0"1"23456789

[Observer of dreams]

Their argument is that atheism means no-theism

the following definition was copy/pasted from dictionary.com (if that web isnt allowed i apologize.)

From the dictionary (this supports ovedya.)

Atheism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

From wikpedia

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists (60.7 percent of U.S. general scientists and 93 percent of N.A.S. top scientists expressing disbelief or doubt, with only 7% of believers among the members of the National Academy of Sciences.

So your question is what or who is God?

My answer is "Exactly!" Doesn't make sense does it?

case and point there must be theism to have atheism.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[CellShade]

Their argument is that atheism means no-theism

the following definition was copy/pasted from dictionary.com (if that web isnt allowed i apologize.)

From the dictionary (this supports ovedya.)

Atheism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

From wikpedia

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists (60.7 percent of U.S. general scientists and 93 percent of N.A.S. top scientists expressing disbelief or doubt, with only 7% of believers among the members of the National Academy of Sciences.

So your question is what or who is God?

My answer is "Exactly!" Doesn't make sense does it?

case and point there must be theism to have atheism.

Before I wasn't getting your point, now I am getting it perfectly and understanding your point .

[Observer of dreams]

Their argument is that atheism means no-theism

the following definition was copy/pasted from dictionary.com (if that web isnt allowed i apologize.)

From the dictionary (this supports ovedya.)

Atheism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

From wikpedia

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists (60.7 percent of U.S. general scientists and 93 percent of N.A.S. top scientists expressing disbelief or doubt, with only 7% of believers among the members of the National Academy of Sciences.

So your question is what or who is God?

My answer is "Exactly!" Doesn't make sense does it?

case and point there must be theism to have atheism.

Sure. That doesn't mean there must be God to have atheism, which is your original, unfounded, claim.

One may say to you "a flower smells the way honey tastes" But how can you know this if you do not know the taste of honey? And how would you proclaim the taste of honey? You may say sweet, but yet again how can you know the sweetness in which you speak of without first tasting it for yourself?

This is the foundation of my understanding.

ok maybe a few more

Edited June 23, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[nebula]

Omnimax, as I explained when you taked about SAT words, means omnipotent plus omnithis plus omnithat plus....

[Observer of dreams]

One may say to you "a flower smells the way honey tastes" But how can you know this if you do not know the taste of honey? And how would you proclaim the taste of honey? You may say sweet, but yet again how can you know the sweetness in which you speak of without first tasting it for yourself?

This is the foundation of my understanding.

I will not be posting on here anymore. I am sorry this thread got so out of focus.

You said:

"If there was never a God, man would have no knowledge of God ever existing. "

I said:

"That reasoning is defeated by the fact that there are no unicorns but I know about them."

You said:

"You're mocking me"

I said:

"I wasn't and you're running away"

Then you come up with this post that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

If you want to end it this way fine, goodbye.

[italics are used to convey sarcasm.]

1. Your statment is flawed Because you have no knowledge of unicorns existing either. You only know of them through humans imagination. the rest of the world only knows OF them, but they dont know they exist. as such there can be noone against purple unicorns exsisting, no anti-purple unicornists if you will. If anything your statment proves my point.

2. Just because you say your not a scoffer or a mocker doesn't mean your not. A snowflake is a snowflake even if it says its a raindrop.

3. The statment that my post has nothing to do with anything shows your understanding, or lack of it.

4. Is God or jesus existing really that bad? I mean "love your neighbor as you would love yourself." Yeah that's such an awful thing I wish God didn't exist either.

5. before insulting people of faith with your scientific gibberish, maybe you should study the bible, thuroughly. Don't just read it like a text book. Open your mind to it before you turn it down.

Your not a bad person. It's the knowledge and the fruits of what you have learned which taste bitter. OPEN YOUR EYES! Quit hiding behind your quarrels and show us who you are. Your a scientist, a non-believer, but one may ask "Why did you come to a christian forum in the first place if not only to insult the father and his children?"

Edited June 23, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[CellShade]

Oh and to lepaca and the other atheist that posted, the silence by me on this topic isn't that I ignored your questions, just that fact that I told to answer for most of the questions in 5 post or more and they just got ignored by you so I am just watching this subject was a viewer and not gonna post on it anymore.

HorizonEast I agree with you.

Blessings, Cell .

[Observer of dreams]

that's a good idea. Actually Im requesting that this topic be locked due to the irrelevancy and the God smear campaign from people who are apperantly never wrong. Besides im just sick of looking at it.

Edited June 24, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[Observer of dreams]

[italics are used to convey sarcasm.]

OK!

name='Observer of dreams' post='578335' date='Jun 23 2006, 04:06 PM']

1. Your statment is flawed Because you have no knowledge of unicorns existing either. You only know of them through humans imagination. the rest of the world only knows OF them, but they dont know they exist. as such there can be noone against purple unicorns exsisting, no anti-purple unicornists if you will. If anything your statment proves my point.

Hehe you wish ^^ The only reason why there are no anti-unicornists is because no such religion exists. However I remember you that accepting the Christian God you have rejected Brahma. Did people imagine Brahma? If so, you disprove what you said by being a Christian - people actually imagined unicorns/Brahma and you're and anti-unicornist/anti-Brahma. If not, yours is not the only god around.

Why isn't there a purple unicorn religion? because they dont exist? So your own logic defeats your point...again. Also like I said a few posts ago All paths lead back to the father. If you know your religions you will know that brahma is the source of all life in the universe. God is also the source of all life in the universe. The great sprit looks over all things while Buddah teaches of enlightenment. False Gods? How about different veiws of the same God? Im not saying any of them are wrong, but I'm not saying I'm right either. That would just be stupid.

Also if you are not mocking me than you must have a low comprehension as everything is just being repeated to you and you just keep shifting your arguments. If attacking the idea doesn't work you start to attack credability, then you attack their character.

Your also right lepaca, he can't show you what proofs you memorized because you memorized theories, because there is no proof for what your suggesting with your loaded questions and attack politics. I know your theories as being preconceived because I have heard them all before. The idea of God is more than anyone can comprehend. He's not even worth arguing in that sense. It's our interperitation of how God effects us in our lives that makes it into books and into our interperitation of his supreme status. So whenever you think you are disproving God you are only disproving man.

Edited June 25, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[CellShade]

Oh and to lepaca and the other atheist that posted, the silence by me on this topic isn't that I ignored your questions, just that fact that I told to answer for most of the questions in 5 post or more and they just got ignored by you so I am just watching this subject was a viewer and not gonna post on it anymore.

HorizonEast I agree with you.

Blessings, Cell .

Maybe I lost track of it. Can't you see I'm answering 50 different people at the same time? Drop the attitude and give me the post number if you care (you probably don't).

50, Counted 4 or 5 people but still I would have propably said like a 100 people .

Drop the attitude? I will just say that in most of my post I made my points, and rather instead of people answering my points you went with your circular responses( just made that term up, but you understand what I mean )

One thing I do will point out, you were mostly not insultive in this topic so I'll give you merit for that .

But trust me, making my point for many posts and it being ignored, maybe you didn't notice, but just go back and view at my posts since people responded to my posts ignoring ways on how to find the truth, and I will state this, I didn't say, just read The Bible, I gave other sources, but they got ignored.

Blessings, Cell

[redeemed098]

Read your link, have those read those things before, that's just assumptions atheist and scientist are making, no real facts

HAHA! Then I guess the following are not facts;

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

Your ignorance of objective, observed science amuses me.

Oh, and you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That is called Circular Reasoning. Check it up on Wikipedia sometime;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

JMW,

The ice ring theory to determine the age of something based on the amount of layers has been clearly debunked as rubbish and terribly incorrect. How..???

There was a plane that went missing in Greenland during the war and was never recovered. Upon drilling through the ice in search of oil the plane was found several hundred feet below the ice. According to the ice ring theory, the plane had been there for at least a thousand years. Considering it was only manufactured in the 1940's, its clear to see that this theory is wrong. The ice ring theory worked on the assumption that the different rings represented the changing of the seasons. It turns out that the rings simply reflect the change in temperature from hot to cold. by the way, if the world is supposed to be millions of years old then why are the worlds oldest desert and tree said to be dated only approximately 4000 years...???? Interesting dont you think. There is plenty of evidence for Gods existence.

You simply are unable to see it AS evidence because your heart is not right with God. You are in a position to listen, yet unable to HEAR. So for you it is a parable. Something you are unable to grasp. When you can humble yourself before God as a sinner and repent, you will be in a position that meets the requirements of EARS that can hear.

The question I like to ask is this. Why don't you WANT salvation....??? It is on offer yet you don't want it....Why........??? Don't you want to be saved...?

Why do you argue....??? What good will that do you if you refuse salvation..??? How will your arguments and debates have been of benefit to you when you are dead....??? So you felt intelligent and wise for a few years..Big deal.....What for...??? Ego...??? Get saved...!!!! while there is still time. :thumbsup:

Regards,

Ben.

Edited June 26, 2006 by redeemed098