learned.

Atheism does not deal in incontrovertible truths.

An incontrovertible truth is a truth that is not allowed to change. It’s not allowed to be declared false. But atheists are largely evidence based and will accept as true something that goes against what they currently know as true if proper evidence is presented.

If you could present clear evidence of the existence of some divine super being then an atheist would believe in the existence of same and thus will no longer be atheist. But there is no evidence proving the existence of any deity.

Theism however is unquestionably dogmatic.

IAmSabrina:

Dogma - a principle or set of principles "laid down by an authority" as "incontrovertibly true."

"Dogmatism", as used in that context, means "expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted." (Merriam-Webster's)

We both know "dogmatism" has more than one meaning; you had to opt for the definition that would suit your narrative.

IAmSabrina:

Atheism is not dogmatic.

So says a dogmatist.

IAmSabrina:
No God, no Satan, no Thor, no Odin, no Vishnu, no Osiris, no Zeus, no Amaterasu, no Bathala, no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I might as well say no Newton, no Da Vinci, no Mozart. Can you see how ludicrous that sounds? The fact that those gods and goddesses like Yemoja, Osun, Istar, etc. are long gone, doesn't mean they never existed. Names like Ogunnaike, Ogunsola, Osungbe, even Ogun and Osun States were not coined for nothing. Those deities really existed long, long in the past, as shown in books on gods and goddesses in the academia.

It's one thing to recognize their existence in history and another thing to subscribe to exaggerated tales about their powers in fables and their worship.

In years to come, the existence of extremely talented players like Messi and Ronaldo, widely called gods of soccer, will most likely be doubted by future generations, who will regard tales about them as fables and myths, too good to be true.

Over time, historical facts become distorted or lost as wars are won and lost, empires/countries collapsed and risen. And then, virtually all histories about those gods have been syncretized. So ignorant religionists will be referring to "Olohun", a Yoruba god, as "Allah", another god from Arabia, or "Jehovah", a deity from Israel, since they don't know they are different beings, with different historical backgrounds.

Mischievous slave masters and colonialists have corrupted historical facts about these entities in their quest to conquer territories through religions and other covert means.

IAmSabrina:
A lot of theists keep forcing the notion that atheism in itself a religion, and that is certainly very illogical.

It's not a religion but atheists share a number of traits with religionists, one of which is dogmatism. I consider this quote of Einstein about God and atheism succinct in this regard:

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a child-like one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” — Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949.

And this:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” — Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921.

Why do you believe extremely tiny particles, like quarks, leptons, bosons exist even though you've never seen them? The same answer you would give here also applies to the issue of God's existence. Our world, universe, humans show order with remarkable, magical mathematical precision (that can't be attributed to chance or evolution) and are bound by laws, principles.

Would all these just come out nothing or from evolution? Who set or created the laws of evolution?

IAmSabrina:

Also, in case you’ve forgotten, we are all born atheist. Theism is learned.

Lols, you came into this world with the knowledge of atheism? Atheism is not learned? You can't really be serious about these assertions that are not backed by any scientific facts. This your position is dogmatic.

Religionists also make such claim, one of the reasons I feel both atheists and religionists have some traits in common.

Whether it's theism or atheism, no one can say with certainty the specific knowledge a baby comes into this world with. I don't subscribe to tabula rasa, a theory in epistemology (one of the branches of philosophy), developed/touted by Aristotle, John Locke, Avicenna, etc., which states the human mind is like an empty slate and one's personality is shaped by experience and perception, not nature.

I feel both this theory and innatism, its opposite, are right to an extent.

IAmSabrina:

If you could present clear evidence of the existence of some divine super being then an atheist would believe in the existence of same and thus will no longer be atheist.

All dieties referred to as gods and goddesses in religions really existed at some point in history. There are lots of books on their history in the academia online. Of course, their deification and/or worship is a contentious issue. But their existence is never in doubt.

God has nothing to do with religion. And you may never get to see the kind of evidence you seek about God. No one has ever seen gravitational field, magnetic field, electric field, but we can all feel their effects, and science-savvy people know they exist based on their effects.

In the same vein, God's existence is clear enough through the vastness, consciousness, and complexity of the universe; intelligent and wondrous design of animals (humans inclusive), and plants; just to mention a few.

IAmSabrina:

Theism however is unquestionably dogmatic.

Yea, just like atheism.

It's quite easy to be embroiled in arguments about God with atheists.

gensteejay:

"Dogmatism", as used in that context, means "expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted." (Merriam-Webster's)

We both know "dogmatism" has more than one meaning; you had to opt for the definition that would suit your narrative.

Then everyone who has posted on this thread is a dogmatist. You included. Besides what off those who make their arguments based on actual facts? Are they dogmatists too?

gensteejay:

So says a dogmatist.

Anyone who knows me knows that I value truth, fact and evidence. I wont argue in favor of a subject if im not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that its worth the argument. I'm also not going to change my view on a subject without good reason to do so. I have seen no reason to believe in the Christian god and i refuse to believe he exists until someone proves him to me.
So sue me.

gensteejay:

I might as well say no Newton, no Da Vinci, no Mozart. Can you see how ludicrous that sounds? The fact that those gods and goddesses like Yemoja, Osun, Istar, etc. are long gone, doesn't mean they never existed. Names like Ogunnaike, Ogunsola, Osungbe, even Ogun and Osun States were not coined for nothing. Those deities really existed long, long in the past, as shown in books on gods and goddesses in the academia.

From what I understand from Yoruba history(I'm not Yoruba so forgive me); Sango, Oshun and the likes really did exist but were mere mortals who were believed by their people to be gods. Or do you have any official unbiased documentation of their supernatural acts?

gensteejay:

It's one thing to recognize their existence in history and another thing to subscribe to exaggerated tales about their powers in fables and their worship.

Exactly. This is why I may seem harsh and dont let theists off easily when they begin their bullsh!t

gensteejay:

It's not a religion but atheists share a number of traits with religionists, one of which is dogmatism. I consider this quote of Einstein about God and atheism succinct in this regard:

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a child-like one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” — Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949.

And this:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” — Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921.

I will admit there are dogmatic atheists. But you really need to understand what "dogma" means. A portion of atheists I've met here are merely people who see no weight to claims that a god/many gods exist and reject the assumption that one does to avoid falling into a trap of self delusion in the hopes they will get into heaven.
That being said, i'd take a dogmatic atheist over religious fundamentalists who intentionally try to fight the progress of humanity for irrational reasons supported by very little other than their holy book, as they are also hurting the cause of reason by turning religious people who are not fundamentalists more fundamental with their divisive arrogance, which I think is just as hurtful to humanity’s progress.
So I guess in the end I do speak for myself, however I like to think that most rationalists think the same way I do, seeing varying shades of gray and different hues rather than strict black and white like some others do, since any form of dogma is a severe hindrance to mental growth.

gensteejay:

Why do you believe extremely tiny particles, like quarks, leptons, bosons exist even though you've never seen them? The same answer you would give here also applies to the issue of God's existence. Our world, universe, humans show order with remarkable, magical mathematical precision (that can't be attributed to chance or evolution) and are bound by laws, principles. Would all these just come out nothing or from evolution?

gensteejay:
Who set or created the laws of evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_way_(physics)
Nature behaves the way it does and man describes it. Nature is its own law and we acknowledge that is the case. That's we we call it a law. Not because we prescribe it, but because we observe the undeviating consistency of physics and form equations for our understanding.
So that's why it makes sense: physics behaves consistently. Your perception of "order" is only one general observation. You perceive daily sunrise and it looks like order. I get that. However, there are numerous observations that can be perceived as chaotic.
Take fluid dynamics: pour dissimilarly colored liquids together and it looks like absolute chaos.
Or radioactive emission: it appears entirely random whether a molecule will decay.
Or atomic fusion: atoms smashing together billions of times only rarely produces the fusion we later see as sunlight.
Or the shape of nebulae – why do the Horsehead or Cat's Eye or Pillars of Creation nebulae take the shape they do? It's only a matter of appearance.
Why shouldn't it behave inconsistently and disorderly? If physics were disorderly we would not exist, period. If the Planck length were different, if the energy of an electron were more or less than it is, if expansion were slower than it was, or if the gravitational constant were any less than it is then everything would be just different enough that no stars would form for just the right amount of time for planets to form, life to advance, and your brain to form. The reason physics is orderly is because there is no alternative.

gensteejay:

Lols, you came into this world with the knowledge of atheism? Atheism is not learned? You can't really be serious about these assertions that are not backed by any scientific facts. This your position is dogmatic.
Religionists also make such claim, one of the reasons I feel both atheists and religionists have some traits in common.

Whether it's theism or atheism, no one can say with certainty the specific knowledge a baby comes into this world with. I don't subscribe to tabula rasa, a theory in epistemology (one of the branches of philosophy), developed/touted by Aristotle, John Locke, Avicenna, etc., which states the human mind is like an empty slate and one's personality is shaped by experience and perception, not nature.

I feel both this theory and innatism, its opposite, are right to an extent.

Knowledge by definition is something (info,skills, awareness etc) acquired and gained through experience, either practical or theoretical. We do have innate instincts, possibly bequeathed through evolution, but that does not classify as knowledge (at least in my opinion). If you consider instincts as knowledge then yes, therefore the answer depends on your definition of knowledge.
And its not about "scientific facts". at least to me. Its all about about the null hypothesis. Yes babies are born atheists, all people are. it is the default position, it is where you START. If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. Babies don't believe in a god. They believe in eating and sleeping and pretty much nothing else. You have to (and most people do) move from there to something else. I agree that this whole situation is absurd, but not for the reasons you do. It's absurd that I have to label myself as a person who doesn't believe in credulous nonsense for no good reason (an atheist) when I shouldn't have to. Because people shouldn't be THIS ignorant to believe in something that there is NO evidence for, but say, "Eh . . . I'll believe in it anyways, despite it making no sense whatsoever"

gensteejay:

All dieties referred to as gods and goddesses in religions really existed at some point in history. There are lots of books on their history in the academia online. Of course, their deification and/or worship is a contentious issue. But their existence is never in doubt.

God has nothing to do with religion. And you may never get to see the kind of evidence you seek about God. No one has ever seen gravitational field, magnetic field, electric field, but we can all feel their effects, and science-savvy people know they exist based on their effects.

In the same vein, God's existence is clear enough through the vastness, consciousness, and complexity of the universe; intelligent and wondrous design of animals (humans inclusive), and plants; just to mention a few.

Gravity does not need to be proven because it’s a scientific observation. Gravity demonstrably exists.
There are potential experiments that are discussed to detect gravitons, gravitational waves have already be detected. It is reasonable to assume that gravitons will be proven some day.
What experiments would you propose to prove God’s existence in a scientific context?
Throw a ball into the air. It will fall down. That proves the existence of gravity.
Now, if I were to call upon God to smite all the unbelievers, I don’t think anything would happen.
Also, Intelligent Design is largely just a redressing of hard creationism, but trying to do their best to avoid being labelled a religious argument so they could insert it into classrooms. It is literally just a reskinning of creationism to make it sound more sciencey and like it's a legitimate, less religious, theory so that they can more easily push it into text books and the like. Talking about "Intelligent Design" is talking about basic creationism. And just like creationism, there is no legitimate source to back up anything it proposes about the universe. It's not even as good as string theory since that's at least based on some real-life observations and calculations. ID is just that, an Idea. It's barely even a hypothesis, since that would imply some actual critical thinking was put behind it. Without the bible or some other religious text to inspire it, there is no reason anyone would scientifically come to the conclusion that ID tries to promote.

Yea, just like atheism.

It's quite easy to be embroiled in arguments about God with atheists.

Many theist and theist organizations have been proven demonstratively, repeatedly, and dramatically incorrect on a broad range of topics. Furthermore, many have been more than willing to kill, or expend vast amounts of time and treasure to suppress clear and evident truths. If truth, or correctness, is considered an expression of logic they have not historically been inclined towards it.
Atheism on the other hand is generally affiliated with a lack of belief in insubstantial claims. Unless you believe they've ignored compelling evidence in regards to God's existence, they are fundamentally more inclined to shape their views based on logic. Some loud, rude, and generally ill-spoken people may have adopted atheism, but that does not change its essential character.
Now use your tongue to count your teeth.

Whenever i stumble on threads like this i can't just beat the feeling of the amusing parts so i laugh and laugh at those claiming Christians without the knowledge of TRUTH!
Jesus ordered His followers "go in SEARCH for the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Matthew 10:6,15:24
While i was still practicing Islam,our clerics often quote these verses claiming that Jesus was ONLY sent to Israel so He can't possibly be the saviour of the world. But at John 3:16 the same Jesus said "God loved the world so much that HE gave HIS only begotten son......" So i became inquisitive about the contradictions until i met Jehovah's Witnesses{true Christians} who helped me to grasp what Jesus was saying back then!
A sheep is an obedient domestic animal and in most cases this harmless animal often get confused and lost, so Jesus was saying "go in search of OBEDIENT individuals,who were born,brought~up or chose a wrong religion due to the confusion caused by Satan".
Of course ATHEISTS have taken their stand against obedience to UNSEEN beings so a true Christian who is truly searching for Jesus' sheep won't waste precious times arguing with these individuals who feels NO NEED for spiritual things! Matthew 4:4 compared to Deuteronomy 8:3
According to Jesus,there is a clear difference if you carefully examine the characters of sheep and goats! Matthew 25:32
This is why the JWs are really making indisputable impact in our society as they keep searching for the OBEDIENT ones,though it's not that easy because some do shy away from admitting their ignorance but still Jesus' sheep are found and whenever such ones HEAR THE VOICE OF THEIR MASTER,LORD AND KING THEY'LL FOLLOW! John 10:27

IAmSabrina:

Then everyone who has posted on this thread is a dogmatist. You included. Besides what off those who make their arguments based on actual facts? Are they dogmatists too?


Anyone who knows me knows that I value truth, fact and evidence. I wont argue in favor of a subject if im not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that its worth the argument. I'm also not going to change my view on a subject without good reason to do so. I have seen no reason to believe in the Christian god and i refuse to believe he exists until someone proves him to me.
So sue me.

Lol. What's my business with what you choose to believe in? Atheists that are of Christian background tend to view God using the traits of Jesus and Yahweh, and those of Islamic background do the same for Allah. But God/The Beginning/First Cause has nothing to do with religion, and I am not saying this to convince you to acknowledge God's existence.

IAmSabrina:
Now use your tongue to count your teeth.

You need this piece of advice more than I do. I can't fathom how you, atheists, look at yourselves in the mirror and believe/say you've no soul. Shouldn't use your tongue to count your teeth here? Or use your inner wisdom to look at these things if atheists believe anything like that exists.

Calling yourself an atheist does not depict you as intelligent; your strength of facts offered in an argument and how they are presented do. While you've made a number of reasonable points in your submissions, you still make claims, not backed by scientific or philosophical facts.

It sounds a bit queer to hold the notion that we are all born atheists, like religionists ignorantly say in support of a particular religion. Can you now see why people call atheism a religion?

IAmSabrina:

That being said, i'd take a dogmatic atheist over religious fundamentalists who intentionally try to fight the progress of humanity for irrational reasons supported by very little other than their holy book, as they are also hurting the cause of reason by turning religious people who are not fundamentalists more fundamental with their divisive arrogance, which I think is just as hurtful to humanity’s progress.

While I don't subscribe to the atheistic philosophy as it lacks depth in certain areas of life, I share your sentiments here.

gensteejay:

You need this piece of advice more than I do. I can't fathom how you, atheists, look at yourselves in the mirror and believe/say you've no soul. Shouldn't use your tongue to count your teeth here? Or use your inner wisdom to look at these things if atheists believe anything like that exists.

We both see reality as it is only that i choose not to add anything to it that i'm not sure or convinced of. Why must i deceive myself? Also, define "soul".

gensteejay:

Calling yourself an atheist does not depict you as intelligent; your strength of facts offered in an argument and how they are presented do. While you've made a number of reasonable points in your submissions, you still make claims, not backed by scientific or philosophical facts.

It is you "god" believers who call us atheists. Whoever claimed that atheists are highly intelligent? I don't see myself as a genius. I just refuse to make aguments for something I have no evidence to back up with. Occam's razor comes to mind:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Everyone can observe that the universe exists. Any BELIEFS beyond this are ASSUMPTIONS. The simplest explanation is the best: The universe exists, that’s it.

gensteejay:

It sounds a bit queer to hold the notion that we are all born atheists, like religionists ignorantly say in support of a particular religion. Can you now see why people call atheism a religion?

Like I said in my last post, belief or unbelief in innatism is based solely on how you define knowledge(I gave my definition in the previous post). If you believe that babies are fully aware that there is a deity who created them, i'll need you to demonstrate this. I've already demonstrated my claim via the null hypothesis

IAmSabrina:

We both see reality as it is only that i choose not to add anything to it that i'm not sure or convinced of. Why must i deceive myself? Also, define "soul".


It is you "god" believers who call us atheists. Whoever claimed that atheists are highly intelligent? I don't see myself as a genius. I just refuse to make aguments for something I have no evidence to back up with. Occam's razor comes to mind:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Everyone can observe that the universe exists. Any BELIEFS beyond this are ASSUMPTIONS. The simplest explanation is the best: The universe exists, that’s it.



Like I said in my last post, belief or unbelief in innatism is based solely on how you define knowledge(I gave my definition in the previous post). If you believe that babies are fully aware that there is a deity who created them, i'll need you to demonstrate this. I've already demonstrated my claim via the null hypothesis

*Words* are *declarifications*.
*Genius/Intelligent/smart/knowledge,etc* are not always capable of conveying points.

JMAN05:



This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

My brother the precision in the universe, and how the earth is well situated, is miraculous. How can energy/matter make these happen? It is not just a tale of 'oh energy/matter has always been there', but does it makes any sense to you that unintelligent energy can coordinate an explosion that results to something as orderly as our universe? Do you reason these out at all? Because to me, that's not plausible.

If you mean it is finely tuned for death I will agree with you. Of the 8 planets in our solar system, only 1 has life observed on it. Of the millions of stars and presumably similar solar systems out there, there has been no trace of life not to talk of intelligent life. It is either staggering arrogance or ignorance to presume the entirety of the universe was fine tuned for you, you the result of the evolution of vertebral protohumans.

An extra question for Christians https://www.nairaland.com/5007574/argument-god-does-not-exist

LordReed:


If you mean it is finely tuned for death I will agree with you. Of the 8 planets in our solar system, only 1 has life observed on it. Of the millions of stars and presumably similar solar systems out there, there has been no trace of life not to talk of intelligent life. It is either staggering arrogance or ignorance to presume the entirety of the universe was fine tuned for you, you the result of the evolution of vertebral protohumans.

Death only makes sense where there is life.

gensteejay:

You had better don't waste your time arguing with atheists. They're as dogmatic as the religionists they criticize. They don't even believe the soul exists let alone God/First Cause/The Beginning! Quite risible.

I see, most behave just like blind religionist. They are not open to change.

i

UyiIredia:


Death only makes sense where there is life.

Please relate that with a vast majority of the universe being void of life.

IAmSabrina:

We both see reality as it is only that i choose not to add anything to it that i'm not sure or convinced of. Why must i deceive myself? Also, define "soul".

Like I said in my last post, belief or unbelief in innatism is based solely on how you define knowledge(I gave my definition in the previous post). If you believe that babies are fully aware that there is a deity who created them, i'll need you to demonstrate this. I've already demonstrated my claim via the null hypothesis

I will give a response when I am less busy.

LordReed:
i

Please relate that with a vast majority of the universe being void of life.

in the quote 'void of life"