Know of any atheists who returned to religion?

Ex-atheist describes near-death experience (http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-04/01-31-04/c04rg223.htm)

Know of any atheists who returned to religion?

That is an issue for me. The question is are there any Atheists that do not return to some kind of faith at the appropriate time?

Can we conclude that no one dies an Atheist?:shrug:

How would we know anyway? relying strictly on human nature i know where the evidence lies.

Fascinating story.

Well, surely there are people who have never believed in God and die in that belief.

Know of any atheists who returned to religion?

If someone has realized gods are merely myth and superstitions, what could possibly make them start believing they are not?

Clearly, if they claimed to be an atheist and then returned to religion, they probably weren't atheist to begin with. They still believed.

Well, surely there are people who have never believed in God and die in that belief.

I really don't know but it does not seem likely. When you see death approaching it is enough to make you shit your pants. Would an Atheist laying on his death bed say 'please god, give me one more chance...a miracle', i think so.

I really don't know but it does not seem likely. When you see death approaching it is enough to make you shit your pants. Would an Atheist laying on his death bed say 'please god, give me one more chance...a miracle', i think so.

That's the old, "There are no atheists in foxholes" argument. Think not.

When you see death approaching it is enough to make you shit your pants.
Why?

Would an Atheist laying on his death bed say 'please god, give me one more chance...a miracle', i think so.
Why?

Hey John.... interesting question. I am actually was Agnostic for years up until just a few months ago. After a couple of life changing occurences that's happened recently I must say that my views on religion have changed, drastically. I'm not here to get into a symantical arguement on the ins and outs of religions and who is right and who is wrong. I don't really care. All I know is this: There are just way too many coincidences. Is there a God? I dunno. But every once in a while I will get a feeling that perhaps there is someone out there looking out for me. Could I be wrong? Absolutely... I was born with a lack of 'faith' that most believers possess so I always assumed that there couldn't possibly be anything out there. I guess you can say I'm in limbo at this point of my life.

It's all rather confusing really:)

the only way an atheist, would become a theist again, is if they had a traumatic life changing occurence, such as a severe head trauma, something that is completely mind altering, there is no other way possible.

Sure, there is. People come to live with believers and there emotions take over, and next thing you know, they're theists again. Religion is in the heart - not the head.

Sure, there is. People come to live with believers and there emotions take over, and next thing you know, they're theists again. Religion is in the heart - not the head.


Christians always talk about 'the light of the Lord" I think its a bug zapper.
I can walk the talk, I just wouldn't believe it.

Sure, there is. People come to live with believers and there emotions take over, and next thing you know, they're theists again. Religion is in the heart - not the head.

They would be pretty weak minded to begin with if they did that, and no true atheists.. they would probably have walked around with doubts already.

Religion is in the heart - not the head.

The heart doesn't have anything to do with emotions or anything else of that nature. That would be the uhh.. head. :bugeye:

Of course you should probably be more concerned not with those that end up getting emotional and believing in nonsense but those that believed in that nonsense and then became sane. It's easy to understand why someone might get emotional and start believing, (especially on his death bed), but the other way round is not so easy and far more interesting.

You've got more chance of god showing his face, than an atheist becoming brainwashed again.

I really don't know but it does not seem likely. When you see death approaching it is enough to make you shit your pants. Would an Atheist laying on his death bed say 'please god, give me one more chance...a miracle', i think so.

If I suddenly believe in god on my death bed, it would be absolutely meaningless. Believing in god out of fear and selfishness is no good reason to believe in something impossible.

If I suddenly believe in god on my death bed, it would be absolutely meaningless. Believing in god out of fear and selfishness is no good reason to believe in something impossible.

LOL but what is a good reason to believe in something impossible ? :p

if one could argue that atheism lends itself to the direct perception that god doesn't exist, perhaps one cold ague that a real atheist never becomes a theist - since that is not possible, all the talk of how once an atheist always an atheist is no better than a lot of soccer hooligans raving about how their favorite team is going to win

as for an atheist who changed his mind

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/atheist_believes_in_god.htm

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

Know of any atheists who returned to religion?John, you are an atheist for many many many many many thousands upon thousands of Gods.

Think you are going to suddenly start to beleive in any of them?

Probably not,

You and I will die as Atheists for most Gods (maybe you will still believe in one or two - but for most you and I will never believe in them).

MII

John, you are an atheist for many many many many many thousands upon thousands of Gods.

Think you are going to suddenly start to beleive in any of them?

Probably not,

You and I will die as Atheists for most Gods (maybe you will still believe in one or two - but for most you and I will never believe in them).

MII
yes, just like the difference between a woman who is pregnant and a woman who is not pregnant is not much - after all they have both avoided the fertilization of the billions of sperms in the world .....

I knew a guy in the army that was a militant atheist.
One restless night he was lying on the couch in a half-asleep daze, flipping through channels and stopped at a televangelist for shits and giggles.
He said he felt like he was having a heart attack and he had an overwhelming feeling that God entered him and was attempting to get him to change his ways.

Now he is a Christian preacher.

So it wasnt a heart attack?

I really don't know but it does not seem likely. When you see death approaching it is enough to make you shit your pants. Would an Atheist laying on his death bed say 'please god, give me one more chance...a miracle', i think so.

Only if you're afraid of death - and that fear is what many religions prey on.

Religion survives partly because it takes people's deepest darkest fears and insecurities and preys on them.

It takes this driving fear of not existing after we die and offers a pretty alternative.
It tells us, "You can avoid mortality if you want to. However, the only way to do that, is play by our rules. You can't do it without me."
In this way, it ensures it's OWN survival and immortality.

That's one of the biggest problems I have with many religions.
It doesn't help people overcome their fears, it takes advantage of them and offers them a placebo in return - and people become addicted to that placebo, because the fear is constantly there.

So it wasnt a heart attack?

It might have been.
He was a lazy, fat bastard.
I don't know how he ever got through basic training.

If I suddenly believe in god on my death bed, it would be absolutely meaningless. Believing in god out of fear and selfishness is no good reason to believe in something impossible.

FEAR? Who is not afraid to die? Even people on death row cry when it is time for 'the walk', i think your taking things for granted, like never being confronted with it.

I still say that if someone has thoughts like the one i mentioned then they can no longer be classified as an Atheist. Oh, i am OK now...yeah right.

Only if you're afraid of death - and that fear is what many religions prey on.

Religion survives partly because it takes people's deepest darkest fears and insecurities and preys on them.

It takes this driving fear of not existing after we die and offers a pretty alternative.
It tells us, "You can avoid mortality if you want to. However, the only way to do that, is play by our rules. You can't do it without me."
In this way, it ensures it's OWN survival and immortality.

That's one of the biggest problems I have with many religions.
It doesn't help people overcome their fears, it takes advantage of them and offers them a placebo in return - and people become addicted to that placebo, because the fear is constantly there.

I dont see how religion can be viewed as a placebo at all. The closest i came to death was one time, all motor skills were gone, sporadic vision etc etc etc, the whole nine yards, i know for a fact what was imminent be it stroke heart attack, catastrophic failure of the physical being. At that point the strangest thing happened and i am here now, divine intervention? well it does not matter, one point is i can accurately recognise this because i have been in that same place five or six times (young stupid, taking chances, playing with fire- call it what you want, just read between the lines;) and you should know what i am talking about) well that was like another lifetime so what can you do? I know now what can happen and there is nothing good to take from it really.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/12/25/medical.miracles.ap/

So dont take my word for it:D

Are buddhists considered atheists?

as for an atheist who changed his mind

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/atheist_believes_in_god.htm

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

First of all, Antony Flew was a philosophy professor, a bullshit artist.

Secondly, he became a deist, you know, those who come to a conclusion that gods exist and then attempt to find evidence to support their conclusion, which is the opposite method to the scientific method.

Thirdly, Flew does NOT believe in an afterlife, one of the main tenets that the Abrahamic religions rely in order to maintain their flocks.

Fourthly, his claims are more inline with Intelligent Design proponents.

And last, the guy turned 81 and lost his marbles.

On the other hand, you should be proud to have demonstrated you found ONE SINGLE individual on the planet who converted... in a way... sort of... but not really...

It entirely depends on why they became an atheist in the first place. If a person is an atheist because they have made an honest attempt to examine all the evidence and concluded that god probably doesn't exist based on logic and reason, they aren't likely to change their minds. But many people simply believe whatever they want to be true. A large percentage of Christians simply like the idea of Christianity, so they believe in it without ever really giving it serious though. When they later decide for some reason that they don’t like the idea of Christianity, they switch to atheism (or some other religion) because it’s more appealing. Such “atheists” are likely to switch back at some point when their mood changes yet again.

So dont take my word for it
I won't. Fact is everyone's health is different, what will kill one person may be completely harmless to another. Doctors like to make all kinds of predictions, which are almost always just educated guesses based on statistics. If a disease has a 99% mortality rate, does that mean 1% of people are handed a miracle by God? Or does it simply mean that 1% of people are biologically different in a way that makes them more resistant to that disease?

The human mind plays a huge part in recovering from illness or injury, if you believe you'll get better chances are you will. If praying and believing in miracles helps you establish that belief then great.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/12/25/medical.miracles.ap/

So dont take my word for it:D
These sorts of "miracles" always end up being things that also happen naturally to a small percentage of people anyway. For some reason we never see miracles that involve things like severed limbs growing back.

First of all, Antony Flew was a philosophy professor, a bullshit artist.
as a greater and more influential atheist than yourself, what does that make you?

Secondly, he became a deist, you know, those who come to a conclusion that gods exist and then attempt to find evidence to support their conclusion, which is the opposite method to the scientific method.
so what

Thirdly, Flew does NOT believe in an afterlife, one of the main tenets that the Abrahamic religions rely in order to maintain their flocks.
so what

Fourthly, his claims are more inline with Intelligent Design proponents.
so what

And last, the guy turned 81 and lost his marbles.
do all people who turn 81 lose their marbles, or only those that have different opinions than yourself?

On the other hand, you should be proud to have demonstrated you found ONE SINGLE individual on the planet who converted... in a way... sort of... but not really...
so in other words you concede that your opening 5 points were all red herrings?

as a greater and more influential atheist than yourself, what does that make you?


While I will not quibble over influence, it's not clear how you have come to the conclusion that one guy you don't really know is "greater" than another guy you don't really know. What criteria are you using to come to that conclusion?

Anyone that REturned to belief in God must at first have believed in God then became atheist and then REturned to belief in God.
So they never actually were atheists to begin with, not really... i think.

as a greater and more influential atheist than yourself, what does that make you?

I think Snakelord asked the appropriate question here. A greater atheist is a greater disbeliever?? :shrug:

so what

So, Deists come to conclusions gods exist, without any reason or rationale whatsoever. They then look for reasons to support their conclusions, allegedly based on science. It's a crock, of course. They are as convincing as you, which is not at all.

Big difference.

So, since Antony does not believe in an afterlife, he hasn't really converted to a religion making false promises, like the religion you belong, for example.

Big difference.

So, his position is more in line with Intelligent Design proponents, which are basically creationists masking their nonsense as science, which isn't really any kind of conversion at all, or is scientific. Yet, he is supposed to be a professor.

Big difference.

do all people who turn 81 lose their marbles, or only those that have different opinions than yourself?

Not necessarily all who turn 81, but Antony Flew did.

so in other words you concede that your opening 5 points were all red herrings?

What gives you that idea (other than your tenuous grasp for synthesis)? I'm simply pointing out that the ONE SINGLE person you have found to have claimed to having been converted to religion is specious, at best.

Again, big difference.

I know of an atheist who turned theist for the last 17 years of his life. I was surprised, cos I hadn't even known he was an atheist. He only came out to friends, not family.

I know of an atheist who turned theist for the last 17 years of his life. I was surprised, cos I hadn't even known he was an atheist. He only came out to friends, not family.

Yeah but the question in the OP was "Know of any atheists who returned to religion?".
REturned... :shrug:

Yeah but the question in the OP was "Know of any atheists who returned to religion?".
REturned... :shrug:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/images/smilies/1/booboo.gif

http://forum.digital-digest.com/images/smilies/1/booboo.gif

Really?!? :eek:

:rolleyes:

Really?!? :eek:

:rolleyes:

Really. http://forum.digital-digest.com/images/smilies/1/tissue2.gif

Pretty much everyone that posted here though.. lol

Pretty much everyone that posted here though.. lol

But isn't a REturn less surprising? I would think that those who had no spiritual leanings to begin with would not be likely to suddenly develop them?

But isn't a REturn less surprising? I would think that those who had no spiritual leanings to begin with would not be likely to suddenly develop them?

Exactly.. :)

Exactly.. :)

Which means...? *drumroll*

Really. http://forum.digital-digest.com/images/smilies/1/tissue2.gif

Hmmm... over 20K posts and you only found the one? :p

Hmmm... over 20K posts and you only found the one? :p

Its a VERY rare occurence.http://forum.digital-digest.com/images/smilies/gif/tongue.gif

Which means...? *drumroll*

Meaning pretty much what you said already, REturning to a religion isnt quite as surprising as an atheist turning to a religion.
So i dont think the OP question is all that interesting. Maybe he meant turning in stead of REturning.. :shrug:

Meaning pretty much what you said already, REturning to a religion isnt quite as surprising as an atheist turning to a religion.
So i dont think the OP question is all that interesting. Maybe he meant turning in stead of REturning.. :shrug:

Ah thanks.

While I will not quibble over influence, it's not clear how you have come to the conclusion that one guy you don't really know is "greater" than another guy you don't really know. What criteria are you using to come to that conclusion?
I guess if you look at modes of expression, expressing oneself academically to the intelligent community with philosophy and reason occupies one rung on the ladder, and expressing yourself such as

First of all, Antony Flew was a philosophy professor, a bullshit artist.

occupies another

Q
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as a greater and more influential atheist than yourself, what does that make you?
”
I think Snakelord asked the appropriate question here. A greater atheist is a greater disbeliever??
greatness, in this sense, bears a relation to quality of expression and conviction (Flew went out of his way to but his nous on the line - you recreationally and anonymously lurk on a chat forum - big difference)

“
so what
”
So, Deists come to conclusions gods exist, without any reason or rationale whatsoever. They then look for reasons to support their conclusions, allegedly based on science. It's a crock, of course. They are as convincing as you, which is not at all.


Big difference.
hardly

your opinions aside, the bit in bold tends to indicate the paradigm shift from atheist

So, since Antony does not believe in an afterlife, he hasn't really converted to a religion making false promises, like the religion you belong, for example.

Big difference.
so a person who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
:crazy:


So, his position is more in line with Intelligent Design proponents, which are basically creationists masking their nonsense as science, which isn't really any kind of conversion at all, or is scientific. Yet, he is supposed to be a professor.

Big difference.

once again, your opinions aside, is a person who ascribes the creation of the cosmic manifestation to a type of singular advanced consciousness an atheist?
:crazy:
“
do all people who turn 81 lose their marbles, or only those that have different opinions than yourself?
”
Not necessarily all who turn 81, but Antony Flew did.
why?
because he voiced an opinion different from yours, and you are without a doubt the yardstick of normal behaviour in this world?

“
so in other words you concede that your opening 5 points were all red herrings?
”
What gives you that idea (other than your tenuous grasp for synthesis)? I'm simply pointing out that the ONE SINGLE person you have found to have claimed to having been converted to religion is specious, at best.

Again, big difference.
with your beginning 5 points you state that he didn't convert to a religion and in your conclusion you state he did - perhaps you should pay more attention to those BS professors next time you want to construct a coherent argument ....

greatness, in this sense, bears a relation to quality of expression and conviction (Flew went out of his way to but his nous on the line - you recreationally and anonymously lurk on a chat forum - big difference)

An appeal ad populum? Any first year physics student could put Tom Bearden to shame.

so a person who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
:crazy:

No, a Deist, pay attention.

once again, your opinions aside, is a person who ascribes the creation of the cosmic manifestation to a type of singular advanced consciousness an atheist?
:crazy:

Where do you keep coming up with these notions? That's a Deist, again.

why?
because he voiced an opinion different from yours, and you are without a doubt the yardstick of normal behaviour in this world?

Nope, old age.

with your beginning 5 points you state that he didn't convert to a religion and in your conclusion you state he did - perhaps you should pay more attention to those BS professors next time you want to construct a coherent argument ....

Please point out exactly where I made that claim.

Of course, you can't, because you choose to obfuscate, instead.

Q
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
greatness, in this sense, bears a relation to quality of expression and conviction (Flew went out of his way to but his nous on the line - you recreationally and anonymously lurk on a chat forum - big difference)
”
An appeal ad populum?
no
an appeal to being able to express oneself publicly in academic circles as opposed to anonymously in ad hom saturated chat rooms

“
so a person who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?

”
No, a Deist, pay attention.
so a deist who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
:crazy:

“
once again, your opinions aside, is a person who ascribes the creation of the cosmic manifestation to a type of singular advanced consciousness an atheist?

”
Where do you keep coming up with these notions? That's a Deist, again.
a deist is not a person?
:crazy:


“
why?
because he voiced an opinion different from yours, and you are without a doubt the yardstick of normal behaviour in this world?
”
Nope, old age.
so the opinions of all people over 80 can be instantly rejected?
:crazy:

with your beginning 5 points you state that he didn't convert to a religion and in your conclusion you state he did - perhaps you should pay more attention to those BS professors next time you want to construct a coherent argument ....
”
Please point out exactly where I made that claim.

Of course, you can't, because you choose to obfuscate, instead.
determining a deist to be a sub branch of atheism is not an obfuscation?

an appeal to being able to express oneself publicly in academic circles as opposed to anonymously in ad hom saturated chat rooms

Then, why are you here?

so a deist who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?

Is that your conclusion?

a deist is not a person?

Is that your conclusion?

so the opinions of all people over 80 can be instantly rejected?

Is that your conclusion?

determining a deist to be a sub branch of atheism is not an obfuscation?

Is that your conclusion?

I guess if you look at modes of expression, expressing oneself academically to the intelligent community with philosophy and reason occupies one rung on the ladder, and expressing yourself such as


I see. So you consider a person "greater" on the basis that he doesn't use the occasional swear word?

Of course what you need to understand is that in general people will talk to the level of the person they are talking with. If, for instance, we were talking about some science you're not clued up on I would talk to you in 'layman terms'. So, I ask you: does the using of the word bullshit make Q not as great as Flew, (even though I can pretty much guarantee you there was the occasional swear word used by him too), or is Q talking in a way and style that is along your level of understanding?

Let it be stated for the record that calling a bullshit claim bullshit does not indicate that one is any less "great" than anyone else. If you think it does, the bullshit fits.

I see. So you consider a person "greater" on the basis that he doesn't use the occasional swear word?
thats one minor aspect
the other is that they publicly put themselves in the arena of academic circles, which is the larger picture that necessitates the former ...

Of course what you need to understand is that in general people will talk to the level of the person they are talking with. If, for instance, we were talking about some science you're not clued up on I would talk to you in 'layman terms'. So, I ask you: does the using of the word bullshit make Q not as great as Flew, (even though I can pretty much guarantee you there was the occasional swear word used by him too), or is Q talking in a way and style that is along your level of understanding?
writing off philosophy as BS is certainly not a good beginning point for a serious philosophical discussion

[QUOTE]Let it be stated for the record that calling a bullshit claim bullshit does not indicate that one is any less "great" than anyone else. If you think it does, the bullshit fits.[/QUOTE

for the record, what do you make of this then??

“
First of all, Antony Flew was a philosophy professor, a bullshit artist.

Q

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
an appeal to being able to express oneself publicly in academic circles as opposed to anonymously in ad hom saturated chat rooms
”
Then, why are you here?
because I have a delusional sense of grandeur on how great I am
:D

“
so a deist who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
”
Is that your conclusion?

“
a deist is not a person?
”
Is that your conclusion?

“
so the opinions of all people over 80 can be instantly rejected?
”
Is that your conclusion?

“
determining a deist to be a sub branch of atheism is not an obfuscation?
”
Is that your conclusion?

no, but it appears to be yours

because I have a delusional sense of grandeur on how great I am

Come now, you don't REALLY believe that? Your magnificence is only evident.


no, but it appears to be yours

I'm not sure where you get that, I don't ever recall claiming that deism is the same as atheism?

But, I did claim that deists first come to the conclusion a god exists, then seek to provide support for their conclusion. They also don't believe in an afterlife, as well as divine revelations, miracles or prophets, none of the supernatural events one might readily gobble up.

for the record, what do you make of this then??

What do I make of it heh.. Hmm.. well, upon looking at it closely, I find it to be another man's opinion. Are you or I greater than him because our opinions differ? That is seemingly your opinion. Now that someone disagrees with your opinion, does that make them greater than you?

Ok lg, ok.

“
Q

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
because I have a delusional sense of grandeur on how great I am
”
Come now, you don't REALLY believe that? Your magnificence is only evident.
that's right - keep it up or I will issue you with an infraction


“
no, but it appears to be yours
”
I'm not sure where you get that, I don't ever recall claiming that deism is the same as atheism?

But, I did claim that deists first come to the conclusion a god exists, then seek to provide support for their conclusion. They also don't believe in an afterlife, as well as divine revelations, miracles or prophets, none of the supernatural events one might readily gobble up.
hence deism represents quite a paradigm change for your average atheist

What do I make of it heh.. Hmm.. well, upon looking at it closely, I find it to be another man's opinion.
brilliant

Are you or I greater than him because our opinions differ?
no, but if I had an opinion that einstein was a doofus it would probably indicate I was more into discussing football results than physics

That is seemingly your opinion.
so you have an opinion that all opinions are ultimately homogeneous in terms of value, or the differences between them are irrelevant or something?
(the plot thickens ...)
:rolleyes:

no, but if I had an opinion that einstein was a doofus it would probably indicate I was more into discussing football results than physics


Right, different - not greater. Glad we agree. Next time choose your words more carefully.

Right, different - not greater. Glad we agree. Next time choose your words more carefully.

yes, there's an untapped mine in football commentary just waiting to take the lime light of philosophical discourse

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/05/hooliganR300506_228x370.jpg

hence deism represents quite a paradigm change for your average atheist

Not really, why should it? Deists start from the same conclusion you do; god exists.

For example, here's another conclusion; the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Now, I go round looking for something to support my claim, anything.

The FSM exists, but you wouldn't understand that as you are but a high-school drop-out compared to my professorship in Flying Spaghetti Monster scriptures.

It's just that easy. :D

yes, there's an untapped mine in football commentary just waiting to take the lime light of philosophical discourse


I'm sorry, was there a specific argument there? Were you disagreeing with something specifically? Are you telling me that those that like football are not as great as those that like to talk philosophy?

Well lg? Any chance sometime this decade you could move beyond your absolute cowardice? It's really starting to annoy.

Not really, why should it? Deists start from the same conclusion you do; god exists.

just like an atheist, right?
:confused:

For example, here's another conclusion; the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Now, I go round looking for something to support my claim, anything.

The FSM exists, but you wouldn't understand that as you are but a high-school drop-out compared to my professorship in Flying Spaghetti Monster scriptures.

It's just that easy. :D
so you have a claim
now you just have to work on the process you advocate to arrive at the claim, while avoiding the classification as an atheist working from the foundation of rhetoric - good luck
;)

I'm sorry, was there a specific argument there? Were you disagreeing with something specifically? Are you telling me that those that like football are not as great as those that like to talk philosophy?
from the POV of philosophers,yes (if its any concession, plato was a crappy fullback)

Well lg? Any chance sometime this decade you could move beyond your absolute cowardice? It's really starting to annoy.
hey, I'm just following your lead!!

;)

from the POV of philosophers,yes

So.. greatness is determined by what you're interested in?

When you see death approaching it is enough to make you shit your pants.
Shit your pants? Yeah.
Have a complete psychological meltdown? No.

Ex-atheist describes near-death experience (http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-04/01-31-04/c04rg223.htm)
Meh. The guy had a near-death experience. In other words, a delusional dream sequence. Everyone interprets such things in various ways. He interpreted it as reality rather than what a truly was: a dream. Probably the result of losing sufficient oxygen to the brain.

So.. greatness is determined by what you're interested in?

do you think a society that understood football (in its current social context) to be the summit of philosophical presentations would be "great"?

"Great" what?

do you think a society that understood football (in its current social context) to be the summit of philosophical presentations would be "great"?Since when does "interest in" equate to "understanding it to be the summit of philosophical presentations"!

do you think a society that understood football (in its current social context) to be the summit of philosophical presentations would be "great"?
Depends. You talking about European Football/Soccer or American Football?

"Great" what?
great society

Since when does "interest in" equate to "understanding it to be the summit of philosophical presentations"!
since you didn't read how the topic was arrived at

Depends. You talking about European Football/Soccer or American Football?
spot the difference?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1160000/images/_1161456_usfans150.jpg


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/05/hooliganR300506_228x370.jpg

When an imbecile coincides disbelief in the absurd with rampant materialism, so as to equate his unsubstantiated, dependence on a phantasm, with nobility or spiritual superiority, it's a sure sign that this retard is suffering from an existential complex having to do with his fear of death and the unknown.

In short::shrug: he's a moron.

since you didn't read how the topic was arrived atI did.
So I'll repeat what I said:
Since when does "interest in" equate to "understanding it to be the summit of philosophical presentations"?

Now maybe you'll deign to answer the question in a manner more befitting a sensible conversation?

great society

Great in what respect?

When an imbecile coincides disbelief in the absurd with rampant materialism, so as to equate his unsubstantiated, dependence on a phantasm, with nobility or spiritual superiority, it's a sure sign that this retard is suffering from an existential complex having to do with his fear of death and the unknown.

In short::shrug: he's a moron.

more delights from the king of tentative arguments

http://artofbonsai.org/eristic/articles/love/rabbit.jpg

Great in what respect?
try (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070730/chile_team_070730/20070730?hub=CTVNewsAt11) wearing Argentinian colors amongst of Chilean supporters and get back to us with the details

I did.
So I'll repeat what I said:
Since when does "interest in" equate to "understanding it to be the summit of philosophical presentations"?

Now maybe you'll deign to answer the question in a manner more befitting a sensible conversation?
I have no idea what you are talking about
:shrug:

try wearing Argentinian colors amongst of Chilean supporters and get back to us with the details


Uhh..

Once again: great in what respect?

Uhh..

Once again: great in what respect?

just try it

i am sure you will understand things very quickly
:D

http://www.swissinfo.org/xobix_media/images/sri/2006/sriimg20060514_6716182_0.jpg

Ok, a nice picture.. Now tell me: "great" in what respect?

Ok, a nice picture.. Now tell me: "great" in what respect?

"great" for panel beaters I guess
;)

*************
M*W: Atheists don't turn their backs to god. They turned around because he wasn't there anyway.

*************
M*W: Atheists don't turn their backs to god. They turned around because he wasn't there anyway.
atheist with the claim of direct perception of god's non-existence???

...... interesting

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

atheist with the claim of direct perception of god's non-existence???

...... interesting

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Sorry, but weren't you one claiming direct perception of gods existence?

How is that not crazy?

Sorry, but weren't you one claiming direct perception of gods existence?

How is that not crazy?

for a start its not a negative absolute

positive claims of god's non-existence requires that one has perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience) and all times (omnipresence).

Do I have to go further with the explanation?

;)

You didn't explain it, you evaded it.

You didn't explain it, you evaded it.

I guess it requires further explanation then ...

positive claims of god's non-existence requires that one has perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience) and all times (omnipresence).

Given the nature of human frailties, persons claiming such direct perception of god's non-existence (or make statements that rely on the same foundation) can immediately be regarded as loony.

satisfied?

I guess it requires further explanation then ...

positive claims of god's non-existence requires that one has perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience) and all times (omnipresence).

Given the nature of human frailties, persons claiming such direct perception of god's non-existence (or make statements that rely on the same foundation) can immediately be regarded as loony.

satisfied?

No.

positive claims of god's existence requires that one has perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience) and all times (omnipresence).

Given the nature of human frailties, persons claiming such direct perception of god's existence (or make statements that rely on the same foundation) can immediately be regarded as loony.

:rolleyes:

Given the nature of human frailties, persons claiming such direct perception of god's non-existence (or make statements that rely on the same foundation) can immediately be regarded as loony.

satisfied?

Almost, I need to make one minor change for it make sense:

"Given the nature of human frailties, persons claiming such direct perception of god's existence (or make statements that rely on the same foundation) can immediately be regarded as loony."

Perfect. Thanks.

No.

positive claims of god's existence requires that one has perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience) and all times (omnipresence).
no it doesn't

BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

BG 18.56: Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My pure devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.

Almost, I need to make one minor change for it make sense:

"Given the nature of human frailties, persons claiming such direct perception of god's existence (or make statements that rely on the same foundation) can immediately be regarded as loony."

Perfect. Thanks.

something is preventing god from revealing himself to a living entity?

:shrug:

something is preventing god from revealing himself to a living entity?

:shrug:

Yes, its called non-existence..

no it doesn't

BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

BG 18.56: Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My pure devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.

There you go with your bible quotations... you really have a mind of your own do you ? :rolleyes:

Yes, its called non-existence..

so god doesn't exist because god doesn't exist.

how cute

There you go with your bible quotations... you really have a mind of your own do you ? :rolleyes:
sure I have a mind of my own
I don't however call upon it to whimsically redefine existing definitions in theism anymore then I call upon it to whimsically redefine existing definitions in science

how about you?

so god doesn't exist because god doesn't exist.

how cute


sure I have a mind of my own
I don't however call upon it to whimsically redefine existing definitions in theism anymore then I call upon it to whimsically redefine existing definitions in science

how about you?

So God exists because he exists.. how cute :bugeye:

So you let the bible think for you, you have no opinions of your own ?

So God exists because he exists.. how cute :bugeye:
no, but its a common argument put forward by atheists as the basis for god's existence

I guess it makes them feel happy with their opinions

So you let the bible think for you, you have no opinions of your own ?
meaning that I should exhibit my exclusive right of individuality by agreeing with your opinions?

:shrug:

no, but its a common argument put forward by atheists as the basis for god's existence

I guess it makes them feel happy with their opinions


meaning that I should exhibit my exclusive right of individuality by agreeing with your opinions?

:shrug:

:bugeye: I was using you style of argumentation there.

No meaning you should use you exclusive right of individuality to agree or disagree with my opinions, considering you have no evidence.

:bugeye: I was using you style of argumentation there.

No meaning you should use you exclusive right of individuality to agree or disagree with my opinions, considering you have no evidence.

what makes you think I have no evidence?

what makes you think I have no evidence?

Because you havent in all this time showed any of it. Lets have the evidence then..

Because you havent in all this time showed any of it. Lets have the evidence then..

well we have had a few difficulties establishing a means how to do that amongst our atheistic intelligentsia here

so maybe just so we have an established means of determining how something is evidenced, perhaps you could establish how, say, atoms are evidenced to me (then I can follow the exact same means to establish the evidence in relation to god)

well we have had a few difficulties establishing a means how to do that amongst our atheistic intelligentsia here

so maybe just so we have an established means of determining how something is evidenced, perhaps you could establish how, say, atoms are evidenced to me (then I can follow the exact same means to establish the evidence in relation to god)

Are you denying the Atomic Theory ? :eek:

Are you denying the Atomic Theory ? :eek:
not really

the question is more simple than that

suppose I don't know anything about atoms - well lets be specific and say electrons

how would you propose to evidence to me that "electrons exist"

not really

the question is more simple than that

suppose I don't know anything about atoms - well lets be specific and say electrons

how would you propose to evidence to me that "electrons exist"

I would propose you evidence it to yourself and buy some books on it. Im not your teacher.
Is this your way of avoiding to have to give your evidence of Gods existence ? Because i really dont care that much you know, do you WANT to prove him or not ?

Fascinating story.

Fascinating story indeed.

I would propose you evidence it to yourself and buy some books on it. Im not your teacher.
Is this your way of avoiding to have to give your evidence of Gods existence ? Because i really dont care that much you know, do you WANT to prove him or not ?

at the moment we are just establishing how something is "evidenced"

so far, you have suggested that one "buys a book about it"

Do you want to elaborate a bit on that or do you think that its sufficient?

at the moment we are just establishing how something is "evidenced"

so far, you have suggested that one "buys a book about it"

Do you want to elaborate a bit on that or do you think that its sufficient?

Sorry pal.. i should have realized before that its of no use talking to you..
Have a great day, oh and try not to be too stupid & arrogant today.

not really

the question is more simple than that

suppose I don't know anything about atoms - well lets be specific and say electrons

how would you propose to evidence to me that "electrons exist"

Turn on a light switch.

Sorry pal.. i should have realized before that its of no use talking to you..
Have a great day, oh and try not to be too stupid & arrogant today.
I would have thought that addressing the issue of how something is evidenced would be quite straight forward for a person making the claim that there is no evidence for god ....

Turn on a light switch.

given that the notion of an electron came about in the 1890's and that people were switching lights on and off since the early 1800's, why is it that it took them a hundred years of such switching?

;)

I would have thought that addressing the issue of how something is evidenced would be quite straight forward for a person making the claim that there is no evidence for god ....

Its because i dont care if you believe in God or not. Too much trouble for me to explain everything to you while you are not even listening.
Have a great day.

given that the notion of an electron came about in the 1890's and that people were switching lights on and off since the early 1800's, why is it that it took them a hundred years of such switching?

;)

You have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do I.

:D

given that the notion of an electron came about in the 1890's and that people were switching lights on and off since the early 1800's

The invention of the light bulb was in 1879. Just thought I'd mention it.

The invention of the light bulb was in 1879. Just thought I'd mention it.

I guess I had better mention this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#History_of_the_light_bulb) then

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/2ede1373b54065bb9c7f954452874ba4.png

You have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do I.

:D
probably because it clearly indicates that there is more to evidencing electrons than turning on light switches
:rolleyes:

Emnos
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I would have thought that addressing the issue of how something is evidenced would be quite straight forward for a person making the claim that there is no evidence for god ....
”
Its because i dont care if you believe in God or not.
thats alright

Too much trouble for me to explain everything to you while you are not even listening.
fortunately we are not required to explain everything to make a coherent argument, only the foundations on which our argument rests - and I am all ears to hear how you determine that something is evidenced, since you are the one making the claim that there is no evidence for god

Emnos
thats alright

fortunately we are not required to explain everything to make a coherent argument, only the foundations on which our argument rests - and I am all ears to hear how you determine that something is evidenced, since you are the one making the claim that there is no evidence for god

Hehe.. :rolleyes:
No, you are making the claim that God exists, so the burden of evidence is on you. Im not about to do your job.
So be a good Christian and try to convert me...

Not really, none of them incorporated light switches :bugeye:

However, it's not important. What is important is the need to work out the difference between electrons and gods. I would suggest using something more along the same lines in order to have a more accurate example - so use vampires, or werewolves, or something of that nature.

Hehe.. :rolleyes:
No, you are making the claim that God exists, so the burden of evidence is on you. Im not about to do your job.
So be a good Christian and try to convert me...
slow down buddy

you made the claim that I have no evidence for god

I asked how do you propose to determine whether something is evidenced, using something that is relatively easily evidenced, an electron, as an example

its not clear how the discussion can progress unless there is a clear idea how something is evidenced

Not really, none of them incorporated light switches :bugeye:
I see, so there was something about the light switch design which bridged the gap - do tell ....

However, it's not important. What is important is the need to work out the difference between electrons and gods.
since such a distinction rests on the understanding of the word 'evidence', I guess the first step in such a direction is to provide the general principles that evidence operates under

I would suggest using something more along the same lines in order to have a more accurate example - so use vampires, or werewolves, or something of that nature.
if you can locate credible sources for such things (scientists, philosophers or great thinkers) that advocate direct perception, be my guest

slow down buddy

you made the claim that I have no evidence for god

I asked how do you propose to determine whether something is evidenced, using something that is relatively easily evidenced, an electron, as an example


Correction: YOU claim God exists. Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. Since you refuse or are unable to present proof i conclude there is no proof.


its not clear how the discussion can progress unless there is a clear idea how something is evidenced.

Well, thats your problem isnt it..

I guess the first step in such a direction is to provide the general principles that evidence operates under

You tell me.

if you can locate credible sources for such things (scientists, philosophers or great thinkers) that advocate direct perception

Same to you with regards to gods - oh, other than self advocated philosophers and great thinkers - because any old idiot can do that. However:

"Dom Augustine Calmet, a well-respected French theologian and scholar, put together a carefully thought out treatise in 1746, which was at least ambiguous concerning the existence of vampires, if not admitting it explicitly. He amassed reports of vampire incidents and numerous readers, including both a critical Voltaire and supportive demonologists, interpreted the treatise as claiming that vampires exist. In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire wrote on the vampires"

The guy was a scholar, a theologian, well respected and quite philosophical.

That satisfies your requirements, so use vampires instead of electrons heh..

Of course it's even quite well documented amongst Indians/Hindus - for instance the vetala legends in the Baital Pachisi. Then there's the BrahmarākŞhasa and of course kali.

Anyway, job done. What now?

Correction: YOU claim God exists. Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. Since you refuse or are unable to present proof i conclude there is no proof.
ahahaha...typical atheistic argument...here it is

"There's no proof God exists"
"So what can be considered as proof?"
"Oh, I don't know, that's your problem, case closed, see there's no proof"

ahahaha...typical atheistic argument...here it is

"There's no proof God exists"
"So what can be considered as proof?"
"Oh, I don't know, that's your problem, case closed, see there's no proof"

No,

Theist: God exists
Atheist: How so ? Proof it.
Theist: Uhm i cant, please help me out. How do i evidence something ?
Atheist: Shrugs and walks away..



And why should it be my problem ? Im not the one claiming something extraordinairy.

No,

Theist: God exists
Atheist: How so ? Proof it.
Theist: Uhm i cant, please help me out. How do i evidence something ?
Atheist: Shrugs and walks away..



And why should it be my problem ? Im not the one claiming something extraordinairy.

No, theists say they believe God exists...it's unverifiable, so naturally since there's no way to gather evidence there will be no evidence...just as with the many-worlds interpretation or copenhagen interpretation and many other theories in science....

Atheists make the most extraordinary claim...some how they know God doesn't exist because it's unverifiable and there's no evidence...at least theists admit it's a belief and requires faith...atheists just can't handle that atheism requires faith

No, theists say they believe God exists...it's unverifiable, so naturally since there's no way to gather evidence there will be no evidence...just as with the many-worlds interpretation or copenhagen interpretation and many other theories in science....

Atheists make the most extraordinary claim...some how they know God doesn't exist because it's unverifiable and there's no evidence...at least theists admit it's a belief and requires faith...atheists just can't handle that atheism requires faith

Here we go...
Have i ever said that God doesnt exist ? I think its extremely unlikely that he exists, precisely because there is no shred of evidence. Also, common knowledge nor nature can explain God. It is extraordinairy to assert God exists.

So are you saying theists dont know wether God exists or not ?

Here we go...
Have i ever said that God doesnt exist ? I think its extremely unlikely that he exists, precisely because there is no shred of evidence.
Argument from ignorance...also how can there evidence for something unverifiable? This is the number 1 atheistic tactic...


Also, common knowledge nor nature can explain God. It is extraordinairy to assert God exists.
It's extraordinary to claim God does or doesn't exist...if it's unverifiable then it means that there's no way to know if it's actually true or false...


So are you saying theists dont know wether God exists or not ?
No...some theists may know others may not know....but I personally know with 100% certainty...

probably because it clearly indicates that there is more to evidencing electrons than turning on light switches
:rolleyes:

It's a start.

So, when are you going to 'turn on' your god that we may start seeing some evidence there?

Anything? :shrug:

Snakelord
“
I guess the first step in such a direction is to provide the general principles that evidence operates under
”
You tell me.
I would have thought that a person making the claim "ther eis no evidence for god" would have nutted that one out ...

“
if you can locate credible sources for such things (scientists, philosophers or great thinkers) that advocate direct perception
”
Same to you with regards to gods - oh, other than self advocated philosophers and great thinkers - because any old idiot can do that.

I see

I guess its just a coincidence that well over 50% of all philosophers (the type one is likely to encounter in libraries, as opposed to chat forums) attest to the existence of something transcendental or spiritual

However:

"Dom Augustine Calmet, a well-respected French theologian and scholar, put together a carefully thought out treatise in 1746, which was at least ambiguous concerning the existence of vampires, if not admitting it explicitly. He amassed reports of vampire incidents and numerous readers, including both a critical Voltaire and supportive demonologists, interpreted the treatise as claiming that vampires exist. In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire wrote on the vampires"

The guy was a scholar, a theologian, well respected and quite philosophical.

That satisfies your requirements, so use vampires instead of electrons heh..
so he ambiguously mentioned vampires huh?
given that you pulled it from wiki, I guess an intelligent person would also weigh this up against what the rest of the article states - but coming from a guy who regards circumcision as essential to judaism, its understandable why you think you have something substantial ...

Of course it's even quite well documented amongst Indians/Hindus - for instance the vetala legends in the Baital Pachisi. Then there's the BrahmarākŞhasa and of course kali.
Anyway, job done. What now?
congratulations

now you just have to uncover the philosophical premises behind such incidents/narrations (which will require something more than wiki searching), since most of the things you mention have nothing to do with vampires

It's a start.

So, when are you going to 'turn on' your god that we may start seeing some evidence there?

Anything? :shrug:

god's on already
;)

Emnos
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
slow down buddy

you made the claim that I have no evidence for god

I asked how do you propose to determine whether something is evidenced, using something that is relatively easily evidenced, an electron, as an example
”
Correction: YOU claim God exists.
Correction : YOU claim I have no evidence
(http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1496645&postcount=98)

you even said it again a few posts down

Here we go...
Have i ever said that God doesnt exist ? I think its extremely unlikely that he exists, precisely because there is no shred of evidence.



Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU.
Therefore the first step is for you to establish how something is evidenced - otherwise its kind of like pushing elephant poop up a hill

Since you refuse or are unable to present proof i conclude there is no proof.
kind of difficult when you cannot even provide a framework for establishing how evidence is presented don't you think?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its not clear how the discussion can progress unless there is a clear idea how something is evidenced.
”
Well, thats your problem isnt it..
assuming that you don't have a problem with making incoherent statements, I guess so
:shrug:

Argument from ignorance...also how can there evidence for something unverifiable? This is the number 1 atheistic tactic...

What tactic !? I am NOT saying God doesnt exist. I am saying that it is extremely unlikely given the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever and the fact that God is unsupported by nature or common sense.
I am not trying to convert you or anything, i am not deploying any tactics. Im just telling you what i think about the matter.


It's extraordinary to claim God does or doesn't exist...if it's unverifiable then it means that there's no way to know if it's actually true or false...

Exactly. Its extraordinary to claim that God exists and its also extraordinairy to claim that God doesnt exist. We agree on this.



No...some theists may know others may not know....but I personally know with 100% certainty...

You cant KNOW, you just said it yourself.. :bugeye:

Emnos

Correction : YOU claim I have no evidence
(http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1496645&postcount=98)

you even said it again a few posts down


I was concluding that you had no evidence because you cant (or wont) give it. If you do have evidence show it to me.


Here we go...
Have i ever said that God doesnt exist ? I think its extremely unlikely that he exists, precisely because there is no shred of evidence.[/I]



Therefore the first step is for you to establish how something is evidenced - otherwise its kind of like pushing elephant poop up a hill

kind of difficult when you cannot even provide a framework for establishing how evidence is presented don't you think?

assuming that you don't have a problem with making incoherent statements, I guess so
:shrug:

No, you *** !
The burden of proof is on you, why should i need to establish how something is evidenced !??
You need to establish how you evidence something and then evidence it.
You are seriously *** up ! :mad:

Dont expect me back until you produce some evidence.

The burden of proof falls upon those who have something to prove.
Those who deny the existence of something don't have to prove anything, because you cannot prove a negative, and due to the fact that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

Thus, the burden fall on those who make positive claims.

I'm sure a Google search would give you some atheist turned theists. I know Lee Strobel, journalist, claims that he was atheist first, and that he was saddened when his wife converted...and when he started searching, he claims he has enough "evidence" to make a personal decision to believe.

I believe him, but his evidence is flawed....not saying it's not the truth though...

What tactic !? I am NOT saying God doesnt exist. I am saying that it is extremely unlikely given the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever and the fact that God is unsupported by nature or common sense.
I am not trying to convert you or anything, i am not deploying any tactics. Im just telling you what i think about the matter.
Hold on for a second...AHAHAHA

Let me get this straight, something is unverifiable so naturally there is no evidence, so that means it's unlikely to exist because you can't verify if it's exists or not? That's like someone saying in the 1700s since it was unverifiable if electromagnetism existed that meant it was unlikely that it did...ahahahahaha

Common sense? Argument from personal incredulity...

Hold on for a second...AHAHAHA

Let me get this straight, something is unverifiable so naturally there is no evidence, so that means it's unlikely to exist because you can't verify if it's exists or not? That's like someone saying in the 1700s since it was unverifiable if electromagnetism existed that meant it was unlikely that it did...ahahahahaha

Common sense? Argument from personal incredulity...

Wow, you forgot how to read:

Originally Posted by Enmos
What tactic !? I am NOT saying God doesnt exist. I am saying that it is extremely unlikely given the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever and the fact that God is unsupported by nature or common sense.

No evidence, not unverifiable.
If someone had looked for electromagnetism they'd have found evidence.

Emnos
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Emnos

Correction : YOU claim I have no evidence


you even said it again a few posts down

”
I was concluding that you had no evidence because you cant (or wont) give it. If you do have evidence show it to me.
no

I asked you do you propose to determine that something is evidenced (and I gave you the eg of how would you propose that there is evidence for an electron)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Here we go...
Have i ever said that God doesnt exist ? I think its extremely unlikely that he exists, precisely because there is no shred of evidence.[/i]



Therefore the first step is for you to establish how something is evidenced - otherwise its kind of like pushing elephant poop up a hill

kind of difficult when you cannot even provide a framework for establishing how evidence is presented don't you think?

assuming that you don't have a problem with making incoherent statements, I guess so

”
No, you *** !
The burden of proof is on you,

and until you can provide a framework on how something is or is not evidenced, how do you propose I present it to you?

why should i need to establish how something is evidenced !??
well, you did say that there is no evidence for god, so its assumed that you work out of a frame work that enables evidence of some sort (unless you have an absurd notion that there is no evidence for anything)


You need to establish how you evidence something and then evidence it.
You are seriously *** up !
and the first logical step would be to establish how something is or is not evidence

(maybe evidence is strong if the person making a claim can throw around a lot of bad language)

but anyway, back to intelligent discourselets get the ball rolling

Emnos is there evidence for electrons?

The burden of proof falls upon those who have something to prove.
Those who deny the existence of something don't have to prove anything, because you cannot prove a negative, and due to the fact that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

Thus, the burden fall on those who make positive claims.

Since Emnos made the claim that there is no evidence for god I guess its up to him to elaborate on how he arrived at this conclusion

What tactic !? I am NOT saying God doesnt exist. I am saying that it is extremely unlikely given the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever and the fact that God is unsupported by nature or common sense.
I am not trying to convert you or anything, i am not deploying any tactics. Im just telling you what i think about the matter.


Exactly. Its extraordinary to claim that God exists and its also extraordinairy to claim that God doesnt exist. We agree on this.



You cant KNOW, you just said it yourself.. :bugeye:

Wow, you forgot how to read:



No evidence, not unverifiable.
If someone had looked for electromagnetism they'd have found evidence.

ahahaha...I think you should learn to read, I addressed him saying it's unlikely that God exists.....therefore I used the electromagnetism comparison to show that you can't measure the likelihood of an unverifiable claim being true...

Also, if people were unable to measure if electromagnetism existed then it would remain unverifiable...just as with God being unverifiable...if you say that God is not unverifiable then tell me what experiment or measure can test if God actually exists or not...if you can't tell me then it means you agree that the existence of God is unverifiable...

Keep going: Enmos stated there's no evidence for god.
Different from unverifiable.
Electromagnetism is a strawman, and a poor one: if they'd thought to look they'd have found evidence.
Where's the evidence for god?
People have been looking for ages.

Keep going: Enmos stated there's no evidence for god.
Different from unverifiable.
Electromagnetism is a strawman, and a poor one: if they'd thought to look they'd have found evidence.
Where's the evidence for god?

People have been looking for ages.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

god's on already
;)

Where?

Where?
everywhere

everywhere

No, really, where? :shrug:

No, really, where? :shrug:

BG 9.4 By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

BG 9.5 And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

etc etc

Look, if I wanted to read scriptures, I could have done that myself.

The question was posed at YOU. Are you unable to answer?

Look, if I wanted to read scriptures, I could have done that myself.
:eek:
you?
pick up a scripture to answer some question you have about god?

..... I doubt it


The question was posed at YOU. Are you unable to answer?

I did that originally but for some reason you thought I was making it up or something

:eek:
you?
pick up a scripture to answer some question you have about god?

..... I doubt it




I did that originally but for some reason you thought I was making it up or something

Your problem is that you hold your scriptures as unquestionable truths that can serve as proof on your behalve. :bugeye:

Your problem is that you hold your scriptures as unquestionable truths that can serve as proof on your behalve. :bugeye:

Q asked where god is
I told him

If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to normative descriptions in scripture

Q asked where god is
I told him

If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to normative descriptions in scripture

No, you didnt tell him. You only refered him to some chewed-out passage from the bible, which only theists hold for true. How is this any proof for an atheist ? :crazy:

Have you found your evidence yet ? Keep trying...

Q asked where god is
I told him

No, you lied, you said he was everywhere. If he was, I would have found him.

If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to normative descriptions in scripture

Yet, another source devoid of answers.

Geeser made a good point (directed at LG) in another thread:
what your doing is a logical fallacy, called a generic fallacy you cant use the same source to verify itself, what extra-sources do you have to verify your beliefs.
I know the answer is none, so do go away and get an education you've been on these boards, for some time now unfortunately, but you've learnt nothing.

Q

Q asked where god is
I told him
”
No, you lied, you said he was everywhere. If he was, I would have found him.
electrons are also quite easy to come across - if you have the proper qualifications for perceiving them that is .....
;)

“
If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to normative descriptions in scripture
”
Yet, another source devoid of answers.
so in other words if god exists there is no qualification for perceiving him (despite the contrary being established in scripture)?

Emnos

Q asked where god is
I told him

If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to normative descriptions in scripture
”
No, you didnt tell him. You only refered him to some chewed-out passage from the bible, which only theists hold for true. How is this any proof for an atheist ?
once again
Q did not ask for proof


Have you found your evidence yet ? Keep trying...
Have you found out how knowledge can be ascertained by one bereft of qualification? Keep trying ....
:p

electrons are also quite easy to come across - if you have the proper qualifications for perceiving them that is .....

Any power socket will accommodate. You WILL perceive them.

Any power socket will accommodate. You WILL perceive them.
perceiving electrons?
as already mentioned, people were playing with electricity for at last a hundred years before anyone had anything to say about electrons

try again

Have you found out how knowledge can be ascertained by one bereft of qualification? Keep trying ....
:p

I dont have to, and im not planning to. You go believe your fantasy, see if i care... :shrug:
It almost like you need confirmation for your believe... why else would you be pushing the kind of questions you are..:rolleyes:

Q asked where god is
I told him

If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to normative descriptions in scripture
do you really understand english LG, is english your first language.
only you dont seem to understand what normative actually means.
shall I rewrite you statement, so you can understand how it errs.
"If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to assumptive descriptions in scripture."do you understand where you err now.
so you could not have possibilly helped Q, with that kind of statement could you.
you need to think first and write after, LG.

I dont have to, and im not planning to. You go believe your fantasy, see if i care... :shrug:
It almost like you need confirmation for your believe... why else would you be pushing the kind of questions you are..:rolleyes:
whatever, but if there are claims of something and also claims of how to perceive it, its not clear why you reject both the process without having come in contact with either (only in terms of religious knowledge of course)

do you really understand english LG, is english your first language.
only you dont seem to understand what normative actually means.
shall I rewrite you statement, so you can understand how it errs.
"If he had asked how does one perceive god, I would have directed him to assumptive descriptions in scripture."do you understand where you err now.
so you could not have possibilly helped Q, with that kind of statement could you.
you need to think first and write after, LG.
thats why we have dictionaries

nor·ma·tive / Ñ 'nO;mJtIv; NAmE Ñ 'nO;rm-/ adjective(formal) describing or setting standards or rules of behaviour:
a normative approach

:rolleyes: