ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

[Aussie Thinker]

I refer to Zakath’s proof from confusion.

If God existed he would make sure people knew his message.

You Christians crack me up.. are you that intent on completely proving his point.

NONE of you have a clue.. you bicker and fight more amongst yourselves about what you believe than you do with atheists..

Hilston dares to say we atheists are “fooling” ourselves when we at least all concur… Your God has so SUCCESSFULLY showed you all the way..lol…bwahahaha !

 

[coffeeman]

...leaping over the barista, he dives for the espresso machine

...leaping over the barista, he dives for the espresso machine

Now now Aussie settle down boy.....have a nice mocha with a couple exra shots...that's betta....now you're not so down unda

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Coffee.. I actually find you a reasonable type.. but I do find it immensly amusing that so mnay Christians disagree so fundamentaly.

Can you see the atheist point that a God with any sort of a sensible plan for us would have (at the very least) made his message clear ?

 

[attention]

Originally posted by 1Way
The truth is:

• There are no other gods
• yet God refers to other gods (even by their name) and to idolaters

The truth is:

• Everyone knows about God
• yet God refers to atheists and atheistic belief

Both idol worship and atheism are false beliefs, the reality of these beliefs DO NOT EXIST, but the beliefs DO EXIST, and of course so do those who believe them.

If I may correct this.

The statement "Everyone knows about God" isn't correct.

I for example do not know (not in the sense it is meant) about God. Since I happen to know that not God, but matter exists.
Neither do I disbelief God, I can just state that matter exists, and that matter can not not exist.

The difference is that God is supposedly a consciouss and personal entity itself, while matter is not in any way subjective (also: no consciouss) but objective.

So, I don't think you correctly represent the position of materialists (which are also atheists or regarded as such).

Further I think that all people who claim to belief in God or who claim there is a God, do not realy tell the full truth.

The truth is that they can not claim anything more then that matter exists (a material world, which is projected in their brain through their sensory perceptions), and that they discover that matter is all there is and that matter can not not exist

That is: at most one can state that there is an omnipotent, infinite eternal Being, which however, although it is the fundamental cause for everything that exists, is existing in an Objective way, and not in a Subjective way. Hence: matter is not consciouss, and can therefore not be omniscient, have will, intend or purpose.

Any claims ABOVE that, mean that people are telling something they have never witnessed, experienced, and thus have no knowledge about, namely that matter itself would be something PERSONAL, CONSCIOUSS, OMNISCIENT having WILL, INTEND and PURPOSE.

This is not about undefining those concepts we use for our (human) reality, but undefine them in the context of matter itself, since none of those properties ever have been tested for in matter outside of consciousness itself.

So the Truth is: NOBODY HAS SEEN, WITNESSED OR MET ANY PERSONAL GOD.

All that one can state is that one has Seen, Experienced or Discovered a Fundamental Truth about reality itself, which is in that matter - that what the world in primary and essential instance is, shapes and forms - exists in an infinite and eternal way, and was neither created or destroyed.

This truth resided both in our Inside knowledge about reality (in our consciousness itself) and in our Outside knowledge, and it is because these two different viewpoints on reality fully agree that we need to consider THAT to be the FULL TRUTH.

This Full Truth necessarily not ONLY replaces the mentioned truth about the belief in God, but shows a fundamental different concept of what this belief in God is about.

A belief in God, does not portray a positive statement about reality (the positive fact that reality itself exists in an objective and uncreateble and undestroyable way, and allows for us subjective beings to inhabit this reality and to know it) but a negative one.

It is the negative belief that the Objective material reality could not exist on itself and for itself and would be it's own cause, and needs a consciouss being (Omnipotent, Omniscient, Eternal, Infinite creator) to account for it's existence.

However:
The way in which the world exists objectively (in material form), does not need any conscious being to exist, for it's existence.

For the way in which the world exists subjectively (in mindly form), consciouness (OUR CONSCIOUSNESS) is of course necessary to state that fact and to witness the Objective material reality, but the causes for this consciouss and subjective awareness ITSELF are entirely based on the existence of matter in objective form.

 

[taoist]

Cross purposes. Different paradigms.

No, Aussiecogita, I've heard a fairly telling argument that a clear presentation of the proof of god would negate the need for faith. Though, honestly, I had to laugh at the premise put forward by the good pastor Bob that if the truth were pushed up in front of atheists it would just give them a better reason to disbelieve. Yes, there are marauding crowds outside my home shouting their disbelief in gravity.

1wayifurwearingblinders, neither science nor atheism are "beliefs." This is the christian paradigm, along with absolute truth, faith despite rational reasons to doubt, and the idea of a personal savior. They're just plain not interchangeable. Atheism is disbelief. As in waiting for evidence. And no, not faith, "the evidence of things unseen," but empirical, reproducible evidence. Science proceeds on a scheme of highest likelihood and peer review. Hence the use of famous tools such as the razor of Sir Occam of Orange. Find the simplest explanation that accounts for all observed facts.

But when all is said and done, what you're left with is a natural view of the supernatural. Science lays no claim on this. Similarly, there can be no justification in using a religious text as a science book.

In peace, and harmony.

 

[Hilston]

Anti-theists, not atheists ...

Anti-theists, not atheists ...

1Way writes:

Hilston

Please call me Jim.

Jim previously wrote:False gods don't really exist, neither do true atheists. And people delude themselves into believing in false gods, just as anti-theists delude themselves into believing they are actually atheists. Both are delusions that we ought not to affirm in our debates with them.

1Way writes:

Your mixing up the object and subjects. Atheists and idolaters exist, it’s the object of their faith that is false. The correspondence goes as follows.

What is the object of the atheist's faith? Identify that and you will understand my complaint against unbiblical argumentation.
1Way writes:

POSITIONS ON THEISM
Person of faith -> object of their faith
They are called -> “they believe ... ”
Atheist -> no god(s) exist

Your premise is false. The object of the atheist's faith is not "no gods exist."

1Way writes:

The truth is: There are no other gods, yet God refers to other gods (even by their name) and to idolaters

Of course, no one has said otherwise. But His reference to them does not affirm their existence. Rather, His reference to them is for the purpose of judging or deriding those who espouse these fallacies. I, too, refer to false gods, not because they exist, but in order to refute the very notion of them, and to judge those who espouse these fallacies. I also use the term "atheist" to refer to those who claim, albeit falsely, that they do not believe in God. It doesn't mean I affirm their claim, but rather I use the term to judge and expose their fallacious views.

1Way writes:

The truth is: Everyone knows about God, yet God refers to atheists and atheistic belief

The difference between idolators and atheists is that the former has a faith system and object of faith that they themselves affirm. The atheist denies this is true about them also, which is a lie. There is no such thing as a true atheist. Romans 10 points this out clearly. There is no one who can excuse themselves for not having a preacher tell them what Ps. 19:1,2 so emphatically and ineluctably declares.

1way writes:

Both idol worship and atheism are false beliefs, the reality of these beliefs DO NOT EXIST, but the beliefs DO EXIST, and of course so do those who believe them.

No, the atheist claims to not have belief. He claims to not have faith. That is impossible, and to affirm the atheist's claim of not having faith is basically dishonest.

1way writes:

And btw, that you even have a position of understanding on atheists denies your claim that atheists do not exist. You claim your position is based on God’s word, but at the same time you claim that atheists actually do not even exist, so your position on atheists, which has taken up pages and pages to describe and promote and defend, is according to your claim, all about something that does not even exist in the first place.(!)

What logical problem do you have with this? If I spend pages showing that evolution is false, does that affirm that it is actually true? Showing that the anti-theistic claim of having no faith is fallacious does not, by any stretch of the imagination, affirm the existence of true atheists.

1way writes:

That is the senselessness of the anti-logic you are presenting.

Oh no. Not another charge of faulty logic without proof. Here we go again. 1Way, do us all a favor and either (a) show where my logic is fallacious, or (b) refrain from making this charge if you cannot back it up.

1Way writes:

... If something really and truly does not exist, then you can say nothing about it. Nothing comes from nothing, not something comes from nothing.

I agree with you. Atheists do not exist. Anti-theists do. Those are the people I am referring to. Those who do not have faith are non-existent. So-called atheists have faith. Those are the people I am referring to. So in actuality, all of your fussing about atheists as you describe them (having as their object of faith "no gods") is about something that doesn't exist.

1way writes:

I believe that you are adding your own personal rules of Christian conduct that are not taught in the scriptures.

Then refute the scriptures I've quoted.

1way writes:

You may think they are there, but something is keeping you from objectively seeing the rest of the bible that grossly contradicts your view.

Show me.

1way writes:

However, I give you an A for Attention getting, creating a controversy with a popular figure is a pretty effective way to direct Attention to yourself.

"Aw, are you jealous, 1way? Are you upset that I'm getting all the attention and you're not. Waaaaaah." It would sound silly if I really said all that, wouldn't it? But I don't need to resort to such distractions because my argument stands firm without the need for ad hominem fallacies. Whenever I read these types of comments it's usually a sign of a weak argument.

1way writes:

For you to say that atheists don’t exist or that it is wrong to refer to an atheist as an atheist is to directly contradict the bible, ...

Don't just assert, 1Way. Prove it. By the way, I didn't say it is wrong to refer to an atheist as an atheist. I do it myself. What is wrong is allowing the atheist to make his false claims without challenge. That is what the evidentialist does when he grants neutrality to the so-called atheist in the debate.

1Way writes:

... it is practically saying that God was wrong for doing so, and your knowledge about a thing that does not even exist all make your position out to be as bad as it appears.

1way, I'm not claiming any knowledge about something that doesn't exist. YOU ARE. I am talking about real people who call themselves atheists, but are actually anti-theists who know God exists.

1Way writes:

God by His word refers to idolaters and atheists alike and you are wrong for claiming that it is wrong to do so.

You are wrong for saying that I claim it is wrong to do so. I do it myself. You need to get your story straight. Can you summarize what my objections to evidentialism are? That would help me to understand why you're not getting this.

 

[coffeeman]

Aussie

Sure I can see the atheist point and it makes perfect sense if I looked only at people and not at the whole picture....if i looked at me for an example I would toss my arms up and say, "forget it, how could you represent a perfect creator? Why, you can't even create a decent savings account!
Then on the other hand, if I do look at someone like me and slap that chap on a gurney and strap him down and really examine him. (No fair tickling!) I would see a miracle of uniqueness i.e. unique fingerprints, unique voice print, DNA of which no other coffee creature holds...and a mind filled with strange things like: imagination,creativity,the ability to take a thought and build a likeness of it out of plywood and beer cans, a need to love and be loved even if it is directed to a mangie mut of a dog or received from a memory of another unique person past or present.
Yeah, mate, the funny thing is, the miracle of my being able to see the atheist point without actually being one is, in itself another small piece of evidence that I was created mysteriosly and wondrously. Pretty cool eh? We're talking about me...someone who drives a tow truck but has a set of eyes that can see stars that the richest man in Bagdad...well California...hmm well the world cannot travel to...and I can hear music...oh, and appreciate most of it and can even whistle a happy tune I like If I feel chipper.
Well, If I just took myself at face value (ugh) I would say, hmmmm what a piece of angry, debating debauchery of human flesh...but I would miss the miracles hiding inside of that debauched tow truck driver now wouldn't I?

Same idea when we look at christians ... someone has said that we christians are like fertilizer...scatter us around and we help things grow...but heap us up in a pile and we just stink! So, having a place like this looks like and maybe smells at times like we just stink but it is also a place where Christians sharpen themselves like two swords upon each other...most Christians accept each other's differences.
And remember, just because someone uses the name Christian or the term RELIGIOUS doesn't make them one...

The message is clear. The message is a person and that person is Jesus Christ. Look at His' life and what he did for you and I and you will see how easy and clear it is..

Whew! where did that come from? anyway....I tried to answer your question...hope I didn't stray too far off on a dingo trail.

take care

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

I know I shouldn’t get too excited about you calling me a liar again… but for some reason it is pretty damn annoying.

For someone as clever as you to DARE call me a liar because of something written by religious cultists 2,000 years ago is pretty annoying.

The simple fact is it is YOU who are lying.. And I at least have evidence for that claim…

Eyewitness testimony (or lack off) I KNOW I have never seen heard touched tasted or seen evidence of a God. I know you are the same

 

[attention]

Re: Anti-theists, not atheists ...

Re: Anti-theists, not atheists ...

Originally posted by Hilston
1way writes:No, the atheist claims to not have belief. He claims to not have faith. That is impossible, and to affirm the atheist's claim of not having faith is basically dishonest.

WRONG again. Where does it say or state that to believe in something or to have faith is (by genetic differences?) only possible for theists and not for atheists.

Let us face the situation that no human being has absolute knowledge. That must mean therefore that to some extend everyone must believe, assume or have faith in SOMETHING.

I for instance have faith in that Matter exists in an Objective way, is infinte and eternal and can not not exist, and that everything that exists, is based on some specific form or forms of matter in interaction.

The only difference is, that an atheist does not choose for that object of faith, belief or assumption the existence of a real PERSONAL God.

Looks like you guys claim that TO BELIEVE (we all do) EQUALS belief in God? Any BELIEF needs an attibute or object of belief, so for semantic reasons the assumption is FALSE.

And on the other hand I have complete faith and trust in the fact that the subjectively assumed truth of theists, which state about themselves that they have a belief in God, is actually WRONG, and that in reality, they have the same faith as I have, namely that Matter exists in an Infinite and Eternal way, and forms the primal cause for everything that exists.

They may CALL it different, they may ATTRIBUTE it with any propertyb or attribute they want and they may project any of their deepest wishes and desires into it, but still I have ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE that what they belief in have faith in or trust in IN REALITY is not God, but matter.

 

[1Way]

Jim – I have two questions that I would like to require you to respond fully to prior to continuing this discussion. They are appropriately highlighted. Please realize that my time is way to short to continue to engage this topic with the devotion I’ve shown of late. But please respond and be as helpful as possible, so that we might wrap up and find something productive from this endeavor.

You said

Your premise is false. The object of the atheist's faith is not "no gods exist."

Your claim is false, your statement is not true, my “premise” is not much more than an observation of the obvious and is accurate.

Jim says

What is the object of the atheist's faith? Identify that and you will understand my complaint against unbiblical argumentation.

That is about one vague question. (FYI you are often detailed to the ultra microscopic level if you are trying to debunk others, but if you are defending yourself, you get laid back and make wide-open statements.) That depends upon what angle you are contextually concerned with. If it’s about truth, then the object of their faith is a false faith, if it’s the nature of their claim, then the object of their claim is to deny that any supernatural God exists, if it’s concerning their sinful unrighteousness, then it’s their rebellion against the living God of the Bible, if the angle is about why they want a world without a God, then their object is to relieve themselves from their inextricable guilt. But please explain forthwith what you have on your mind on this issue. I do not have much time here, this is not a game, it’s not a dress rehearsal, say what it is that you have to say!

Jim said

The difference between idolators and atheists is that the former has a faith system and object of faith that they themselves affirm. The atheist denies this is true about them also, which is a lie. There is no such thing as a true atheist.

Jim, please give chapter and verse or even just a general bible implied teaching, where claiming to have a system of faith makes some sort of a moral difference between them, and those who have a system of faith but do not claim to have one. If both idolaters and atheists are lying to themselves about the truth of the God of the Bible, then who cares what form the lies come in? They are each deluded and fools for not believing in the true God. And again, you say that there is no such thing as a true atheist, but your reasoning does not support your claim, because God also teaches that the reality of idolaters faith does not exist, but God’s word says that idolaters and atheists both exist.

Jim, you sadly said.

No, the atheist claims to not have belief. He claims to not have faith. That is impossible, and to affirm the atheist's claim of not having faith is basically dishonest.

You know your opponent is on shaky grounds when he pulls something like this. Jim, a belief is a belief is a belief. If you say that atheists are non-believers, then we would not even know what they believe, or more particularly, what they do not believe. By definition, an atheist is that which “believes” that the answer to the question, is there a god, is no. And it doesn’t matter if they are mistaken about that belief, it’s still a belief, just as the bible says, the fool says in his heart, there is no God.

QUESTION 1

Is the following truth claim a statement of atheistic faith/belief?

There is no God.

Yes or No?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jim said

What logical problem do you have with this? If I spend pages showing that evolution is false, does that affirm that it is actually true? Showing that the anti-theistic claim of having no faith is fallacious does not, by any stretch of the imagination, affirm the existence of true atheists.

that was your response after quoting me saying

And btw, that you even have a position of understanding on atheists denies your claim that atheists do not exist. You claim your position is based on God’s word, but at the same time you claim that atheists actually do not even exist, so your position on atheists, which has taken up pages and pages to describe and promote and defend, is according to your claim, all about something that does not even exist in the first place.(!)

I can’t believe you Jim, your response doesn’t even sound like it relates to my charge against you with the exception that you used the words God and atheist in your response. Your position is that atheists do not exist, you have judged against us Christians for even debating an atheist on the grounds that it is wrong for us to debate with an atheist because atheists do not exist. You see a tacit affirmation that they actually believe there is no God, and you disagree with that allowance, even though God gives it in the bible. But then you respond to that by your mish mash, I don’t even want to read it again, it gave me a headache just trying to figure out how you could get so twisted and off track from my point.

Jim says

I agree with you. Atheists do not exist. Anti-theists do.

When I see you in heaven, I will get to make you ware a large sign and I will paint your slogan on the top portion

Atheists do not exist, Anti-theists do.

But then, I will also add the following for the enlightened and curious onlookers.

:Help: Please poor water into this my cup and see how much water it holds. : )

Yep, you’ll be saying things like, do you server towels with your showers, and, I hate to be a wet blanket but, and, is it raining now, :rain: and, oh, a little water never hurt anyone. Etc. etc. etc. :crackup:

Jim says

Then refute the scriptures I've quoted.

I agreed with every scripture you’ve offered, you’ve not challenged by understanding of God’s word yet, but you have not even responded to God overtly addressing atheists and idolaters as such, which is in direct denial of your view.

Jim quoted me saying

God by His word refers to idolaters and atheists alike and you are wrong for claiming that it is wrong to do so.

and then said

You are wrong for saying that I claim it is wrong to do so. I do it myself. You need to get your story straight. Can you summarize what my objections to evidentialism are? That would help me to understand why you're not getting this.

You have done this many times, and most importantly in your opening presentation.

By pretending that Zakath is truly an atheist (really there is no such thing), by pretending that God has not already sufficiently revealed Himself to Zakath, by pretending that Zakath has not seen enough evidence to ascertain God's existence, and by pretending that Zakath can actually present a defense of his godless beliefs, Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly, thus becoming like him (Prov 26:4,5).

When Bob simply agreed to debate an “atheist”, you charge Bob with doing wrong for granting by simple reference that he is an atheist, since you believe that atheists do not exist even though God’s word also addresses the existence of atheists.

You have given me this same charge probably on several occasions and I would bet lunch that you have given this same charge perhaps dozens of times in this thread. Your position is that atheists do not exist because by your understanding it is impossible to be an atheist because God removed that option from mankind by His various forms of self-revelation, so for anyone to grant that a person is an atheist, is to deny your fundamental precept that stipulates that they do not exist. Now, here’s a test to see if I am right or not about my understanding of your view on this issue, answer the following.

Question 2

Do you believe that atheists really exist?

Yes or no?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

1WAY,

Asks..

QUESTION 1

Is the following truth claim a statement of faith/belief?

There is no God.

Yes or No?

To understand how an atheist thinks.. ask these questions of yourself..

Do you have faith there is no Tooth Fairy ?

Would you consider it ridiculous if someone said you have faith that there is no Tooth Fairy.

What you fail to see is you God is a ridiculous concept to us so it is ridiculous for us to consider it a “faith” of non belief.

It is EXACTLY the same non-belief you have in tooth fairies.. so don’t try and glorify it !
Why don’t theists get that ?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim writes,

By pretending that Zakath is truly an atheist (really there is no such thing), by pretending that God has not already sufficiently revealed Himself to Zakath, by pretending that Zakath has not seen enough evidence to ascertain God's existence, and by pretending that Zakath can actually present a defense of his godless beliefs, Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly, thus becoming like him (Prov 26:4,5).

Jim when you pretend you are a theist (when really there is no such thing) you are declaring falsely that God has revealed himself to you sufficiently. By pretending you have seen enough (let alone any) evidence that God exists and pretending that you can actually provide a defence of you God fantasies means you are a fool showing your folly.

 

[1Way]

Aussie Thinker – You quoted me and then did not address what I said. I am asking Jim if he understands that the truth claim, there is no God, is a statement of belief/faith (for the atheist). I guess you just quoted me to use that as a springboard to talk about something else. Are you afraid to be more honest and forthright?

Thanks for inadvertently helping me see the need to clarify my question #1, Jim probably would have had a difficult time answering without my late addition, “atheistic” belief, since he has problems with first “understanding” and then second “being consistent with” the wider context.

However, you are really doing yourself a disservice. (I’d include all atheists, but that would probably not be accurate, as I doubt that most atheists are as contradictory as you are.) The very heart of what it means to be an atheist is to answer the question “is there a god”, with the answer, no. So for that issue to be relegated to the most unimportant and ridiculous of issues, on the order of “does the tooth fairy exist” is to bring your entire world view down there with it, since your entire world view rests on that exact belief.

Besides your trashing the importance of the heart of your own world view, the question of the existence of ANY thing is not an issue of emotion and glorification and whether or not one thinks the issue is fairy tale ridiculous or not, the existence of a thing is just about as unemotional of an issue as one might imagine. However, if you atheists are wrong, and a righteous and just God does exist, judgment day will be a very emotionally traumatic day for your lot (to say the least). :bang:

Thanks for reminding us that atheists are not primarily logical and reasonable and honest nor consistent, they tend to be: subjective, emotional, superficial, inconsistent and fundamentally afraid of the truth. Again, you quoted me (for some unknown and unexpressed reason) and then pretended like we should just talk about something else, that’s quite a statement. Either that, or your mind must have been caught up into an infinite loop :radar: and needs a reboot or something.

 

[1Way]

Night all, I will not be back this weekend, and I may not be back for some time, except for perhaps a quicky now and then. The road calls again. :sigh: :wave:

 

[Aussie Thinker]

1way,

Aussie Thinker – You quoted me and then did not address what I said. I am asking Jim if he understands that the truth claim, there is no God, is a statement of belief/faith (for the atheist). I guess you just quoted me to use that as a springboard to talk about something else. Are you afraid to be more honest and forthright?

I did address it. You just failed to get the point.

By rights NO-ONE can claim that God does not exist.. but then no one can claim that tooth fairies do not exist. The only reason we label ourselves atheists rather than agnostics is to rule ourselves out of your fantasy world.

Thanks for inadvertently helping me see the need to clarify my question #1, Jim probably would have had a difficult time answering without my late addition, “atheistic” belief, since he has problems with first “understanding” and then second “being consistent with” the wider context.

If I helped.. you are welcome.

However, you are really doing yourself a disservice. (I’d include all atheists, but that would probably not be accurate, as I doubt that most atheists are as contradictory as you are.) The very heart of what it means to be an atheist is to answer the question “is there a god”, with the answer, no. So for that issue to be relegated to the most unimportant and ridiculous of issues, on the order of “does the tooth fairy exist” is to bring your entire world view down there with it, since your entire world view rests on that exact belief.

No this is where you are absolutely wrong !

God is not important in our worldview. What is important is that so many people have a fantasy about there being a God. It affects lives in many ways.. countries are still run by religious laws. Many people still try to stifle science etc due to their religious beliefs. It is important to us that the world wide fantasy of God belief is kept in check and does not revert to “inquisition” type scenarios.

We clearly want to define ourselves as not succumbing to this fantasy so we label ourselves atheists.. we immerse ourselves in the debate to try and ensure that a world wide fantasy does not have significant impact on our lives

We would call ourselves “atoothfariests” if we had world leaders praying to the Tooth Fairy !

Besides your trashing the importance of the heart of your own world view, the question of the existence of ANY thing is not an issue of emotion and glorification and whether or not one thinks the issue is fairy tale ridiculous or not, the existence of a thing is just about as unemotional of an issue as one might imagine. However, if you atheists are wrong, and a righteous and just God does exist, judgment day will be a very emotionally traumatic day for your lot (to say the least).

Darn.. you were doing Ok until you invoke the big stick punishment approach.. that is a very childish thing to do to atheist and as it is your first time I have noticed you use it I won’t get into it too much.. suffice to say sadly when you find out I am right you will be to dead to know anything about it !

Thanks for reminding us that atheists are not primarily logical

As opposed to believing that a supernatural something always existed and made everything (which seems to operate completely naturally).. oooh yeah…logic !

and reasonable

As opposed to believing you have an answer for everything (God).

and honest

As opposed to never having seen touched heard or had ANY evidence for your God yet still professing he exists !

nor consistent

As opposed to believing in a loving God who exterminates the entire population of the Earth, tells his chosen people to butcher others and condemns those who have never heard of him to fiery hell for eternity !

they tend to be: subjective, emotional, superficial, inconsistent and fundamentally afraid of the truth.

I can only stand mouth agape at what is ironically a description of “almost” every theist I know !

Again, you quoted me (for some unknown and unexpressed reason) and then pretended like we should just talk about something else, that’s quite a statement. Either that, or your mind must have been caught up into an infinite loop and needs a reboot or something.

I think you better either re-read that or re write it as the confusing message it seems to give supports its own assertion about itself that it was trying to make about me ?

 

[attention]

There is no point in discussing if atheism does not exist or that the in-existence of God is not a truth claim, since there is nothing more real then that.

The only point worth discussing is if a thought systems that comes up with entities that make no appearance in reality have a truthfull relationship with reality.

Even the claim that the supporters of such a thought system claim that they nevertheless belief in one, can be show to be claim which is not based on the truth. And even the claim that they belief that they belief there is a God, is not a truth claim, neither as their claim that they belief that they belief that they belief there is one, etc.. etc.

 

[Hilston]

I know, I know ...

I know, I know ...

Hi Aussie,

You write:

I know I shouldn’t get too excited about you calling me a liar again… but for some reason it is pretty damn annoying.

I understand, but please know that the main reason this is coming up is not as a strategy for debating atheists (I don't usually bring up this point with atheists until it is absolutely necessary), but rather as a point of discussion between those who regard the Bible as truth. We are discussing whether or not the Bible allows for the existence of a person who is truly unaware of God's existence. I say it does not; others say it does. It comes down to the interpretation of scripture. Typically, an atheist might not be privvy to such a discussion, but in this case, since it is in a public forum, you have the privilege of seeing what is normally "behind the scenes." I can't help that. I can't do anything about what the Bible says either.

Aussie writes:

For someone as clever as you to DARE call me a liar because of something written by religious cultists 2,000 years ago is pretty annoying.

Believe me, I understand. I used to be one, remember?

Aussie writes:

The simple fact is it is YOU who are lying.. And I at least have evidence for that claim … Eyewitness testimony (or lack off) I KNOW I have never seen heard touched tasted or seen evidence of a God. I know you are the same.

And I say (because it's biblical) that you're not qualified to make the assessment. I'm not being deliberately annoying -- I like you too much to do that to you, Steve -- but it's not really me you need to be annoyed at. Your complaint is with God and His Book. I realize you may retort with some disparaging comment about the Bible and the God you claim has not revealed Himself to you, but I will again respond that the Bible calls you self-deluded, that your reasoning has been denigrated and that your thinking faculties taken captive by your deliberate and willful false beliefs.You wrote:

Jim when you pretend you are a theist (when really there is no such thing) you are declaring falsely that God has revealed himself to you sufficiently. By pretending you have seen enough (let alone any) evidence that God exists and pretending that you can actually provide a defence of your God fantasies means you are a fool showing your folly.

Good job turning that around. But the fact that you can even make a sentence, and that it can be communicated rationally to other minds is proof that the very God you revile exists and holds you accountable for everything you say against Him.

Truly, Steve, you should not be surprised at all at my beliefs if you understand that take the Bible to be inerrant, infallible and inspired by your Creator.l

Jim

Jim

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

I understand, but please know that the main reason this is coming up is not as a strategy for debating atheists (I don't usually bring up this point with atheists until it is absolutely necessary), but rather as a point of discussion between those who regard the Bible as truth. We are discussing whether or not the Bible allows for the existence of a person who is truly unaware of God's existence. I say it does not; others say it does. It comes down to the interpretation of scripture. Typically, an atheist might not be privvy to such a discussion, but in this case, since it is in a public forum, you have the privilege of seeing what is normally "behind the scenes." I can't help that. I can't do anything about what the Bible says either.

Suffice to say it is a shock to me that I am considered a liar.. when I pride myself on my honesty (even sometimes to my own detriment).

Believe me, I understand. I used to be one, remember?

And before you saw the light were you “lying” about your belief ? This is an important question because at worst I should be to you is “mistaken”… Lying is a deliberate thing. I can’t honestly think YOU think that I am stupid enough to deliberately deny God if I knew he existed .. what would be the point ?

And I say (because it's biblical) that you're not qualified to make the assessment. I'm not being deliberately annoying -- I like you too much to do that to you, Steve -- but it's not really me you need to be annoyed at. Your complaint is with God and His Book. I realize you may retort with some disparaging comment about the Bible and the God you claim has not revealed Himself to you, but I will again respond that the Bible calls you self-deluded, that your reasoning has been denigrated and that your thinking faculties taken captive by your deliberate and willful false beliefs.You wrote:

That is the same as me saying that the “Book of Steve” says that theist are deliberately lying, then using that as evidence for your lying !

I would like you to explain why I should want to or need to deny God if I knew he existed. Surely with potential heaven as a reward and hell as a punishment for accepting what I know as the truth I would be demented to do otherwise ?

Good job turning that around. But the fact that you can even make a sentence, and that it can be communicated rationally to other minds is proof that the very God you revile exists and holds you accountable for everything you say against Him.

Hehe.. an admission that you are far more eloquent than I.. but also to illustrate how easy it is to make very similar claims with the same lack of support about either side.

Truly, Steve, you should not be surprised at all at my beliefs if you understand that take the Bible to be inerrant, infallible and inspired by your Creator.l

Not surprised ..but ..well disappointed. If the run of the mill fundamentalist bonehead called me a liar based on mythology I would not give a hoot.. for some reason .. (perhaps that fact that you are civil and clever) .. you calling me a liar is a bit more disappointing. I think you should know better !

Steve

 

[coffeeman]

Methodology = STYLE
(this won’t make you smile)
thought you may like a little RAP..you know with your shades and all…
_______________________________________________
quote
You further prove that you don't know what you're talking about, Coffeeman. Your quotes from Bob's post have nothing to do with my complaint. It is his methodology, his line of reasoning in the debate and the neutral footing that he grants his opponent that are unbiblical.
___________________________________________________
quote
It's not his debate style. You need to understand the issues, and I'm not convinced you've got a clue. The fact that you think this is a question of "debate style" shows that you don't understand the issues yet.
_____________________________________________________
quote
Again, it's not the debate "style" I'm talking about.
__________________________________________________
Want to have some fun Jim? Look up METHOD or METHODOLOGY on your thesaurus. What’s that? Oh yeah, STYLE comes up …I know, you just can’t get a good thesaurus now days that will give you what you want.

Convinced I’ve got a clue yet Jim?

_____________________________________________________
quote from you
What is interesting is that it would appear that you are too proud to admit your error. Will you admit that you misrepresented the case by claiming that I did not offer even a hint of reference to scripture? Your integrity is on the line here, Coffeeman. And this is only your second post (!).

Quote from me
Why is it when you addressed Flipper's statements you never mentioned one verse of scripture? Not one part of a verse or even a hint of one?
____________________________________________________
I’d love to admit my error Jim but, you keep butchering my quotes. If you READ carefully (it’s okay to use your HOOKED ON PHONICS primer if you like) you’ll see I said, “ you never mentioned one verse of scripture…not one verse or even a hint of one.”

Did you not READ my statement? …especially the part about verse or even a hint of one. Hint of a verse Jim….hint of a verse! Not hint of an allusion to a Biblical principle or a hint of a word that is found in the Bible…if I meant that than my integrity as having half a brain is shot…well…more shot than usual.
Now, since, according to you, my integrity is at state, I’m willing to look at my statement. MY STATEMENT Jim not yours alluding to mine…But, let’s let 16 versions of the Bible help us look at this issue…
__________________________________________________
quote
Jim wrote: To Flipper I wrote: "It's been that way since the beginning. The triune Godhead created the universe and the universal invariant laws of logic, science and math all reflect the rationality of God and the uniformity of the universe reflects His governing upon His creation." [The stuff in bold indicates references to Scripture, which Coffeeman says I did not make -- "even a hint."]
___________________________________________________
Here’s the versions I checked
New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Wycliffe New Testament
New International Version - UK
- - - -
"The beginning" (Okay, the WORD beginning is found but we are not talking about a word and since it was found at the end of your sentence it would seem odd that it was an intentional quote of IN THE BEGINNING. You used SINCE THE BEGINNING and not IN THE BEGINNING…too bad you didn’t use IN…oh well. Let me know if you need help next time (that’s a joke)

“Created the universe” (This phrase is not found in any of the 16 versions and here’s the quote I got when I attempted to locate this phrase)
”We didn't quite understand the passage you were trying to view. Here is a list of the books of the Bible”
Search words "triune"
”Sorry, we found no verses matching your specifications. Try a different search type, or a different Bible version.”

Rationality
Search words "rationality"
”Sorry, we found no verses matching your specifications. Try a different search type, or a different Bible version”

His governing upon His creation
“We didn't quite understand the passage you were trying to view. Here is a list of the books of the Bible”

triune Godhead created the universe
We didn't quite understand the passage you were trying to view. Here is a list of the books of the Bible
_____________________________________________________
quote:
Try to get this, coffeeman. You charged me with not using scripture. I proved you wrong.
____________________________________________________
You DIDN'Tuse scripture! 16 translations checked and not one verse used. Now, are not going to admit you didn’t really use scripture in that volley with FLIPPER? Not even a hint of a verse?

Next time you challenge someone’s integrity, make sure you quote them right…..
Come on Jim…yeah, that’s right..you can do it…it’s easy to admit you blew it… just take baby steps.
_______________________________________________________
quote
Please, call me Reverend Jim. Coffeeman,
______________________________________________________
Don’t hold your breath…



Love and kisses
coffeeman

 

[Flipper]

Almighty Allah. It is Allah who created the heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Surat at-Talaq: 12)

Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?” [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]

“Behold! In the creation Of the heavens and the earth, And the alternation Of Night and Day – There are indeed Signs For men of understanding.” [Al-Qur’aan 3:190]

In the beginning there was darkness,
Utter darkness, darkness upon darkness,
The world then was merely its primordial essence, its formless fabric.
Thus what would become this world was first wrapped within the
All pervading power of the Eternal One
Before whom our material world is but a trifle brought into existence
By the omnipotent force of His will alone
[Rig Veda]

Light (flash)/showed up/all splitter/born universe god / fire god

[A Somewhat literal translation of an ancient Mediterranean creation myth courtesy of Charles Doria and Harris Lenowitz.]

Each of these proves precisely as much as your statement, it seems to me.

I am not aware of specific bible verses attributing the creation of math or reason to God. I am only aware of attributing the creation itself. Which has precisely as much value as the verses I quoted above from rival theologies.

In fact, I like the Mediterranean one more because it is superficially a better description of what we believe the creation of the universe was actually like.

It's a bit of a moot point, as I am off TOL for a while and so cannot pursue this further. I will stop by to read your reply though.