olafunny:
Atheists are not too far from the truth. The only problem is their quest for knowledge has been overtime eroded by their lack of patience and most importantly, the baseless and pointless argument from the so called Christians.
The point the atheists are missing is the fact that there's a living God. The annoying thing is the ridiculous stories by this self-acclaimed righteous individuals to brainwash the gullible into believing in the existence of some supernatural individuals who can turn water to wine and walk on water. OP, try to learn more about Deism.

Where does this living god live? How do you know about this living god?

LordReed:


Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Lack of some particular thing is not equal to that particular thing, you are hungry cannot ever be the same as you have eaten.

To be polite your statement is unclear..Does Atheism include a belief or not seeing that it requires a huge leap of faith.

LordReed:


Where does this living god live? How do you know about this living god?

You actually think you just woke up being who you are?

olafunny:
You actually think you just woke up being who you are?

That does not answer the questions asked but yes I just woke up like humans have always woken up.

BreconHills:


To be polite your statement is unclear..Does Atheism include a belief or not seeing that it requires a huge leap of faith.

There is no leap of faith because faith is completely excluded. When a judge has to decide if an accused is innocent or guilty, he doesn't use faith nor does he have faith either way. The judge waits to hear the evidence, that is the position of atheists.

LordReed:


There is no leap of faith because faith is completely excluded. When a judge has to decide if an accused is innocent or guilty, he doesn't use faith nor does he have faith either way. The judge waits to hear the evidence, that is the position of atheists.

Atheists are not waiting to hear the evidence. They already hold a position that I have shown is not scientific or rational.

If there is no God then it must also be true that there is no creator and that the world just came to be. But the statistical probability of that is much lower than there being a God. The idea that everything; the tilt of the earn, its rotation speed and its gas mixture is random and that this randomness provides seasons, temperature and tidal waves implies a degree of randomness that can only be supported by faith not science.

If the earth, its seasons, laws and its interaction with living and non living things was created by chance then it should be possible to recreate this simply by exhausting all chances and seeing if living conditions and its pursuant laws could be replicated. This would be the approach of the logical and scientific mind. Today there are computers with the processing power to model such eventualities and for some reason no aethist has taken up this challenge which would end the discussion.

So both atheism stand on the same ground of belief. Both believe in an irrational impossibility - one calls it God and the other calls it randomness.

I am not trying to change your mind. It is night impossible to change anyones faith. But you cannot keep standing on the ground of cold rationality when you are in fact standing on the ground of faith.

BreconHills:


Atheists are not waiting to hear the evidence. They already hold a position that I have shown is not scientific or rational.

Even in this thread I have asked for evidence and neither you nor anyone else provided any so no you showed nothing.

If there is no God then it must also be true that there is no creator and that the world just came to be. But the statistical probability of that is much lower than there being a God. The idea that everything; the tilt of the earn, its rotation speed and its gas mixture is random and that this randomness provides seasons, temperature and tidal waves implies a degree of randomness that can only be supported by faith not science.

Statistical probability does not prove a god. The statistical probability that a person of your exact make up is astronomically low yet here you are.

If the earth, its seasons, laws and its interaction with living and non living things was created by chance then it should be possible to recreate this simply by exhausting all chances and seeing if living conditions and its pursuant laws could be replicated. This would be the approach of the logical and scientific mind. Today there are computers with the processing power to model such eventualities and for some reason no aethist has taken up this challenge which would end the discussion.

Because no atheist ever said that being able to replicate the conditions that made life arise would disprove the existence of a god. What it would indicate is that natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe and life. If you want to insert a god into the equation then the onus is on you to prove one exists. It's not my job to disprove your god, its your job to prove your god.

So both atheism stand on the same ground of belief. Both believe in an irrational impossibility - one calls it God and the other calls it randomness.

Your eagerness to jump to this conclusion betrays your motivation. You know your position is incredibly weak so you'd like to rope atheism into your untenable position. It doesn't work that way, atheism has no faith component since it doesn’t not require you to believe anything.

I am not trying to change your mind. It is night impossible to change anyones faith. But you cannot keep standing on the ground of cold rationality when you are in fact standing on the ground of faith.

I had faith at some point but I dumped it in the refuse bin where it belongs so you are wrong about it being nigh impossible. And you are wrong about me standing on faith because I stand on rationality and reason, which work far better than faith ever will.

LordReed:


Even in this thread I have asked for evidence and neither you nor anyone else provided any so no you showed nothing.

Bros nobody owes you proof. You are entitled to your opinion. I have laid out a set of facts that you are evading. You claim logic yet are not ready to examine it.



Statistical probability does not prove a god. The statistical probability that a person of your exact make up is astronomically low yet here you are.

Statistical probability is key because it is proven rational science, and the only basis on which we can have this discussion. If you cannot use probability then there is no basis for any enquiry. Even your view that there is no God is an estimation of probability because you have no empirical evidence for saying there is no God.



Because no atheist ever said that being able to replicate the conditions that made life arise would disprove the existence of a god. What it would indicate is that natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe and life. If you want to insert a god into the equation then the onus is on you to prove one exists. It's not my job to disprove your god, its your job to prove your god.

But you are the one saying there is no God. Why must your belief only be a reaction to what others say. Surely it can stand on it's own.and be proven. Two opposite facts cannot be equally true. So each fact must rest on it's own evidence. What's yours? You cannot have a belief system that is a reaction to someone else. Its atheists that seek to disprove the existence of God - even the word atheist shows that it is a single argument belief system.


Your eagerness to jump to this conclusion betrays your motivation. You know your position is incredibly weak so you'd like to rope atheism into your untenable position. It doesn't work that way, atheism has no faith component since it doesn’t not require you to believe anything.

Bros it requires you to believe a set of facts which itself is not scientifically or rationally proven. But let's leave that aside. To be honest with you, I feel no calling to disprove an atheist or to convert him or her. I will not deny being a Christian. But I was not born one. I actually came to faith through science - and this very late in life. So anyway again... so If someone claimed to be an atheist and claimed to believe in a small non interfering but higher power. You might instantly say - "oh he isnt a true atheist" You would say that because he does not believe exactly what you believe. This means you have a fairly cohesive set of beliefs that is you not disproved yet is not rationally proven either. It is a hypothesis. Such believe tests on a foundation or assumption strong enough to be relied on. This is faith. Dont let the word faith get in your way of understanding the synergy between belief, action and faith.


I had faith at some point but I dumped it in the refuse bin where it belongs so you are wrong about it being nigh impossible. And you are wrong about me standing on faith because I stand on rationality and reason, which work far better than faith ever will.

[i]I can understand that you may have experienced a disappointment in faith. You relied on it and it failed but the failure of faith does not mean that the faith is wrong, if I jump off a building with an open umbrella and fall to the ground - it does not disprove the science behind a parachute. It simply means my calculations were wrong. Were faith to produce replicable results it would no longer be a faith. Faith is not faith in the mechanics of faith or the system of faith. Rather faith is trust in a personality and the root of trust lies in the fact that the results may be variable[..without variables, trust cannot be proven/i]

If I might ask do you believe in evil - do you believe that some acts are so heinous as to be evil? The murder of a pregnant woman, the forcible extraction of her foetus and its raw consumption by an otherwise rational person. By what barometer though would this be evil? Since if I was born in such a community it might seem perfectly rational to me. If you shudder at the thought of sharing a home with such a person then it must mean that you do not consider this to be rational. You do not accept that for rationality to be pure it must be contextual. You do not accept that there can be no single standard by which one can describe anything as evil.

Do you honestly believe and select your friends on the basis of relative evil? Are you truly rational or are you contextually rational.

My friend, I wish you all the best in the next decade. It is my belief that if anyone does not shut out the possibility of contrariness and if he earnestly seeks for truth, he will find it whether that truth is theist or atheist. Fair winds, may they bring you to safe ports.