To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Psalm 99 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Lord Our God Is Holy

7 In the pillar of the cloud he spoke to them;
they kept his testimonies
and the statute that he gave them.

8 O Lord our God, you answered them;
you were a forgiving God to them,
but an avenger of their wrongdoings.
9 Exalt the Lord our God,
and worship at his holy mountain;
for the Lord our God is holy!

No more sin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So do they still have free will.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea if they get a "free pass into heaven", maybe they just turn to dust?

The Muslims made the same mistake as the Jews did, they didn't realise that Jesus was actually the Son of God, and not some con artist or someone who faked their own death. But generally Muslims and Jews KNOW that our God is Holy and both groups share incredible Faith in God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At a guess, yes most definately.

 

"Turn to dust"???... woudnt Luke 23:33-35 apply to Muslims (or anybody) who have been taut that Jesus is just a man (not ther savior).???

 

Luke 23:33-35King James Version (KJV)
33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

In a sense, Jesus was a man on the Cross, and He died just like a man.

 

So they will freely choose to be perfect... but will ther be any temptations to sin (not be perfect).???

 

So a child born to a Muslim family in Anganistan is just as likely to make it to heaven as a child born to a Christan family in America.???

 

So, nobody's doing them any favors by sending missionaries their way.

 

Seattle,

How do you know you don't have evidence for God?
Why do you need evidence of something to offer a concept of that thing?

You know why you don't believe in God (unless it's dogmatic, which i'm inclined to go with), therefore you have a concept of God.

Spill it, and stop weaseling out

jan.

 

Yazata,

What do you mean by "credible and positive reasons''?

jan.

 

It seems that those who are ignorant about Jesus get a free pass to heaven... but after missionaries spread the word to 'em... then some of those people will likely wind up in hell just like some of the missionaries

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't have a concept of God because it can mean anything (and nothing).

I would say that most people don't have a "concept" of something that they don't believe exists unless that thing has been specifically defined.

You don't believe in unicorns because you have seen a description and drawing of a unicorn.

If I said do you believe in "wigglies" and what is your concept...that would be meaningless for you.

God has a different definition for most everyone you ask and there is no basis for it regardless of who you ask.

People generally break the arguments down so they don't seem as silly. You might argue for a God by saying that God is the most logical answer to what created the universe.

It's silly but it doesn't sound insane. Once you have "established" a God then you argue about his characteristics and what he wants you to do.

If someone says how do you know that God is opposed to homosexuality you just say..."that's not my God, you just have the wrong God, my God makes sense".

However, there is no evidence for any God and there is no evidence for what that God would want other than "I got a feeling".

So, I have no concept of something as slippery as most people's concept of God.

You can define "God" to be so unspecific as to have no meaning. That's usually the "trick" used. Define God loosely to make God seem like a reasonable concept and then after that hurdle is reached start with the specifics which are even more unreasonable.

Religion is like cutting a piece of wood with a hand saw and measuring it with a yard stick and writing the length down to 100 digits. It's pretending to know what you can't/don't know.

 

Dear Seattle, this is a long post, so forgive me, and I hope you get the information of the concept of God, because we cannot talk about God existing or not, if one of us does not have any information of the concept of God.

{QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3259351, member: 271333"]You don't need me if all you want is what is in the dictionary. You already know what is in the dictionary for the various definitions of the various gods.

You also want someone who "knows" what God is but only the religious "know" what God is. The non-believers can't "know" what the concept of God is when they don't think there is a God.

I have a "concept" of dinosaurs even though they don't currently exist because they did actually exist. That's the only reason I have a concept of dinosaurs.

I don't have a concept of God or of unicorns or of ghosts.

This thread has gone on long enough without accomplishing anything so I'll end here.{/QUOTE]


Dear Seattle:
You are in anxiety that I might pin the information of God you can produce from your vocabulary database, and say that you already commit yourself to the concept.

That is not my intention; we are at least from my part into a dialog that is not land mined with a lot f dishonest semantic tricks.

It is like you are a child afraid of any electric shock as to get killed by electrocution, because your mommy warned you about touching any wire at all; then in school in your class the science teacher is teaching you about the facts of electricity and how it helps mankind and also its dangers. And he wants to show you how and why electricity or an electric current can give you a painful shock and even kill you, by inviting each child to touch a wire that is not connected to any source of current; but you will not cooperate in the experiment, you just resist and resist and resist and resist in fear.

That is what I see in you, you fear to just repeat your information of the concept of God from your stock vocabulary, because you are besieged by the phobia that you might end up being fraudulently ensnared by me as having already admitted the concept of God to be any ground for admitting His existence.

Okay, then I will volunteer to you the information of the concept of God from the Finnish atheists in their Dictionary of Atheism [see, they are not afraid of the information they have on the concept of God]:

[quote} http://www.dlc.fi/~etkirja/dictionary.htm#mozTocId382589
Finnish Dictionary of Atheism
[The entry God is between the entries Google and Godless.]

God: A deity or a god, is a postulated supernatural entity, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by humans. They assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form.

Sometimes it is considered blasphemous to imagine the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans.

Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God”, and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife).

Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behaviour, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe.[/quote}

So, there you have it, the information from the Finnish Atheists’ Dictionary of Atheism, and that line, “designers and creators of the Earth or the universe,” it squares with my information on the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Okay, now you have the information of the concept of God.

Let us go back to nature, tell me what is the relation of nature to the universe?

 

This is just a stupid conversation at this point. That definition (Finnish) includes every possible concept of God. You pick yours out and ignore all the others.

This is a total waste of time. Why did you go though all that? You already said what you definition was 600 posts ago.

What you want to waste more space talking about "nature". This whole conversation is about a material world and a supernatural world. One exists and there is no evidence of anything else existing.

In 600 posts you have made any argument beyond continually reposting your initial statements.

I'll let someone else continue with this if anyone is left.

 

Dear Seattle, I fear you are not cautious with your language, that is not the way to go about in a dialog, for you use the word stupid to describe our dialog:

Now that you have read information on concepts of God from the Finnish atheists' Dictionary of Atheism, just choose one concept on which you and I will dialog on the existence of God.

But first, you forget to tell me what for you is the relation of nature to the universe.

You are not aware that all the time I am trying to engage in a systematic dialog with you, but first getting all required premises concurred on, starting with definitions of terms, and I thank you that you have given your concept of nature.

Now, just tell me what is the relation of nature to the universe?

And please abstain from using words like stupid to describe our conversation here.

You can say that you are not getting anywhere in our dialog, and I will tell you that I am still getting our premises concurred on, that is the systematically correct and therefore productive manner of resolving a controversy between or among parties in an issue.


Okay, you are now informed on the information of concepts of God, please choose one concept you want to dialog with me about on the existence of God.

And every important for our dialog, tell me what is the relation of nature to the universe?

 

Yes, atheists have been offering their viewpoints long time ago, but the fact remains the same, no atheist would ever exist without the known and solid tenets of theisms (whatever there principles are). Theists are congregants whereas atheists are leading the opposite. Of course before the Biblical religions exist, there were [poly]theists who were already practicing their religions. Nonetheless, in those pre-Biblical religions during Noah's time, there were already atheists [people who were envious of the congregation of theists.]

 

Why are atheists "envious of the congregation of theists"? Who told you that?

 

Appears fictitious? Because of doubt, that's why cosmologists offer tremendous errors in offering universal theories because they have no solid facts only slight. Now, if you ask about the existence of the Biblical God Creator, you cannot grasp him, He can't go down to humanity's level; fallen angels perhaps. During the Gospel times, the Creator's angels visited the fleshly birth of the Christ, but never now. So, if you are asking fleshly evidence of spirituality, no, none at all!

I have no obligation to provide and I am not claiming. I just follow and believe the Biblical truths. For me, it's sensible to believe the Creation Story of the Bible than any evil angelic stories from the surrounding peoples of the Mosaic congregation.

As I said, spirits are not evidenced by material things because scientists would just merely conclude the situation as hallucination or illusion. That's why Dawkins wrote his delusive book.

Perhaps you need more readings https://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007...-in-the-primitive-book-of-real-brainy-people/

 

Who told me? My mind, I am a human being and I can sense. All the writings of the atheists led me to conclude that. If there were not envious, how come they "are" atheists? Agnostics grew in number because gnostic practice Gnosticism. Envy is the culprit.