toba:

^^ claremont wants us to discuss based on facts and logic. I want him to tell us the logic behind atheism. many of them werent born into atheism so the simple question what are/were facts that convinced him to abandon his old belief into becoming an atheist.

he's got none. He's waiting for you to provide him with God's twitter address.

toba:

^^ claremont wants us to discuss based on facts and logic. [size=20pt]I want him to tell us the logic behind atheism. many of them werent born into atheism so the simple question what are/were [b]facts that convinced him to abandon his old belief into becoming an atheist. [/b][/size]

For CLEARER EMPHASIS!

davidylan:

he's got none. He's waiting for you to provide him with [size=19pt]God's twitter address.[/size]

@GOD

davidylan:

no it doesnt. I cant count the number of times i've heard this same nonsense. You're not forced to believe in God so why does the onus lie on me to prove His existence to you? You claim He doesnt exist, you sau i am deluded for believing in myths and fairytales YET have no proof of your claims but ask ME to go show you proof?

Believing in the idea of God as an entity who created the universe and believing in a specific God with specific attributes are two different things. What gets atheists worked up is the fact that the theists already seem to know evrything about God, if he is male or female, if she is black or white, if  he has a son or not (they also know the mother), if he likes to be worshiped or not and his preferred mode of worshiped, and so on. Yet the theists don't all agree with each other, but ask each theist of his certainty of his idea of God and they'll tell you 100% certain and anyone who believes differently is wrong. So back up your claims, convince the atheists and other theists who believe differently and they send you to a book. Ask another theist and they send you to a different book entirely. Little wonder the atheists make fun of the theists and the theists make fun of themselves, and then they gang up against the atheists.

phxc:

Believing in the idea of God as an entity who created the universe and believing in a specific God with specific attributes are two different things. What gets atheists worked up is the fact that the theists already seem to know evrything about God, if he is male or female, if she is black or white, if  he has a son or not (they also know the mother), if he likes to be worshiped or not and his preferred mode of worshiped, and so on. Yet the theists don't all agree with each other, but ask each theist of his certainty of his idea of God and they'll tell you 100% certain and anyone who believes differently is wrong. So back up your claims, convince the atheists and other theists who believe differently and they send you to a book. Ask another theist and they send you to a different book entirely. Little wonder the atheists make fun of the theists and the theists make fun of themselves, and then they gang up against the atheists.

sir. this is ur response

1cor3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have--Jesus Christ.

@phxc

heres another point that can be used to silence critics who have the kind of thinking u expressed in your post which is inline with what i posted above

Ph'p:1:15: Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
Ph'p:1:16: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Ph'p:1:17: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
Ph'p:1:18: What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

---

Sir our message is very clear. its based on Christ. So let there be anything cos this is not a matter of evolution or revolution. Its a matter of Christ which is exactly what Christianity is centered upon

phxc:

Believing in the idea of God as an entity who created the universe and believing in a specific God with specific attributes are two different things. What gets atheists worked up is the fact that the theists already seem to know evrything about God, if he is male or female, if she is black or white, if  he has a son or not (they also know the mother), if he likes to be worshiped or not and his preferred mode of worshiped, and so on. Yet the theists don't all agree with each other, but ask each theist of his certainty of his idea of God and they'll tell you 100% certain and anyone who believes differently is wrong. So back up your claims, convince the atheists and other theists who believe differently and they send you to a book. Ask another theist and they send you to a different book entirely. Little wonder the atheists make fun of the theists and the theists make fun of themselves, and then they gang up against the atheists.

and exactly why is the atheist worked up by a personal belief?

davidylan:

and exactly why is the atheist worked [b]up by a personal belief[/b]?

The answer ih here already on page 1 of this thread

'Our projections for the future show a sustained decline of the nonreligious. This is due primarily to the resurgence of Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions in China. If this trend continues, agnostics and atheists will be a smaller portion of the world’s population in 2025 than they are today.'


Its obvious theres no logic behind atheism and they are already loosing popularity. too bad

sexkillz:

Majority of ATHEISTS were BORN INTO CHRISTIANITY! They were taught from Infancy, THE BIBLE, GOD & RELIGION! Now they are ATHEISTS! Instead of them to SHOW US the FACTS that CONVINCED THEM to become ATHEISTS, they still INSIST that Christians should PROVE to them the origin of GOD!

Is that DUMB, IGNORANCE or just PLAIN STUPIDITY?

How about the fact that many of what the bible asserts is false?. . .Some of the major stories and events in the bible have been shown to be false. . .If the bible has been shown to be false on what is verifiable why accept its assertions on what is not, like an after life for example which it self has no evidence at all. . .

davidylan:

and exactly why is the atheist worked up by a personal belief?

Personal beliefs?. .  .They are aren't personal since people use them or wear them on their faces and shove them or try to rub it on other people's faces. . . .I have many experiences and who ever says religious beliefs are personal isn't sincere with him/her self. . .

mazaje:

Personal beliefs?. .  .They are aren't personal since people use them or wear them on their faces and shove them or try to rub it on other people's faces. . . .I have many experiences and who ever says religious beliefs are personal isn't sincere with him/her self. . .

well maybe you should check your circle. My faith is private to me, i can certainly share it with you should you express an interest in it.

Funny thread,even theist don't believe each other,so many factions even within a religion,not suprising wen they all believe in a fable.

vicenzo:

Funny thread,even theist don't believe each other,so many factions even within a religion,not suprising wen they all believe in a fable.

you would then think atheists also believe the same thing? On this thread we have atheists who think evolution is nonsense too.

what were you saying again?

Funny thread,even theist don't believe each other,so many factions even within a religion,not suprising wen they all believe in a fable.Funny thread,even theist don't believe each other,so many factions even within a religion,not suprising wen they all believe in a fable.

sexkillz:

Majority of ATHEISTS were BORN INTO CHRISTIANITY! They were taught from Infancy, THE BIBLE, GOD & RELIGION! Now they are ATHEISTS! Instead of them to SHOW US the FACTS that CONVINCED THEM to become ATHEISTS, they still INSIST that Christians should PROVE to them the origin of GOD!

Is that DUMB, IGNORANCE or just PLAIN STUPIDITY?

Yeah,this is the point,most religion thrives like this,it is never an option for most people,they were brainwashed when they were younger,and then kept within the religion by a subtle threat.The chief priest told our grandfathers that if they disobey the gods,the gods will strike them,the white priest told us that if we disobey the white man's god,we will go to hell.

Hahaha! Different religions,same threat trick.Funny thread,even theist don't believe each other,so many factions even within a religion,not suprising wen they all believe in a fable.Funny thread,even theist don't believe each other,so many factions even within a religion,not suprising wen they all believe in a fable.

sexkillz:

Majority of ATHEISTS were BORN INTO CHRISTIANITY! They were taught from Infancy, THE BIBLE, GOD & RELIGION! Now they are ATHEISTS! Instead of them to SHOW US the FACTS that CONVINCED THEM to become ATHEISTS, they still INSIST that Christians should PROVE to them the origin of GOD!

Is that DUMB, IGNORANCE or just PLAIN STUPIDITY?

Yeah,this is the point,most religion thrives like this,it is never an option for most people,they were brainwashed when they were younger,and then kept within the religion by a subtle threat.The chief priest told our grandfathers that if they disobey the gods,the gods will strike them,the white priest told us that if we disobey the white man's god,we will go to hell.

Hahaha! Different religions,same threat trick.

toba:

sir. this is your response

1cor3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have--Jesus Christ.

toba:

@phxc

heres another point that can be used to silence critics who have the kind of thinking u expressed in your post which is inline with what i posted above

Ph'p:1:15: Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
Ph'p:1:16: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Ph'p:1:17: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
Ph'p:1:18: What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

---

Sir our message is very clear. its based on Christ. So let there be anything cos this is not a matter of evolution or revolution. Its a matter of Christ which is exactly what Christianity is centered upon

toba, quite a surprise, you actually responded to a post. I thought you were only content with cheering your teammates on, but anyhow. Your response just confirmed what I just wrote in the previous post. A muslim responding would have thrown verses of the quran at me. A jew would have thrown verses of the torah. Goes to show how certain each person is when it comes to describing a God whom they haven't seen. Non christian theists would definitely disagree with all you've said above and you can't blame them, it's not in line with their own theology.

phxc:

toba, quite a surprise, you actually responded to a post. I thought you were only content with cheering your teammates on, but anyhow. Your response just confirmed what I just wrote in the previous post. A muslim responding would have thrown verses of the quran at me. A jew would have thrown verses of the torah. Goes to show how certain each person is when it comes to describing a God whom they haven't seen. Non christian theists would definitely disagree with all you've said above and you can't blame them, it's not in line with their own theology.

and an atheist would throw amazon books they havent read, poorly understood science articles and weblinks at us. What's the difference?

davidylan:

and an atheist would throw amazon books they havent read, poorly understood science articles and weblinks at us. What's the difference?

And how many Atheists that aren't scientifically inclined read books from amazon? Not every Atheist is a scientist you know and not everyone of them is an evolutionist. I believe that has been drummed into your head more than a few times but you apparently feel content to sit behind a desk and make mockery of Atheists all day (in conjunction with your pawns e.g sexkillz) and yet, you can't prove how you evolved from SAND and ribs! ! !

An atheist is an atheist by faith, in the same token that a theist is a theist by faith.

That's all folks,

davidylan:

you would then think atheists also believe the same thing? On this thread we have atheists who think evolution is nonsense too.

And could that be because evolution is NOT central to atheism?

InesQor:

An atheist is an atheist by faith, in the same token that a theist is a theist by faith.

That's all folks,   

Hi InesQor,

Your submission here largely depends on how one defines atheism, and perhaps, faith too.  For instance, a child born into an atheistic household, growing up with absolutely no idea of the God hypothesis would certainly not fall into this 'faith' category, I believe.

toba:

^^ claremont wants us to discuss based on facts and logic. I want him to tell us the logic behind atheism. many of them werent born into atheism so the simple question what are/were facts that convinced him to abandon his old belief into becoming an atheist.

***[s]I keep wondering why these theists keep repeating this same question that has been answered over a billion times[/s]***

The "facts" that turn a former believer into Atheism is his/her disbelief in religion. There are some that were born into Atheism and there are some that have been having doubts and at some point, it was clear to them that religion had NO FACTS or PROOF to clear those doubts. It's that simple (and a lot of theists already know this) but you still prefer asking meaningless questions just to have something to talk about.

Atheism is simply a DISBELIEF in religion! ! !

What on earth is so HARD AND COMPLEX about that to understand? Is it the English or does your brain choose to shut down when you hear that? Even after this, you'll still see some deluded individual that will still come and ask dumb questions like "what do Atheists believe in?" OR "what is the logic behind Atheism?". It makes me wonder how these people made it through school. So dull,dumb and irrevocably deluded!

Sickening! ! !

Purist:

Hi InesQor,

Your submission here largely depends on how one defines atheism, and perhaps, faith too.  For instance, a child born into an atheistic household, growing up with absolutely no idea of the God hypothesis would certainly not fall into this 'faith' category[b][size=13pt], I believe.[/size][/b]

Faith does not necessarily have to do with God or as you say, the God hypothesis.

Do you see that phrase of yours that I outlined in red?

That is faith. By you, Purist. When you have no tangible proof, so to say, but you make something the reality that you accept.

@InesQor,
I owe you loads, but I'll get round to emailing you. It's viaro.

InesQor:

That is faith. By you, Purist. When you have no tangible proof, so to say, but you make something the reality that you accept.

No. A thousand times no. What Purist said does not qualify as 'faith' in the sense of that word as used in discussions of this nature. There are uncountable things we all 'believe' that do not require tangible proof, whether theists or atheists.

Yet, there are two important things he said:

(a) defining atheism
(b) incognizance of God

On the one hand, atheism is variously defined - depending on who you're talking to, and who is self-identifying as an atheist. The traditional idea that 'God does not exist' is not a definition that cuts across board for all atheists. Some prefer to say that they do not find philosophically compelling arguments for the existence of God, and by extension the reality of the supernatural. This other premise does not require any 'faith' to substantiate it, in so far as it is not the atheist that makes the compelling argument for God's existence. 'Faith' perhaps comes into play at the point when the atheist crosses that premise and tries to argue for the non-existence of God.

Same thing with a child - here it is not a question of whether the child makes any cognitive assumptions as to the question of God's existence or non-existence. We may make these observations and arrive at the same conclusions irrespective of whether we are theists or atheists - and those conclusions do not require 'faith' even if we say that we believe our conclusions reflect our observations of children in their state of incognizance.

The point is that people can use such terms as 'I believe' as a remark without requiring 'faith' for holding those remarks. British athletes 'believe' the forth-coming Olympics would be glorious - they have no 'tangible proof' for believing so, and no: it is not a statement of faith.

Interesting.globexl an atheist told us that atheists have faith in science/computer to deliver when called upon.he further said its only a very compelling evidence that can take atheists out of their disbelief which they hold so strongly. can some pls define faith and doctrine for us? I'm asking the for the logic behind atheism, from what has been said so far, theres much to be desired. no wonder an aspect of atheism is described as a 'religion'

Hi viaro! And thanks for the clarification, wordtalk.

I think the point I was trying to make is with respect to faith as expressed in the second definition outlined in red below. Forgive me as I quote wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept or entity.
It can also refer to beliefs that are not based on proof (e.g. faith that a child will grow up to be a good person).
Religious faith is a belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being.

Atheists are atheists due to beliefs that are not based on proof (whether they believe they can find no empirical proof of God, or they believe he does not exist) and Theists are theists due to beliefs that are not based on proof. This is why I said

InesQor:

An atheist is an atheist by faith, in the same token that a theist is a theist by faith.

And as for Purist, who believes that a person born into an atheist home will have no evidence of God in his purview, this belief is likewise NOT based on proof. It's not like he knows for sure. In fact, the definition above uses a somewhat similar example in parentheses.

I refer to the dictionary meaning of faith, and not necessarily one which targets God by placing religion in its cross-hair, or intending to split hairs

Purist:

And could that be because evolution is NOT central to atheism?

But science is. and i can guarantee that where evolution to be an established fact-based truth, evolution would be CENTRAL to the atheist claim.

Fortunately though, there are enough smart atheists who realise how silly it is to substitute faith in sand-based creation (in the bible) with gas-based creation ("science" and still claim to be logical.

^^InesQor,

Thanks - I get your point, though.

Wow, wordtalk actually responded far better than I would have.  Thanks man!

@InesQor:

InesQor:

Faith does not necessarily have to do with God or as you say, the God hypothesis.

Since you stated boldly that "An atheist is an atheist by faith, in the same token that a theist is a theist by faith", it is only logical to assume that the faith you refer to here DOES indeed have everything to do with God.  But for the benefit of doubt, that was why I pointed out in my post that your submission above would perhaps depend on how 'faith' itself is defined.  It's always important to put things in their proper context, else, we'd end up being entangled in a "semantic web" (pun intended ).

InesQor:

Do you see that phrase of yours that I outlined in red?

Yes indeed, I see it.  But as wordtalk already explained above, which I'll summarise thus:  The mere element of 'belief' does not suffice to qualify something as 'faith'.  Else, my belief that FSM loves to eat pounded yam would also be a show of faith.  But again, it depends on how you define faith or in which context you apply it.

InesQor:

That is faith. By you, Purist. When you have no tangible proof, so to say, but you make something the reality that you accept.

No, it's not.  It's just a casual remark I use all the time when conversing with people, especially offline.  Could have as well said, "right?" in place of "I believe".  Hope you get the gist.

InesQor:

Atheists are atheists due to beliefs that are not based on proof (whether they believe they can find no empirical proof of God, or they believe he does not exist) and Theists are theists due to beliefs that are not based on proof. This is why I said.

Yes, Yes, I understand this point.  However, my response to this was to show you that this is not always the case, as there are different 'types' of atheists.  See below.

InesQor:

And as for Purist, who believes that a person born into an atheist home will have no evidence of God in his purview, this belief is likewise NOT based on proof. It's not like he knows for sure. In fact, the definition above uses a somewhat similar example in parentheses.

I think you misunderstood me. I was illustrating a hypothetical situation (which is not so hypothetical if we look around) which invalidates your claim that I quoted above.  What I meant was this:  If a child who is born to atheist parents (and is therefore incognizant of the God hypothesis) attains adulthood with this incognizance, his lack of belief in a God would NOT be in the same token as the 'faith' expressed by the theists around him, but will instead be because he simply has no idea what "God" even means.  Surely, it is impossible to disbelieve what one has not even comprehended in the first place.  Hope you understand now.


P.S.  George Smith did quite well in explaining the various meanings and varieties of atheism in his book, "Atheism - The Case Against God".  You may want to have a look.

davidylan:

he's got none. He's waiting for you to provide him with God's twitter address.

;D God's gon send us some tweets soon @Thelandlordofheaven!!!! LWKMD!!!!!!!!!!!

davidylan:

But science is. and i can guarantee that where evolution to be an established fact-based truth, evolution would be CENTRAL to the atheist claim.

I agree.  But shouldn't it be so ideally?  Afterall, the average atheist out there is only in pursuit of established fact-based truths.  And so should every other rational, honest person.

@Purist:

I am inclined to pick further arguments in your responses but let's just agree to disagree.

Alright then, man.