Thread: My new, atheist BLOGGG!

Nice blog. It goes well with a sense of humour too.

I dont have an account there, so I'll ask you here:

a) How do you know God doesn't exist?
b) Did you not say that morals are changing as time goes on? If so, then why do you say it is natural?
c) Do you deffine a Christian as someone who says they are a Christian or as someone who acts like one?
d) Why are you being so "angry" there
e) Why do you hate Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc./God?
f) You say morals are ideas, ideas that change. So why do you say that someoen who says it is bad to touch boys is stating the obvious, or something is wrong with them? (tide to b but actually a different question)

Originally Posted by Keeper

I dont have an account there, so I'll ask you here:

a) How do you know God doesn't exist?
b) Did you not say that morals are changing as time goes on? If so, then why do you say it is natural?
c) Do you deffine a Christian as someone who says they are a Christian or as someone who acts like one?
d) Why are you being so "angry" there
e) Why do you hate Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc./God?
f) You say morals are ideas, ideas that change. So why do you say that someoen who says it is bad to touch boys is stating the obvious, or something is wrong with them? (tide to b but actually a different question)

A- Because there is no proof of him. He cannot be proved thru the scientific method. All there is is faith.

B- What? It's natural to know not to murder, but you can chose not to follow your natural sense.

C-*shrug* An Xian is an Xian to me. Whether they act or are one, they still represent the religion.

D(o???)- Because I can be and it attracts readers.

E- I don't hate them in general, some, in fact most, are good people. It's one thing to hate a beleif and another to hate a person. Some Xians I do hate, though.

F- Saying it's bad to touch boys in a society without laws is an opinion. It is neither fact nor false.

Originally Posted by BeautifulDreamer

A- Because there is no proof of him. He cannot be proved thru the scientific method. All there is is faith.

B- What? It's natural to know not to murder, but you can chose not to follow your natural sense.

C-*shrug* An Xian is an Xian to me. Whether they act or are one, they still represent the religion.

D(o???)- Because I can be and it attracts readers.

E- I don't hate them in general, some, in fact most, are good people. It's one thing to hate a beleif and another to hate a person. Some Xians I do hate, though.

F- Saying it's bad to touch boys in a society without laws is an opinion. It is neither fact nor false.

I'll read your blog more often Good points made.

Sweet. Do you have a myspace account? If so, please post a comment, and give me the link so I can add you.

Originally Posted by BeautifulDreamer

A- Because there is no proof of him. He cannot be proved thru the scientific method. All there is is faith.

But that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist, though, does it?

B- What? It's natural to know not to murder, but you can chose not to follow your natural sense.

Essentially what I meant was 'are there some morals that dont change, and morals that need to be taught?'

C-*shrug* An Xian is an Xian to me. Whether they act or are one, they still represent the religion.

But on the same vein, would you judge a Athiest by the acts of one self-proclaimed atheist, or a Buddist by the acts of someone who claims to be one but goes around killing people?

D(o???)- Because I can be and it attracts readers.

Okay, that is a good reason, I suppose, but are you actually angry or is it an act?

E- I don't hate them in general, some, in fact most, are good people. It's one thing to hate a beleif and another to hate a person. Some Xians I do hate, though.

okay

F- Saying it's bad to touch boys in a society without laws is an opinion. It is neither fact nor false.

But is it morally correct. In essence, do you think the Greeks knew/thought that they shouldn't do it?

Originally Posted by Keeper

But that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist, though, does it?

Essentially what I meant was 'are there some morals that dont change, and morals that need to be taught?'

But on the same vein, would you judge a Athiest by the acts of one self-proclaimed atheist, or a Buddist by the acts of someone who claims to be one but goes around killing people?

Okay, that is a good reason, I suppose, but are you actually angry or is it an act?

okay

But is it morally correct. In essence, do you think the Greeks knew/thought that they shouldn't do it?

1- The classic and fallback defense. Yes, it does prove a thing cannot exist if not provable thru scientific methods.

2- No, morals will always change based on ideas of society. And no, morals don't need to be taught, there are given things, and pressure from society, AND laws. It's obvious what to do and what not to, as defined by law.

3- Yeah, if everyone pertained to doing that. However, this is about the 'saying you're Xian and being Xian'. In which case, I don't care.

4- Well, I am angry about the stupidity of some Xians, and I do express myself. So yes, to some degree.

5-K.

6- You don't get what I'm saying. They didn't know it was wrong, because there weren't the same morals. There were no laws about it. So no, they didn't think it was wrong because they had been told it is okay.

okay, with the moral thing I dont think we are going to get anywhere, as we have to completly different views on what they are, and I doubt we will get much doen on that score.

1. I follow what you are saying, but in the past they made 'scientific' (read: what they thought was scientific) tests to prove the world was flat (i.e. "if the world was round, how would we stick to it?' 'See! the farther that boat gets, the lower it seems to go! the world must be flat, and that boat is going over the edge!' 'where does the water go after the rain? If it didn't go over the edge of the world, then the world would flood!' and so on). It retrospect those where pretty stupid tests, and they didn't know enough about the world to actually see what was going on.

Now, on that vien, is it not correct to say that scientific discoveries can be mistaken, and "modern" science is not always equiped to explain or porve/dispriove something (remember, the original deffinition of an acid and a base?)

3. If you dont care, then there is no point in going farther on that. However, I tend not to judge the group by the indivigual.

thats it (excluding the moral arguments)

1- This... This isn't a thing proving one thing. The SM is a way to test things and expirement. God utterly fails at all of them. He CANNOT be real, based on the fact that we have:

a)Never saw him.
b)Never heard him
c)Never smelled him
d)Never touched him.
c) Never found anything of his doing

Etc. Etc.

3- I don't care about the being an Xian or saying you're one. In the way that I don't care what they 'do' they say their an Xian and I will fight them either way. Christians have differnt denomination and you could consider one branch not Christian. I don't care.

1. By that deffinition, A man named Tom who lives in the slums of *insert random place* doesn't exist either.

You are also saying we have sefficent knowledge and understanding of the universe to disprove any other being of an incapporial nature

to quote Frank Herbet in Chapter House: Dune "In the infinit universe, anything could exist. Any Good; Any Evil. Any God, and Devil."

Do we know enough about reality to do the correct tests?

3. I dont seeing us making any progress in this area, but at least I think you know what I mean.

Huh? If you found him and did all of the above, then yes, you could. The universe may be infinite but that doesn't mean it can violate the laws of science, logic, and reality.

But is this the only reality, and do we know everything about it?

how much of the universe do we actually know? How much do we understand. Of all there is to know, we probably dont even register on the scale.

God, according to the Bible, rules over humans, and the Earth, and the Universe. If that's so we should be able to prove him thru the SM. You can't. He is illogical.

And I pose you a question- Could god make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

that one never seems to get old

it depends entirly on how you view Omnipotence (which doesn't change its nature, but still ...). Also, it would need to state if God is omnipotent.

The levels range from being able to do anything that Can be done, do to doing things that deffy Logic. If God made logic, then he can also act outside those rules, but as I mentioned earlier:

We dont know enough about both God and the Universe to answer that.

We also dont know if God needs to eat (probably not)

Back in the past, before maths and 'proper' Science, people couldn;t prove many things we take for granted (i.e. what is an acid exactly, is the world round, etc.) because they didn't have enough information and knowledge. To clame that we do now and then to say God doesn't exist is in essence to also say that a Caveman could prove the world flat because they knew enough about the world to make a logical factual conclusion.

which brings me back to my question: Do we know enough? How would we know we have enough knowledge? How much to we actually know?

How do we not know enough? Not about the Universe, about God. The Bible tells all about the fellow. Why can't we prove him, or why doesn't he prove himself to us? He must be pretty insecure. Your saying 'you can't disprove him' isn't helping. If you can't prove something, it can't exist. I can't disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but I have no proof for her so that means you can't disprove her. Same with God.

true in many respects, but

a) If you wrote a book about me (or even if I wrote a book about me) that doesn't tell you everything about me, and it sertainly wouldn't be enough to prove I exist, though I do.

My argument isn't to prove God, but to ask you about why you are so sure He doesn't exist. And about why He doesn't prove Himself to us ... that is awhole other story.

are you still 100% certain God doesn't exist?

a) Your writing of a book or me knowing you exist and using you for my book proves you exist; reaction with other objects. You can't see the wind but it reacts with other objects.

b) The whole other story is something nobody has ever told me. You don't know why, do you? I'm so sure he doesn't exist because he cannot be proved. I am 100 percent sure, as of now, that he does not exist. If he suddenly came to me, or something similar, I'd be a beleiiver, right then and there.

Originally Posted by BeautifulDreamer

a) Your writing of a book or me knowing you exist and using you for my book proves you exist; reaction with other objects. You can't see the wind but it reacts with other objects.

Moses, Jesus, Mohommed (I can never get that name right) all said so. They wrote (a) book(s)

b) The whole other story is something nobody has ever told me. You don't know why, do you?

that is more a less what it boils down to, because remember, how much do we actually know? I do know some theories, ranging from the stupid to the inspired. My personal theory is essentually along the lines that reality is a story of sorts, but it gets pretty wierd.

I'm so sure he doesn't exist because he cannot be proved. I am 100 percent sure, as of now, that he does not exist. If he suddenly came to me, or something similar, I'd be a beleiiver, right then and there.

I've heard lots of people say that.

So you agree we know everything about the Universe?

a) However, they couldn't provide details and proof for his existence. If I wrote a book, I could provide details. Even without them, I know you exist because I can use the scientifc method if I met you.

b) I never said that. And no, we don't, but we 'know' about God, and he defies logic and ability to prove. It's like he doesn't want to be real. Or maybe he isn't.

a) But your argument was that if someone wrote a book then it was real. My argument was that a book doesn't give the nessessery info all the time.

b) Isn't real according to your arguments, which are based on iformation you have. I am asking you if that info is safficient to make a logical conclusion.

are we any different the cavemen I mentioned who proved the world is flat?

...And?

God is in this reality, according to the Bible. We don't know anything more about him so there is nothing else we can do. You can't prove him. He can't exist, in any reality, unless he didn't want to be proven. Why would he do that? He isn't real, that's why.

where does it say God is in this reality? God interacts with it, but is he in it?

"The Earth is my Footstool" "Lord, The Heavens cant Contain you!"

I dont think He exists in this reality, and I dont think the Bible says that He does.

I've noticed that you haven't answered my question. Will you please do so?

Yes, we have enough info to prove he isn't. He hasn't interacted with us, or anything. So, no.

Made a blogger!

http://fundamentalistatheist.blogspot.com/