Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Your list in the modern period seem to lack alot of physcist, only doctors and rock pickers.
You missed the point still. Give up?
The point is that the founders of modern science were all in the 1400s-1600s. All your modern scientists and atheists are simply standing on the works of CHRISTIANS who paved the way for modern science.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You missed the point still. Give up?
The point is that the founders of modern science were all in the 1400s-1600s. All your modern scientists and atheists are simply standing on the works of CHRISTIANS who paved the way for modern science.
Me missed the point?
Look at imdestinyz's comments.
i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.
You are a hardcore religious fanatic.
Forefathers of modern science yes, but if you try explaining Einstein's theories to them, I doubt they would understand during that time.
Try telling Isaac Newton the existence of a box where you can see images, or even a palm sized box where you can store all the world's book in.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.
You are mistaken. I accept science. I like science. I love science. I enjoy the fruits of science. But the science that send men to the moon falls under operational science, or observational science. But the science that deals with what happened in the past is historical science. They operate rather differently. Besides, science is largely limited to examining natural causes, but that does not mean that supernatural causes are a priori excluded. It's just that supernatural causes cannot be studied or observed empirically.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Me missed the point?
Look at imdestinyz's comments.
i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.
You are a hardcore religious fanatic.
Name-calling now?
So what are you, a hardcore fanatical atheist?
How do you know they would have a hard time understanding Einstein? You are just speculating and talking condescending about them, just because you are embarassed by the fact that modern science stands on the shoulders of Bible believers. C'mon, don't be an anti-Christian bigot ya?
-
Einstein has refuted and proven that some of Newton's theories are wrong.
Newton had many interesting characteristics such as his study alchemy. Which is a blend of chemistry, magic and religion. Achlemists' goal was to find a way to produce gold out of different metals and also to find a magic potion which could cure ills and increase ones life. Isaac was modest, and generous to his family and those who helped him along the way. Some of Newton's discoveries were later refuted by Albert Einstein in reference to his theories of gravitational pull. However, Einstein and others still contend that Newton was indeed a very important force in man's quest for knowledge and is highly regarded for his contributions in many different areas of science.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Name-calling now?
So what are you, a hardcore fanatical atheist?
How do you know they would have a hard time understanding Einstein? You are just speculating and talking condescending about them, just because you are embarassed by the fact that modern science stands on the shoulders of Bible believers. C'mon, don't be an anti-Christian bigot ya?
I didn't know hardcore religious fanatic was name calling.But it's factual.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
I didn't know hardcore religious fanatic was name calling.But it's factual.
Just as factual as you are a hardcore fanatical atheist.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Einstein has refuted and proven that some of Newton's theories are wrong.
Newton had many interesting characteristics such as his study alchemy. Which is a blend of chemistry, magic and religion. Achlemists' goal was to find a way to produce gold out of different metals and also to find a magic potion which could cure ills and increase ones life. Isaac was modest, and generous to his family and those who helped him along the way. Some of Newton's discoveries were later refuted by Albert Einstein in reference to his theories of gravitational pull. However, Einstein and others still contend that Newton was indeed a very important force in man's quest for knowledge and is highly regarded for his contributions in many different areas of science.
And SO?
You are still missing the point! The point is that if you think that there is a conflict between the Bible and science, then you are dead wrong and ignorant about the history of science and its Judeo-Christian roots. But then again I suppose you would loathe to find that out. The truth hurts for the atheist.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
And SO?
You are still missing the point! The point is that if you think that there is a conflict between the Bible and science, then you are dead wrong and ignorant about the history of science and its Judeo-Christian roots. But then again I suppose you would loathe to find that out. The truth hurts for the atheist.
Hard for you to accept the non existence of Christian gods, other than in your heart. I understand, peace be with you.
God bless you.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Hard for you to accept the non existence of Christian gods, other than in your heart. I understand, peace be with you.
God bless you.
Well, you haven't given me good reasons to reject the existence of God. You may start by answering the Six Questions.
-
from the way this fellow twist facts and logic to bend his faith, is really despicable and contemptible, not to mention reprehensible. it just goes to show what warped logic and rationale to argue his case or rather a non existent case. I am utterly disgusted to say the least. to continue replying back just smacked of one's intelligence. he is just using words to twist and bend the facts to fit his belief system, which is his unique warped way of reasoning.
when I say he is extreme, he accuses me of being having an extrene atheist views, which is his way of deflecting the extremism from his faith. perhaps he does not know what is extremism and fundamentalism means?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Well, you haven't given me good reasons to reject the existence of God. You may start by answering the Six Questions.
I wonder if you are living in MARS all this while? perhaps you are blind or selective reading of what you want to read. doesnt it dawn on you that the reasons are already stated very clearly. perhaps you only want to reply to what you wish to say.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
from the way this fellow twist facts and logic to bend his faith, is really despicable and contemptible, not to mention reprehensible. it just goes to show what warped logic and rationale to argue his case or rather a non existent case. I am utterly disgusted to say the least. to continue replying back just smacked of one's intelligence. he is just using words to twist and bend the facts to fit his belief system, which is his unique warped way of reasoning.
when I say he is extreme, he accuses me of being having an extrene atheist views, which is his way of deflecting the extremism from his faith. perhaps he does not know what is extremism and fundamentalism means?
Like the typical village atheist, Jacky resorts to heaping scorn on my postings and spewing personal attacks instead of coming up with counter-arguments. One wonders if Jacky has the intellectual mettle to really deal with my arguments. Personally I am not optimistic about it.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I wonder if you are living in MARS all this while? perhaps you are blind or selective reading of what you want to read. doesnt it dawn on you that the reasons are already stated very clearly. perhaps you only want to reply to what you wish to say.
I am asking for GOOD reasons to reject God. Where are your GOOD reasons?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I am asking for GOOD reasons to reject God. Where are your GOOD reasons?
If there's no good reason to reject GOD, does it eventually proves GOD exists? If GOD's existance cannot be proven now but only can be recorded down in the historical books that we are reading now? Is that good enough proof of GOD's existance?If someone who is not of christian faith points out irregularities in the christian faith and instead that person talks more and believes more in science? does that make a person a troll? or in fact a atheist troll?
-
I agree no good reason to reject God doesnt prove God exist but the point is are the atheists' reasons for God's non-existence good enuff to prove God does not exist. U see, the reasons may be gd enuff for the atheists but they may not be gd enuff for the creationists. likewise, the reasons given by creationists may be gd enuff for the creationists but not gd enuff for the atheists so where does tat leave us? Neither side can prove their stand to the other side. we can only ''prove'' to those on the same side as us...
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
If there's no good reason to reject GOD, does it eventually proves GOD exists? If GOD's existance cannot be proven now but only can be recorded down in the historical books that we are reading now? Is that good enough proof of GOD's existance?If someone who is not of christian faith points out irregularities in the christian faith and instead that person talks more and believes more in science? does that make a person a troll? or in fact a atheist troll?
If there's no good reasons to reject God, then it means there is no good reason to be an atheist. While that does not prove God's existence, it definitely means there is good reasons to be a theist. Like it or not, this is an either/or thing.
The Bible is a book unlike no other. It makes claims that no other book dares to make. It talks about all sorts of things and touches many things, many of which can be tested. And it states many things that points to a supernatural source. Many have considered this and concluded that the Bible must have a divine source, just like what it claims for itself. It is really up to you to seriously consider the Bible and decide for yourself what your verdict is. I have already made mine. Many people reject the Bible because of hearsay and have never really checked it out for themselves.
Whether a person is a troll or not depends on his behaviour on the forum rather than his beliefs. I'm not saying all atheists are trolls, but I am convinced that many are on this forum based on my exchanges with them.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If there's no good reasons to reject God, then it means there is no good reason to be an atheist. While that does not prove God's existence, it definitely means there is good reasons to be a theist. Like it or not, this is an either/or thing.
The Bible is a book unlike no other. It makes claims that no other book dares to make. It talks about all sorts of things and touches many things, many of which can be tested. And it states many things that points to a supernatural source. Many have considered this and concluded that the Bible must have a divine source, just like what it claims for itself. It is really up to you to seriously consider the Bible and decide for yourself what your verdict is. I have already made mine. Many people reject the Bible because of hearsay and have never really checked it out for themselves.
Whether a person is a troll or not depends on his behaviour on the forum rather than his beliefs. I'm not saying all atheists are trolls, but I am convinced that many are on this forum based on my exchanges with them.
Wll, this either or issue/logic is stated by you and is what you believe that is has to be a either/or thing. No reason to reject god doesn't mean it is a good reason to be a theist aint it? No good reason to reject god could also mean no good reason to accept god. Essentially meaning no good reason to accept any belief. How is that a good reason to be a theist?
You guys still cant see why i said it seems to be going the same for both ways?
Oh ya, i do not think most atheist are trolls... in fact i think most of them do not. Alternatively i believe it is you(no offence intended) who are too highly defensive.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
I agree no good reason to reject God doesnt prove God exist but the point is are the atheists' reasons for God's non-existence good enuff to prove God does not exist. U see, the reasons may be gd enuff for the atheists but they may not be gd enuff for the creationists. likewise, the reasons given by creationists may be gd enuff for the creationists but not gd enuff for the atheists so where does tat leave us? Neither side can prove their stand to the other side. we can only ''prove'' to those on the same side as us...
Which is why, at the end of the day, it's not about proofs, but about worldviews. It is about which worldview is the best worldview by which to view the world we live in. Which worldview offers the most explanatory powers? Which worldview makes sense? Which worldview is livable? Which worldview is coherent and internally consistent? Which worldview answers the SIX questions satisfactory?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Which is why, at the end of the day, it's not about proofs, but about worldviews. It is about which worldview is the best worldview by which to view the world we live in. Which worldview offers the most explanatory powers? Which worldview makes sense? Which worldview is livable? Which worldview is coherent and internally consistent? Which worldview answers the SIX questions satisfactory?
according to what i understand worldview varies in different ppl. Is there really a best worldview? or what is best depends on individual rather and that theremight not possible to even find a best worldview? -
Originally posted by despondent:
I agree no good reason to reject God doesnt prove God exist but the point is are the atheists' reasons for God's non-existence good enuff to prove God does not exist. U see, the reasons may be gd enuff for the atheists but they may not be gd enuff for the creationists. likewise, the reasons given by creationists may be gd enuff for the creationists but not gd enuff for the atheists so where does tat leave us? Neither side can prove their stand to the other side. we can only ''prove'' to those on the same side as us...
ah huh... i quite agree with that.. which is why i do not quite agree with a either/or stated by BIC. Eventually it becomes a neutral/"center" feeling. Because it proves neither here nor there. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Wll, this either or issue/logic is stated by you and is what you believe that is has to be a either/or thing. No reason to reject god doesn't mean it is a good reason to be a theist aint it? No good reason to reject god could also mean no good reason to accept god. Essentially meaning no good reason to accept any belief. How is that a good reason to be a theist?
You guys still cant see why i said it seems to be going the same for both ways?
Oh ya, i do not think most atheist are trolls... in fact i think most of them do not. Alternatively i believe it is you(no offence intended) who are too highly defensive.
If you look at it objectively and reflect deeper you would soon realise that there can only be two answers, either God exists or He does not. So it is either atheism or theism. There is no third alternative. Logically it is an either/or position. Agnosticism does not count at all.
I can't see why it goes the same both ways because I have yet to see a good atheist response to my six questions. Have you? Who?
Who are the active atheists in this forum? So you don't think Susanteo is acting trollishly at all?
It's your opinion that I am highly defensive, though I beg to differ. Rather I think the atheists are highly offensive, but that I am offering a good defense which is why atheists like Jacky is so pissed off.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
according to what i understand worldview varies in different ppl. Is there really a best worldview? or what is best depends on individual rather and that theremight not possible to even find a best worldview?Of course there is a best worldview. It would be the worldview which offers the best clarity, answers the ultimate questions satisfactory, is livable ...wait it looks like I am repeating myself again. Anyway you get the point. We have to evaluate the competing worldviews out there. There are not many really.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you look at it objectively and reflect deeper you would soon realise that there can only be two answers, either God exists or He does not. So it is either atheism or theism. There is no third alternative. Logically it is an either/or position. Agnosticism does not count at all.
I can't see why it goes the same both ways because I have yet to see a good atheist response to my six questions. Have you? Who?
Who are the active atheists in this forum? So you don't think Susanteo is acting trollishly at all?
It's your opinion that I am highly defensive, though I beg to differ. Rather I think the atheists are highly offensive, but that I am offering a good defense which is why atheists like Jacky is so pissed off.
yes it is either he exist or that he does not exist... but with regards to having no good reason to prove that he does not exist = he exist, then its not a either or thng there already. I think i probably did not explain myself clearly... failed english :(
well i think most of them are not trolls... beta, pinknutri,tcmc,fugazzi i believe these names are familiar? But if i had not remembered wrongly, all have been labelled troll.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
yes it is either he exist or that he does not exist... but with regards to having no good reason to prove that he does not exist = he exist, then its not a either or thng there already. I think i probably did not explain myself clearly... failed english :(
well i think most of them are not trolls... beta, pinknutri,tcmc,fugazzi i believe these names are familiar? But if i had not remembered wrongly, all have been labelled troll.
I think you may have been confused. I'm not saying that if there are no good reasons for atheism, therefore God exists. That's not my argument at all. I think it logically follows that if there is no good reason to think that God does not exist, then it follows that there are good reasons to think He does. Because either a person believe that God exists, or he doesn't, and he must have reasons either way. Agnosticism does not count because ignorance doesn't count for anything.
It's not my style to call people trolls for no good reason. Based on my interaction with some of the personalities you named, there are good reasons for them to be labeled trolls. But I certainly do not wish to get into an argument on this thread as to who are trolls and why. If someone is truly serious in having a discussion then the label of troll does not stick.