# denying or disbelief, definition of Atheist



## marketgunner (Aug 2, 2015)

Is there a difference between denying the existence of God as compare to disbelieving the existence of God?

I was reading the definition of atheist and are asking this question


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 2, 2015)

This:

_Disagreeable MeFebruary 14, 2014 2:01 PM

Hi Adam,

>Why can't agnostic be synonymous with uncertain?<

It should be. However, uncertain should not be synonymous with <100% certainty, because 100% certainty on anything is irrational. Certainty should refer to very high levels of confidence (e.g. 99.9%) not 100%.

>What we do lose with language if Massimo said<

We'd lose the word atheist, because based on 100% certainty, there are no (rational/honest) atheists.

>I think there are many true believers who would describe themselves as 100% certain that there is a god.<

Then they are either irrational or dishonest/hyperbolic. I'm sure there are also those who would describe themselves as 110% certain there is a God.

>Why is it unacceptable to reserve the word 'atheist' for those people who are the diametric opposite?<

Because many who are atheists understand that 100% certainty is irrational, but see a value in distinguishing between extremely high levels of certainty and being entirely undecided._

...came from the comments section of this, which was in the Plantinga thread:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...l-alas-it.html

A good read.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 3, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Is there a difference between denying the existence of God as compare to disbelieving the existence of God?



Not really. Just depends on the context in which 'deny' is used. If deny is used in the context of not believing something even though it is true then, yes, there is a huge difference between denying and disbelieving. 

In a straight definition comparison, deny and disbelieve, are saying the same thing. IMHO.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 3, 2015)

660griz said:


> Not really. Just depends on the context in which 'deny' is used. If deny is used in the context of not believing something even though it is true then, yes, there is a huge difference between denying and disbelieving.
> 
> In a straight definition comparison, deny and disbelieve, are saying the same thing. IMHO.


Thats pretty much how I see it.
One can deny something even though its a proven fact.
One can disbelieve something even though its a proven fact.
Or one can deny/disbelieve something because its NOT a proven fact which I assume is where Atheists sit.
Like you said, depends on context.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Or one can deny/disbelieve something because its NOT a proven fact which I assume is where Atheists sit.



Proven would be nice but, I would settle for, "yea, that makes sense."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats pretty much how I see it.
> One can deny something even though its a proven fact.
> One can disbelieve something even though its a proven fact.
> Or one can deny/disbelieve something because its NOT a proven fact which I assume is where Atheists sit.
> Like you said, depends on context.



I take atheism as an active stance, much like belief (the "witnessing" kind), on average. Disbelief takes place in the individual, where denial or proclaiming require one to get off the proverbial couch and interact with another. 

Both are vastly different than, "I don't know," or, "I think," as they are professing to know something. 

Just my take.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I take atheism as an active stance, much like belief (the "witnessing" kind), on average. Disbelief takes place in the individual, where denial or proclaiming require one to get off the proverbial couch and interact with another.



In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Mine is the 'most inclusively' one.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

660griz said:


> In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> Mine is the 'most inclusively' one.



Absence of belief is passive. Atheists, again some and not all, make the statement that there are no gods, not that they don't believe there are any, there ARE none.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I take atheism as an active stance, much like belief (the "witnessing" kind), on average. Disbelief takes place in the individual, where denial or proclaiming require one to get off the proverbial couch and interact with another.
> 
> Both are vastly different than, "I don't know," or, "I think," as they are professing to know something.
> 
> Just my take.


I get what you mean and I cant say I disagree.
There is definitely a difference between "no I dont think so" and "no there are not".
But I can easily confuse myself if I take it deeper -
if only given a choice between yes or no I would have to go with no there are not. But maybe thats not "fair" to force a yes or no answer.
And - isnt "no I dont think so" just a form of "no there are not in my mind".
And - I can use the exact same reasons/justification for "no I dont think so" and "no there are not".
And - isnt "no there are not" true/fact until its proven that yes there is?
I sometimes wonder "if there could be" is just a cop out/safe bet/safety net in light of the above "no there are not" true/fact until its proven that yes there is".
Or maybe Im just over thinking it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Absence of belief is passive. Atheists, again some and not all, make the statement that there are no gods, not that they don't believe there are any, there ARE none.





> Absence of belief is passive.


Maybe thats what Im not sure about.
That absence of belief, at least I think on this subject, is the end result of a process of thinking about it, weighing possibibilities etc.
Which Im not sure is "passive".


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I get what you mean and I cant say I disagree.
> There is definitely a difference between "no I dont think so" and "no there are not".
> But I can easily confuse myself if I take it deeper -
> if only given a choice between yes or no I would have to go with no there are not. But maybe thats not "fair" to force a yes or no answer.
> ...



Do you believe that there are unicorns somewhere?  If you answered "no" does that make you an A-unicornist even if you maintain that there might be some somewhere?  Or are you an agnostic about unicorns?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe thats what Im not sure about.
> That absence of belief, at least I think on this subject, is the end result of a process of thinking about it, weighing possibibilities etc.
> Which Im not sure is "passive".



Let me clarify: 

When I say passive, I mean it's outwardly passive. 

I guess I could also say definitive, or assertive, and be more accurate. 

Atheists "know" there IS no God. 

Faithful "know" there IS a God, or gods. 

The difference between either of them and an agnostic is that the agnostic typically would just shrug and say, "I don't know."


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let me clarify:
> 
> When I say passive, I mean it's outwardly passive.
> 
> ...



From thee comments in that blog:

_

We'd lose the word atheist, because based on 100% certainty, there are no (rational/honest) atheists.

>I think there are many true believers who would describe themselves as 100% certain that there is a god.<

Then they are either irrational or dishonest/hyperbolic. I'm sure there are also those who would describe themselves as 110% certain there is a God.

>Why is it unacceptable to reserve the word 'atheist' for those people who are the diametric opposite?<

Because many who are atheists understand that 100% certainty is irrational, but see a value in distinguishing between extremely high levels of certainty and being entirely undecided.
_


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let me clarify:
> 
> When I say passive, I mean it's outwardly passive.
> 
> ...


Maybe it would be the most acurate if I say what I question is why I choose "I dont know".
In light of I cant get around in my mind - 


> Atheists "know" there IS no God.


There IS no God until proven that there IS.
Much in the same way that a dead body "could be a murder" but its just a dead body and it remains a dead body until murder is proven to be the cause of death.
Or maybe, isnt "no" the default in opposition to "yes" regardless of "maybe"?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

It seems to me in the rational world that "certainty" always has an understood "uncertainty" qualifier.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe it would be the most acurate if I say what I question is why I choose "I dont know".
> In light of I cant get around in my mind -
> 
> There IS no God until proven that there IS.
> ...



I think it's a matter of degrees.  If you think that the existence of God is more like a "coin flip" then you are agnostic in the true spirit of the word.  

There's alot of room between "probably not" and "no, I don't believe so"  both positions I would feel comfortable calling atheist.  

Is there such a thing as 99.9999999% agnostic?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> From thee comments in that blog:
> 
> _
> 
> ...





> and being entirely undecided.


There ya go.
Im NOT "entirely undecided".
Seems like that would be a 50% for and 50% against deal.
Where in my mind, as we sit here today, that % is definitley
in favor of "not"
"There could be" just means Im not 100% sure there isnt which speaks to what the point is of what you posted.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

This is why I always avoided these "labels" of Agnostic, Atheist etc.
I never referred to myself as any of them until I started discussing here and felt like I had to pick one to identify more or less what I thought.
Deciphering between them is almost like interpreting scripture to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> From thee comments in that blog:
> 
> _
> 
> ...



Comments on another board notwithstanding, if you could be 110% of anything, you were never 100% to begin with. 



WaltL1 said:


> Maybe it would be the most acurate if I say what I question is why I choose "I dont know".
> In light of I cant get around in my mind -
> 
> There IS no God until proven that there IS.
> ...



It would be at the genesis, but anecdotal evidence does count for something, unless you wish to dismiss all who ascribe to it as unreliable. 

Like sasquatch, though, some can't be dismissed, and that is the reason why I can't say that it doesn't exist any more than I can say it does.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> This is why I always avoided these "labels" of Agnostic, Atheist etc.
> I never referred to myself as any of them until I started discussing here and felt like I had to pick one to identify more or less what I thought.
> Deciphering between them is almost like interpreting scripture to me.



Seems to me if you say "God probably (like unicorns) doesn't exist" you are an atheist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Seems to me if you say "God probably (like unicorns) doesn't exist" you are an atheist.



Probably makes you an agnostic in my eyes. Probably, in this case, means a little more likely no, but it's possible yes.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Comments on another board notwithstanding, if you could be 110% of anything, you were never 100% to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Claiming 100% certainty in anything other than conventional terms is irrational.  But you'll very rarely hear a believer concede that in regards to their faith.....even though it's called faith.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Probably makes you an agnostic in my eyes. Probably, in this case, means a little more likely no, but it's possible yes.



Then Dawkins is an agnostic as he has said that he is 99.9999999% sure there is no God.  And I am an agnostic about unicorns though I don't feel that way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Seems to me if you say "God probably (like unicorns) doesn't exist" you are an atheist.


I say this - 





> "God probably (like unicorns) doesn't exist"


But I agree with this - 





> but anecdotal evidence does count for something


So not sure what lable that puts me under.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Claiming 100% certainty in anything other than conventional terms is irrational.  But you'll very rarely hear a believer concede that in regards to their faith.....even though it's called faith.





ambush80 said:


> Then Dawkins is an agnostic as he has said that he is 99.9999999% sure there is no God.  And I am an agnostic about unicorns though I don't feel that way.



It's not about objective certainty there. That is an irrational goal. 

AS to your first statement, both "believers" and atheists fall into the same group there in espousing 100% certainty of their views. They're both believers, in short. 

Seeing as how we can't pierce the veil between us and all realms of existence, there's no way to know either with absolute certainty; unlike knowing for 100% certain that the wavelength of light that is reflected from the apple is that which we've agreed to call red. We could call it blue, but it wouldn't change the intrinsic frequency.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not about objective certainty there. That is an irrational goal.
> 
> AS to your first statement, both "believers" and atheists fall into the same group there in espousing 100% certainty of their views. They're both believers, in short.
> 
> Seeing as how we can't pierce the veil between us and all realms of existence, there's no way to know either with absolute certainty; unlike knowing for 100% certain that the wavelength of light that is reflected from the apple is that which we've agreed to call red. We could call it blue, but it wouldn't change the intrinsic frequency.


Give me your thoughts on this one if you would -


> Or maybe, isnt "no" the default in opposition to "yes" regardless of "maybe"?


And view the question generically not specifically about the existence of a god/God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Give me your thoughts on this one if you would -
> 
> And view the question generically not specifically about the existence of a god/God.



I answered it above. Perhaps my use of the word genesis clouded the issue? 

I meant genesis as the inception of an idea or debate. Not in the Biblical sense. I would agree that no would be the default position, until someone suggests the opposite, and the more people that suggest the affirmative with evidence that can't be explained away or dismissed the more likely the answer is actually somewhere in the middle. 

It's the same path that every argument takes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I answered it above. Perhaps my use of the word genesis clouded the issue?
> 
> I meant genesis as the inception of an idea or debate. Not in the Biblical sense. I would agree that no would be the default position, until someone suggests the opposite, and the more people that suggest the affirmative with evidence that can't be explained away or dismissed the more likely the answer is actually somewhere in the middle.
> 
> It's the same path that every argument takes.


Yeah I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
But Im still stuck and of course thats not something anybody else can work out but me. Here's the thing - the way you look at it probably is the closest to how I look at it.
HOWEVER - this is still a road block for me -


> someone suggests the opposite, and the more people that suggest the affirmative with evidence that can't be explained away or dismissed the more likely the answer is actually somewhere in the middle.


Even though the needle is moving to somewhere in the middle, im getting stuck on technically the answer is still "no" until the needle gets to "yes".
Another of my probably stupid examples -
A lottery ticket with 5 numbers.
You match the first number. The needles is moving. Have you won anything? No.
You match the 2nd number. Needle moves even farther.
Have you won anything? Still no.
So on and so forth. The answer remains no until the answer becomes yes.
So because you are matching numbers to begin with the answer at some point can realistically become maybe.
But maybe is just an illusion because the answer is still no until and unless it becomes yes.
Im giving myelf a headache


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

What would you call someone who was raised in a Christian country, a Christian town, and even a Christian home that believes in the Christian God but isn't a Christian?
Many an American folk believe in the Christian God yet haven't accepted Jesus as their Savior so therefore they aren't Christians.
They are aware of God and believe in him but God hasn't drawn them to Jesus or he has but they haven't accepted his offer.
You can't really call them agnostics yet one wonders why someone could believe in the Christian God and not follow his salvation plan.

They are denying God by their disbelief in Jesus yet they aren't really an Atheist. This group is more accepted by our society than Atheists.
I guess because they are more reachable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What would you call someone who was raised in a Christian country, a Christian town, and even a Christian home that believes in the Christian God but isn't a Christian?
> Many an American folk believe in the Christian God yet haven't accepted Jesus as their Savior so therefore they aren't Christians.
> They are aware of God and believe in him but God hasn't drawn them to Jesus or he has but they haven't accepted his offer.
> You can't really call them agnostics yet one wonders why someone could believe in the Christian God and not follow his salvation plan.
> ...





> yet one wonders why someone could believe in the Christian God and not follow his salvation plan.


One possibility would be they are aware of the Christian God and believe he exists but found some or all of the story not to their liking so have decided not to worship him and will accept whatever punishment that would bring.
Not sure what you would call them. A french fry?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
> But Im still stuck and of course thats not something anybody else can work out but me. Here's the thing - the way you look at it probably is the closest to how I look at it.
> HOWEVER - this is still a road block for me -
> 
> ...



For me, unless the answer is yes or no, the answer is I don't know, but...

...I doubt it.

...it could be.

Both express either an affirmative or negative belief while acknowledging that it's not based on anything concrete. 

That's why I have no problem calling people, or having them address themselves, faithful or believers, and why my knickers get in a twist when they claim to know anything for certain.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 4, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> They are aware of God and believe in him



I think a lot of them don't really believe in the Christian god either but don't want to stand outside the community customs.    Churches still have social roles, and if the price of admission to good kids' activities and a fun Wed night rec basketball league is going along with a little mumbo jumbo they are willing to do so since it is still socially comfortable.

Way back I went on a church mission trip.  I was pleasantly surprised that even in that context there were adults willing to admit they didn't really buy all the biblical nonsense, they were just trying to be good people and the choices for positive action in our society are limited so they were willing to go along to do some good.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I think a lot of them don't really believe in the Christian god either but don't want to stand outside the community customs.    Churches still have social roles, and if the price of admission to good kids' activities and a fun Wed night rec basketball league is going along with a little mumbo jumbo they are willing to do so since it is still socially comfortable.
> 
> Way back I went on a church mission trip.  I was pleasantly surprised that even in that context there were adults willing to admit they didn't really buy all the biblical nonsense, they were just trying to be good people and the choices for positive action in our society are limited so they were willing to go along to do some good.





> they didn't really buy all the biblical nonsense,


So do you mean they literally didnt believe in the Christian God or just didnt buy into the talking donkeys and pillars of salt type stuff?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> I think a lot of them don't really believe in the Christian god either but don't want to stand outside the community customs.    Churches still have social roles, and if the price of admission to good kids' activities and a fun Wed night rec basketball league is going along with a little mumbo jumbo they are willing to do so since it is still socially comfortable.
> 
> Way back I went on a church mission trip.  I was pleasantly surprised that even in that context there were adults willing to admit they didn't really buy all the biblical nonsense, they were just trying to be good people and the choices for positive action in our society are limited so they were willing to go along to do some good.



If only they were bold enough to be able to do good on their own, without needing the validation of the flock. 

Unless I'm misinterpreting that and all they did was tack themselves on to a mission trip in order to pool manpower to do something greater than they could do alone.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Absence of belief is passive. Atheists, again some and not all, make the statement that there are no gods, not that they don't believe there are any, there ARE none.



I get your point but, to me it is the same thing. 
If I say there is no gods, it is because I believe there is no gods. I guess you could say it is a more 'aggressive' way to say it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

660griz said:


> I get your point but, to me it is the same thing.
> If I say there is no gods, it is because I believe there is no gods. I guess you could say it is a more 'aggressive' way to say it.



It is. It's making a definitive statement that begs proof. If no one on earth believed in any, and there were no inexplicable events attributed to them, then I would say that statements like yours would be the default position.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It is. It's making a definitive statement that begs proof. If no one on earth believed in any, and there were no inexplicable events attributed to them, then I would say that statements like yours would be the default position.



Saying there is no gods is the same, to me, as saying we have been to the moon. 
I look at the evidence and make a determination based on that. 
Am I 100% sure there are no gods and we have been to the moon? No, of course not. However, certainty can be achieved without 100%. To be 95% sure and say, I just don't know, is about as ridiculous as saying I am 100% sure of just about anything.

Oh, and when you learn WHY inexplicable events are attributed to them, well, it all starts coming together. Why sacrifices? Why natural disasters? All attributed to a supreme being...for use by a lesser being.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

660griz said:


> Saying there is no gods is the same, to me, as saying we have been to the moon.
> I look at the evidence and make a determination based on that.
> Am I 100% sure there are no gods and we have been to the moon? No, of course not. However, certainty can be achieved without 100%. To be 95% sure and say, I just don't know, is about as ridiculous as saying I am 100% sure of just about anything.
> 
> Oh, and when you learn WHY inexplicable events are attributed to them, well, it all starts coming together. Why sacrifices? Why natural disasters? All attributed to a supreme being...for use by a lesser being.



I don't disagree with any of that. I just take the view that certainty is a fleeting thing. Earned over periods longer than a single lifetime. 

Kay from MIB explained it best when he and Jay are on the park bench. 
1500 years ago, everybody _knew_ (read: believed with strong conviction) that the earth was flat...

It's the same today. You don't believe, with a strong conviction, that there's a god. There's plenty of room for you to be wrong. The same as there is for the faithful to be wrong. That's where you get the "Just in case" agnostics showing up for service.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 4, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's the same today. You don't believe, with a strong conviction, that there's a god. There's plenty of room for you to be wrong.



If I thought there was PLENTY of room for me to be wrong, I would be agnostic.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 4, 2015)

It is interesting how the word Atheist evolved. In early NT times, the belief of "theism" , that God or God's existed, mostly plural gods,  god of fertility, sun, etc, was normal. Then the Christians claimed to believe in just one God. They were first called Atheist. See the martyrdom  of polycarp. They keep trying to get him to say something like "away with the atheist" but he would not do it. Interesting how the word evolved that now Christians call non believers atheist


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 4, 2015)

660griz said:


> If I thought there was PLENTY of room for me to be wrong, I would be agnostic.



Technically there's a whole universe, now multiverse, of possibility, but it's up to you whether you see it that way or not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is interesting how the word Atheist evolved. In early NT times, the belief of "theism" , that God or God's existed, mostly plural gods,  god of fertility, sun, etc, was normal. Then the Christians claimed to believe in just one God. They were first called Atheist. See the martyrdom  of polycarp. They keep trying to get him to say something like "away with the atheist" but he would not do it. Interesting how the word evolved that now Christians call non believers atheist


Yep.
Much like the word "cult" which in the way its used today by many Christians would have applied to Christianity back then.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 4, 2015)

You can't affirm the negative. To say "there is no God" is quite different from "I believe there is no God".

"There is no God" can only be said by an omnipotent being who has complete knowledge of everywhere. 

"I believe there is no God" is egocentric limited by the knowledge of the speaker and may leave room for change.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> You can't affirm the negative. To say "there is no God" is quite different from "I believe there is no God".
> 
> "There is no God" can only be said by an omnipotent being who has complete knowledge of everywhere.
> 
> "I believe there is no God" is egocentric limited by the knowledge of the speaker and may leave room for change.





> "There is no God" can only be said by an omnipotent being who has complete knowledge of everywhere.


Lets flip this.
In the absence of universal proof wouldn't it require an omnipotent being who has complete knowledge of everywhere to say there is a god/God?


> "I believe there is no God" is egocentric


How is that egocentric?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets flip this.
> In the absence of universal proof wouldn't it require an omnipotent being who has complete knowledge of everywhere to say there is a god/God?
> 
> How is that egocentric?



oh no,  I have experienced  WaltL1 here in  one place. I do not have to be an omnipotent being to know that, but to say there is no Waltl1 anywhere  would be omniscience.

Egocentric because all one knows is all supposed to all that exist, or because I might not have a knowledge of WaltL1, he cannot possibly exist,


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> oh no,  I have experienced  WaltL1 here in  one place. I do not have to be an omnipotent being to know that, but to say there is no Waltl1 anywhere  would be omniscience.
> 
> Egocentric because all one knows is all supposed to all that exist, or because I might not have a knowledge of WaltL1, he cannot possibly exist,


I think you are stretching it a bit. What you know exists is the screen name WaltL1 with a picture that could be anybody.
My real name might be Gertrude and Im a woman.


> Egocentric because all one knows is all supposed to all that exist, or because I might not have a knowledge of WaltL1, he cannot possibly exist,


I understand what you are saying but I dont think egocentric is the word that applies.
egocentric -
1 having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things:
2. having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered


> "I believe there is no God"


Doesnt give any clue as to the importance or regards one gives to themselves or anybody elses beliefs.
A person that doesnt believe there is a God can be completely supportive of your belief that there is.
For example I dont believe its a fact that God exists yet I go to my friend's church bake sale and buy stuff to show my support of their church's cause.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 4, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are stretching it a bit. What you know exists is the screen name WaltL1 with a picture that could be anybody.
> My real name might be Gertrude and Im a woman.
> 
> I understand what you are saying but I dont think egocentric is the word that applies.
> ...



it doesn't matter what you are, you exist. I do not have to know  everything to know you  one thing.

egocentric is exactly correct, They do not accept that there is anything they do not understand or accept to exist, they dismiss what they do not accept.

Why do you not believe? That is not accepting.  You do not accept the premise.
Is denying different, it is rejecting the premise.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 4, 2015)

You don't have to have a perfect or complete belief to be a believer,as demonstrated by this man:

Mark 9:23-24
 Jesus said to him, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is interesting how the word Atheist evolved. In early NT times, the belief of "theism" , that God or God's existed, mostly plural gods,  god of fertility, sun, etc, was normal. Then the Christians claimed to believe in just one God. They were first called Atheist. See the martyrdom  of polycarp. They keep trying to get him to say something like "away with the atheist" but he would not do it. Interesting how the word evolved that now Christians call non believers atheist



That's interesting, I never thought of it that way. So what some people are saying is that believing in a false God is being an Atheist. I mean if one is a Christian then he would think the Hindu is an Atheist because he isn't believing in the correct God. Thereby he doesn't believe in God. To a Christian the Hindu is an Atheist, he just doesn't know it.

I've mentioned on various threads the concept of the Boy Scouts and Freemasonry only requiring a belief in "a God" as if this is better than being an Atheist. Strange concept indeed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You don't have to have a perfect or complete belief to be a believer,as demonstrated by this man:
> 
> Mark 9:23-24
> Jesus said to him, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
> Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!"



Or the fact that God can elect an Atheist or Hindu proves the belief will come later. After his eyes and ears are opened.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 4, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> it doesn't matter what you are, you exist. I do not have to know  everything to know you  one thing.
> 
> egocentric is exactly correct, They do not accept that there is anything they do not understand or accept to exist, they dismiss what they do not accept.
> 
> ...


All I can do is show you the definition of egocentric one more time -


> 1. having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things:
> 2. having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered


Not accepting a premise does NOT make one egocentric.
If one doesnt accept the premise that brocoli taste good does that make them egocentric?
Or do they just believe that brocoli doesnt taste good?
Now if they dont believe brocoli taste good AND says anyone who does is an idiot then you have a case.
But you would have a case because they said anyone who does is an idiot (see the definition of egocentric) not because they dont agree with the premise that brocoli tatse good.
And I already gave you an example of myself that shows you cant make that blanket statement.
I dont accept the premise that blue is prettier than red.
Egocentric?
I dont accept the premise that deer hunting is more fun than turkey hunting.
Egocentric?
You dont accept the premise that God doesnt exist.
Egocentric?
Not accepting a premise is NOT the definition of egocentric.
The fact that egocentric starts with ego should be tipping you off to what it means.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Technically there's a whole universe, now multiverse, of possibility, but it's up to you whether you see it that way or not.



Universe, multiverse...yep. What I do see is stuff we really can't fully explain...yet.
No need to bring a god in to it. That has been done before for just about everything. We should know better.

This person is waaay more articulate than me. Perhaps I can convert a few agnostics to the 'dark' side. 
With Certainty...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's where you get the "Just in case" agnostics showing up for service.



I have had discussion with many self proclaimed "just in case" Christians.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2015)

660griz said:


> Universe, multiverse...yep. What I do see is stuff we really can't fully explain...yet.
> No need to bring a god in to it. That has been done before for just about everything. We should know better.
> 
> This person is waaay more articulate than me. Perhaps I can convert a few agnostics to the 'dark' side.
> With Certainty...



I agree, God is simply the pre-scientific attempt by man to explain the goings on that take place around them. But, that's also ignoring the larger question. 

If you forgo "God" and simply try to answer what created the universe, it becomes less cut and dry. The universe exists, that much should be inarguable. Multiverses may exist, but we can't prove them either, not with enough evidence to back them up, but I digress. It's kinda the opposite of his reindeer analogy. It would be like confronting one flying reindeer and trying to work backwards as to how this one particular one flies, without being able to attribute it to evolution. 

But he really should learn the very distinct difference between UFO's and alien UFO's. 

UFO's exist and are seen all the time. It's simply a flying object that can't be positively identified. It doesn't imply extraterrestrial origin, even though modern lexicon would certainly lead you to conclude otherwise. 

I have a few venomous atheist friends who try to convince me that I'm silly for being agnostic, and I answer them the same way. The universe exists, and it could be evidence for either side of the argument. It would also be THE evidence that would settle the whole thing, but so far neither has worked itself all the way back to the beginning, with substantive evidence to say they have the whole story, to attribute it to something or nothing. 

Yes, the current laws of physics suggest that it started from a singularity and expanded, but that's only half of the problem. In our current universe, no singularity just pops into existence, that we've observed anyway. They're always predicated on the collapse of massive stars and that begs the question that, if the singularity that started the BB behaves the same way as the ones we're familiar with, then what collapsed for it to be created? If it just appeared, then how? 

The law of conservation of energy and matter say that it can't be created or destroyed, that it can only undergo phase changes. Okay, so we have matter and energy now, and the singularity had all energy, but from where did it come? The collapse of another universe unto itself? Great, why did that one collapse where ours is expanding? 

The question is still genesis, and creation, and while science has brought us closer to literal creation of this universe, it hasn't brought us to the final answer of creation. If the universe had expanded and contracted back upon itself before, then there's no reason to believe this one won't either.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Technically there's a whole universe, now multiverse, of possibility,






660griz said:


> Universe, multiverse...yep.






StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Multiverses may exist, but we can't prove them either ...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


>



The similarity in structures has always fascinated me.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 5, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The universe exists, and it could be evidence for either side of the argument.



To me, the only real answer, that has been stated a whole bunch, is that we don't know. 
If someone wishes to search to find the origin, have at it. 

The point is that lots of things exist. Some we know how, some we don't. The evidence that we know how some things exist, and that evidence doesn't support a supreme creator, is enough for me to assume everything has a 'logical' explanation. Whether we will ever know it is another topic.

Your analogy of seeing a flying deer and working backwards is not really the same. I think it would be seeing evidence of a flying reindeer but, not really seeing the reindeer and trying to figure out what made it. Only do discover, a flying reindeer. 

As far as the UFOs, I agree but, I also know that in today's society, everyone knows what you mean if you say that you saw a UFO. They assume, not of this world. 
Yes, technically, if you don't know what it is, it is a UFO.

Just like when I say I have a Frisbee, you know what I am talking about even though it could be a flying disc from another manufacturer.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2015)

660griz said:


> *To me, the only real answer, that has been stated a whole bunch, is that we don't know. *
> If someone wishes to search to find the origin, have at it.
> 
> The point is that lots of things exist. Some we know how, some we don't. The evidence that we know how some things exist, and that evidence doesn't support a supreme creator, is enough for me to assume everything has a 'logical' explanation. Whether we will ever know it is another topic.
> ...



I couldn't agree more with this.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 5, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> All I can do is show you the definition of egocentric one more time -
> 
> Not accepting a premise does NOT make one egocentric.
> If one doesnt accept the premise that brocoli taste good does that make them egocentric?
> ...



It is not a matter of choice between two things. It is a matter of logic.

To have a position that something doesn't exit is either 1) a true position that can be only made by a omniscient being 2) a false position by an limited being that does not accept that a thing can be unknown to themselves or egocentric because one cannot accept a thing outside of personal knowledge



Our choices, or personal beliefs, do not change truth.

Right? neither mine or yours.

If an atheist says God doesn't exit, they are either #1 which they are not or #2 which opens the possibility that God does exist outside their limited knowledge. So an actual Atheist cannot exist.

An agnostic's definition of doubting  God existence or that God is unknowable is more tenable  than an Atheists contradictory position.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 5, 2015)

660griz said:


> To me, the only real answer, that has been stated a whole bunch, is that we don't know.
> If someone wishes to search to find the origin, have at it.
> 
> The point is that lots of things exist. Some we know how, some we don't. The evidence that we know how some things exist, and that evidence doesn't support a supreme creator, is enough for me to assume everything has a 'logical' explanation. Whether we will ever know it is another topic.
> ...



I agree with your logic, but why don't you know?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> It is not a matter of choice between two things. It is a matter of logic.
> 
> To have a position that something doesn't exit is either 1) a true position that can be only made by a omniscient being 2) a false position by an limited being that does not accept that a thing can be unknown to themselves or egocentric because one cannot accept a thing outside of personal knowledge
> 
> ...





> It is a matter of logic.


Logic derives from "what we know". According to your definition of egocentric anybody who uses logic is egocentric. Agreed?


> a false position by an limited being


How can you claim their position is false if YOU dont know whether that something exists or not?
THAT would be an example of egocentric. You went beyond YOU believing its false to making the outright claim that what THEY believe is false because of course YOU must be right.


> limited being that does not accept that a thing can be unknown to themselves or egocentric because one cannot accept a thing outside of personal knowledge


You keep saying this as though its a fact that God exists and the Atheist wont accept that because they just dont personally know its true.
You do realize that as we sit here NOONE has universally proven that God (the Christian one in this case) is "true".
So the Atheist isnt just relying on personal knowledge. They are also relying on knowledge outside their own.
Do you have some universal proof that the Atheists here dont know about? Bring it on.
Ive given you the definition of egocentric twice now. Im guessing a 3rd time wont make much difference. There are a number of phsycology websites that discuss the parameters of being egocentric. Its an "attitude" about the self. An inflated sense of self importance.
One can say there is no God because as we sit here noone can prove that there is. Thats not an inflated sense of self importance. Thats making use of the available information.
Again, if the Atheist or whoever then crosses the line (like you did above) and belittles YOUR beliefs then you can make the case of egocentric.


> Our choices, or personal beliefs, do not change truth.
> Right?


Right.
And "maybe" doesnt change the truth either.
I'm curious, do you apply this egocentric definition of yours to every subject or just the subject of God?
For example, if a doctor says that it wouldnt be a good idea to stick your head under the tires of a moving 18 wheeler do you then classify him as egocentric? I mean after all maybe there is some information somehwere outside of his personal knowledge that says its a great idea?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I agree with your logic, but why don't you know?



Not sure. Could be because I really don't care how the universe started. I will leave it to the folks that care to come up with a plausible explanation.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If an atheist says God doesn't exit, they are either #1 which they are not or #2 which opens the possibility that God does exist outside their limited knowledge. So an actual Atheist cannot exist.


 I realize the strong drive to put folks into categories. However, in this case, you don't have enough categories to get it right. 



> An agnostic's definition of doubting  God existence or that God is unknowable is more tenable  than an Atheists contradictory position.



Not really. One group is unsure and one group is sure. That isn't so hard. Do you believe in all the Gods? Or, do you believe there is one God and just don't know for sure about the other ones? Or, do you believe in one God and know for sure there aren't any others?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> I realize the strong drive to put folks into categories. However, in this case, you don't have enough categories to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. One group is unsure and one group is sure. That isn't so hard. Do you believe in all the Gods? Or, do you believe there is one God and just don't know for sure about the other ones? Or, do you believe in one God and know for sure there aren't any others?



What do you know anyway, you dont even exist 


> So an actual Atheist cannot exist.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What do you know anyway, you dont even exist



Sometimes I feel that way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner,
When you get a minute, maybe you can explain this one -


> If an atheist says God doesn't exit, they are either #1 which they are not or #2 which opens the possibility that God does exist outside their limited knowledge. *So an actual Atheist cannot exist*.


You said #1 is -


> 1) a true position that can be only made by a omniscient being


and you said #2 is -


> #2 which opens the possibility that God does exist outside their limited knowledge


The definition of Atheist is -
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods 

Please note that they only have to BELIEVE that there are no God or gods. 
It doesnt specify that they have to be right or wrong. They only have to believe that there arent any.
So explain your claim that an actual Atheist cannot exist.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
 -- Stephen F Roberts"


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> I realize the strong drive to put folks into categories. However, in this case, you don't have enough categories to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. One group is unsure and one group is sure. That isn't so hard. Do you believe in all the Gods? Or, do you believe there is one God and just don't know for sure about the other ones? Or, do you believe in one God and know for sure there aren't any others?



The point you made is "one can't be sure  there is no God anywhere unless they are omniscient". Otherwise you do not know , therefore the claim must be false.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> I realize the strong drive to put folks into categories. However, in this case, you don't have enough categories to get it right.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. One group is unsure and one group is sure. That isn't so hard. Do you believe in all the Gods? Or, do you believe there is one God and just don't know for sure about the other ones? Or, do you believe in one God and know for sure there aren't any others?



I am just saying the definition of an atheist proves an atheist doesn't really exist. To believe something does not exist is a precarious position. That is why is was asking the difference of "denying" or "disbelief"

Once again, my beliefs do not change anything, actually your beliefs supports my belief.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The point you made is "one can't be sure  there is no God anywhere unless they are omniscient". Otherwise you do not know , therefore the claim must be false.



Can one "be sure" there is a God without being omniscient?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The point you made is "one can't be sure  there is no God anywhere unless they are omniscient". Otherwise you do not know , therefore the claim must be false.



I didn't realize I made that point. My point was you can not believe, or deny, there is a God(or anything) without being 100% sure. (See flying reindeer example)


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> marketgunner,
> When you get a minute, maybe you can explain this one -
> 
> You said #1 is -
> ...



I already have, but here it is again in more detail.

Here is a broad definition

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

The position "there are no deities" One will not hold a position they believe to be false, so every atheist we suppose, does actually believe there is no God. But to hold that position, that there are no gods,  one must be omniscient, which is a characteristic of a god,  so a contradiction exists. 
 The second explanation ofa claim there is no god is limited by the knowledge  or imagination of the believer. This again is limited in scope. To believe there is anything more that the atheist does not know is to accept there might be a god beyond there knowledge.

so either position falls apart.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I am just saying the definition of an atheist proves an atheist doesn't really exist. To believe something does not exist is a precarious position. That is why is was asking the difference of "denying" or "disbelief"
> 
> Once again, my beliefs do not change anything, actually your beliefs supports my belief.



I tell you there is a man on the dark side of the moon handing out lollipops. You would probably disbelieve that. 
Then, you may look on the dark side of the moon, see no man and deny it. 
Can you be 100% sure? No, you just did a quick cursory glance. He could have been in a cave or going to the bathroom. However, you have enough evidence to deny.

What I am saying is that I disbelieve in Gods because it just sounds crazy. 
I deny the existence because I have 'looked'. If religion and Gods weren't the invention of man, we definitely wouldn't be having this discussion.

Will it matter if I am wrong? No. Will it matter if a believer is wrong? No.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

so let me show an atheist actually how their perception is actually in the Bible,


1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Do you agree Spiritual matters are foolishness to an atheist?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Do you agree Spiritual matters are foolishness to an atheist?



No.
In some ways, atheist can be more spiritual than a religious person.

Sorry. If you meant religious matters, then yes, they are foolishness to an atheist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I already have, but here it is again in more detail.
> 
> Here is a broad definition
> 
> ...


I think you need to read that a little more closely.
You made the claim -


> So an actual Atheist cannot exist.


First -Your are entire "proof" above talks about Atheism and what an Atheist believes thereby confirming that Atheists exist.
Second - Your "proof" above also talks about how the Atheist belief that there are no gods "fall apart". Thereby confirming again that Atheists exist.
Are you sure this what you want to use to explain your claim that an Atheist cannot exist?
From my previous post -


> The definition of Atheist is -
> 1. a person who does not believe in God or gods
> 
> Please note that they only have to BELIEVE that there are no God or gods.
> It doesnt specify that they have to be right or wrong. They only have to believe that there arent any.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> so let me show an atheist actually how their perception is actually in the Bible,
> 
> 
> 1Co 2:14
> ...


Um did you just use the Bible to prove that Atheists exist?
I thought you said an Atheist cant exist?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can one "be sure" there is a God without being omniscient?


You arent supposed to mention that Art. 
But I would assume thats why you are required to have faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You arent supposed to mention that Art.
> But I would assume thats why you are required to have faith.



Faith is the act of jumping the gap between certainty and everything else.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> I tell you there is a man on the dark side of the moon handing out lollipops. You would probably disbelieve that.
> Then, you may look on the dark side of the moon, see no man and deny it.
> Can you be 100% sure? No, you just did a quick cursory glance. He could have been in a cave or going to the bathroom. However, you have enough evidence to deny.
> 
> ...



Well said


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> I tell you there is a man on the dark side of the moon handing out lollipops. You would probably disbelieve that.
> Then, you may look on the dark side of the moon, see no man and deny it.
> Can you be 100% sure? No, you just did a quick cursory glance. He could have been in a cave or going to the bathroom. However, you have enough evidence to deny.
> 
> ...


I dont believe your scenario because as far as we know there isnt anybody on the moon to be handing out lollipops to. Otherwise it sounds entirely plausable


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Um did you just use the Bible to prove that Atheists exist?
> I thought you said an Atheist cant exist?




i didn't prove an atheist exists,  the natural man exists.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you need to read that a little more closely.
> You made the claim -
> 
> First -Your are entire "proof" above talks about Atheism and what an Atheist believes thereby confirming that Atheists exist.
> ...



no , the claim is what an atheist believes cannot happen.
if the belief is based in fault , the the atheist is false.

a negative cannot be proven without complete knowledge, if the atheist claims to know all, he makes himself omniscient, claiming to be a God.
If the atheist claims to know there is  no god,  he again claims to know all, again omniscience.
If an atheist accepts that there in no god , as far as he knows, then he admits there might be a god somewhere.

so do you get it, it does not work... unless an atheist doesn't not really accept what he says he believes to be true.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> no , the claim is what an atheist believes cannot happen.
> if the belief is based in fault , the the atheist is false.
> 
> a negative cannot be proven without complete knowledge, if the atheist claims to know all, he makes himself omniscient, claiming to be a God.
> ...


Here's what you dont get -
IT DOESNT HAVE TO WORK.
The definition of Atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT. THE END. PERIOD. 
From the dictionary AGAIN -
The definition of Atheist is -
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods 
I'm going to have to bow out on this one its just going around in circles.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> I tell you there is a man on the dark side of the moon handing out lollipops. You would probably disbelieve that.
> Then, you may look on the dark side of the moon, see no man and deny it.
> Can you be 100% sure? No, you just did a quick cursory glance. He could have been in a cave or going to the bathroom. However, you have enough evidence to deny.
> 
> ...



sorry guys, i got out of sequence

in your scenario, you might not have looked in the right place, or in the right way, are you going to look everyplace? Well you need to look everyplace in everyway to truly make a true statement that there is no God.

You might be surprised, I totally believe we cannot know God directly and this is what is taught in my circles, so you are an example of that doctrine 

you probably have rejected the existence of God because you were mislead by good intentioned church going folk, but thre were wrong. You went to look where they said in the manner they said, yet God wasn't there,  just like the man on the moon


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> sorry guys, i got out of sequence
> 
> in your scenario, you might not have looked in the right place, or in the right way, are you going to look everyplace? Well you need to look everyplace in everyway to truly make a true statement that there is no God.
> 
> ...




What does "we cannot know God directly" mean?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> What does "we cannot know God directly" mean?



we are the bad guys, the sinful beings. God is holy, we are not. We cannot approach God in our own way. He has set  the rules, we can only approach God as He allows, He came to be with us.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's what you dont get -
> IT DOESNT HAVE TO WORK.
> The definition of Atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT. THE END. PERIOD.
> From the dictionary AGAIN -
> ...



your definition is with the implied ending.  a person who does not believe in the existance of God or gods

From the Oxford dictionary 

atheism ;  Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

which shows  to the circle again.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> we are the bad guys, the sinful beings. God is holy, we are not. We cannot approach God in our own way. He has set  the rules, we can only approach God as He allows, He came to be with us.



How does the Natural man come to know God?

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

Jhn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Eph 2:1
¶
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

God gives us the ability to understand and the faith in which to believe Him


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Jhn 6:44
> No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> 
> Eph 2:1
> ...



I kinda believe as you but then I get stuck on Romans 1 that none are without excuse. 
It's like a catch 22. We are telling all of the reprobates on this forum that they are without excuse yet they can't understand until they are elected and have the Holy Spirit to open their eyes.
In fact no one is without excuse, not even the people on small islands and isolated villages. They knew God by his creation and yet exchanged worshiping God for worshiping idols. It's called General Revelation. 
But how could they possibly worship God and exchange this worship for idols if they are blinded reprobates?
Their blindness would prevent them from worshiping God and their election would prevent them from worshiping idols.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 6, 2015)

"lost humans" are not spiritually dead . Humans are quickened unto  spiritual life so they can understand and make a decision. 

The parable of the sower show the examples.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> your definition is with the implied ending.  a person who does not believe in the existance of God or gods
> 
> From the Oxford dictionary
> 
> ...


There is no difference in the definitions. They both mean exactly the same.
I implied nothing.
I think maybe why we are going around in circles is how you word things or my understanding of what you are trying to say. For example when you say -


> So an actual Atheist cannot exist.


I understand that to mean because you find information that implies the lack of belief in a god or gods doesnt make sense or as you put it "doesnt work" that Atheists cannot exist.
Cannot exist means there cant be any. Atheists dont exist. Atheists cannot exist.
And when you say -


> no , the claim is what an atheist believes cannot happen.


And again - because you find information that implies the lack of belief in a god or gods doesnt make sense or as you put it "doesnt work" that a lack of beliefs in a god or gods cannot happen.
Cannot happen means an Atheist cannot believe that. It is literally impossible for an Atheist to have a lack of belief in a god or gods. It cannot happen.
Cannot exist and cannot happen are completely wrong/false. The lack of belief does not have to "work" or be accurate or make sense. There only has to be a lack of belief in a god or gods - the lack of belief that there are any and/or the lack of belief that they exist.
Maybe if you flip it around you will see it -
You believe there is a Christian God. You cant prove it but you believe it. Since you cant prove it, it doesnt "work", it doesnt make sense.
Therefore Christians cannot exist and what a Christian believes cannot happen. Right?
To be a Christian you just have to believe it.
To be an Atheist you just have to not believe it.
Doesnt matter if it makes sense or "works".
So either you are just wording it wrong or you are just wrong and refuse to see that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I kinda believe as you but then I get stuck on Romans 1 that none are without excuse.
> It's like a catch 22. We are telling all of the reprobates on this forum that they are without excuse yet they can't understand until they are elected and have the Holy Spirit to open their eyes.
> In fact no one is without excuse, not even the people on small islands and isolated villages. They knew God by his creation and yet exchanged worshiping God for worshiping idols. It's called General Revelation.
> But how could they possibly worship God and exchange this worship for idols if they are blinded reprobates?
> Their blindness would prevent them from worshiping God and their election would prevent them from worshiping idols.


You ask some very thoughtful, tough questions Art.
Lots of contradictions arent there?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Jhn 6:44
> No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> Eph 2:1
> ¶
> And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;




"Unicorns are among those rare and recalcitrant beings that refuse to be tamed or exploited. They insist on living out their own lives in those special places that must remain wild, and they can only be brought into the dominion of man through deception." --Paul and Karin Johnsgard, Dragons and Unicorns: A Natural History


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You ask some very thoughtful, tough questions Art.
> Lots of contradictions arent there?



Yes and that's why I rely on faith and not logic as you mentioned earlier. It takes faith to know of things not yet seen. 
I'm beginning to think that faith comes from God. But why would he open my ears and not the ears of others? 
The more I know the more I don't know.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes and that's why I rely on faith and not logic as you mentioned earlier. It takes faith to know of things not yet seen.
> I'm beginning to think that faith comes from God. But why would he open my ears and not the ears of others?
> The more I know the more I don't know.





> It takes faith to know of things not yet seen.


Now this is only my opinion and you know what they say about opinions but -
There will be things you will never know which is right or wrong, true or false. You will just have to pick what you are going to believe or what is the best fit for you.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 7, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> There is no difference in the definitions. They both mean exactly the same.
> I implied nothing.
> I think maybe why we are going around in circles is how you word things or my understanding of what you are trying to say. For example when you say -
> 
> ...



obviously you do not know what the word means ,. 
my post haven't been trying to prove anything exists.

I have repeated said the logic does not fit the position.

so I will type real slow , and in little logical steps.

Does a atheist believe as they say, " There is no god"? 
yes or no?  presumably, yes

If an atheist believes "there is no god"  How does he know?
He can't know for sure  because he is not omniscient but to maintain the statement , the atheist is saying he knows all things, making himself a god, thus making the statement false.

Get it so far?

Conversely, if an atheist says "there is no god" but admits there is something unknown to him, then he is admitting a god might exist, just unknown to him. Thus again making the statement false .

It is the logic, not the issue,  The logic would fit many things. But that is why you can't prove there is no God. You can't prove a negative, So a real atheist cannot exist. Atheist wannabe's certainly exist, but they haven't thought it through.

A real atheist does not post on Spiritual boards, he ignores spiritual matters.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2015)

The "real"  atheist is on the same level as the "real" believer.


----------



## Havana Dude (Aug 7, 2015)

I often wonder why folks yak so much about something they don't believe in. Oh well, back in my cave...........carry on.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 7, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The "real"  atheist is on the same level as the "real" believer.



it would be closer to say the fake atheist is very close to the fake Christian, neither know what they believe nor why?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> obviously you do not know what the word means ,.
> my post haven't been trying to prove anything exists.
> 
> I have repeated said the logic does not fit the position.
> ...


All that is required is a lack of belief in a god or gods.  
There are no more steps.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 7, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> we are the bad guys, the sinful beings. God is holy, we are not. We cannot approach God in our own way. He has set  the rules, we can only approach God as He allows, He came to be with us.



Sorry, I don't subscribe to the 'we're not worthy' mantra. We are not sinful beings, we are just beings. The answer you just gave is what happens when a book is written 2000 years ago and man is left to try to decipher on his own what it could possibly mean.  Hogwash.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2015)

Market you said above -
So a real Atheist cannot exist.
You also said above -
A real Atheist does not post on spiritual boards he ignores spiritual matters. 

Give that some thought.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 8, 2015)

since there are not any  real atheist, I guess it is true.

those that are not concerned about anything spiritual (as atheist claim to be) would not contribute to a spiritual forum.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> those that are not concerned about anything spiritual (as atheist claim to be)


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> since there are not any  real atheist, I guess it is true.
> 
> those that are not concerned about anything spiritual (as atheist claim to be) would not contribute to a spiritual forum.


These absurd statements with absolutely no evidence to back them up is why we cannot take anything you say seriously.
Some thought pops into your head and all of a sudden you post it as a fact as if you have done your homework on it.

The truth of the matter is ANYONE that has an ounce of interest in anything will frequent whatever forum they see fit that provides them with conversation that is satisfying to them. 

In your case using your logic, if you are such a strong believer in 'ol JC, you wouldn't  contribute to a spiritual forum because you would already be satisfied that everything you believe is true and there is nothing else to know,learn, or add.
Unless, as it blatantly shows here,  you are very uneasy in your beliefs and you constantly need reassurance about what you believe. Something about your belief and loyalty to your god is in serious question if you must frequent a message board that is clearly titled and geared towards talk among Atheists. A real Christian wouldn't need to constantly reassure himself or try to argue his beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> since there are not any  real atheist, I guess it is true.
> 
> those that are not concerned about anything spiritual (as atheist claim to be) would not contribute to a spiritual forum.


:
Wow. Just Wow.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 8, 2015)

I don't believe in fairies, I don't go finding faerie forums to discuss not believing in them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I don't believe in fairies, I don't go finding faerie forums to discuss not believing in them.


You don't believe real Atheists can exist either but here you are telling us how they can't exist. 
Do yourself a favor and quit while you are behind.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I don't believe in fairies, I don't go finding faerie forums to discuss not believing in them.


Why are you in the AAA instead of spending all of your time up in the Christian and spiritual forums? Did you forget where you are posting?

You must have doubts about your God and your beliefs.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 8, 2015)

Yes, i explained how an atheist cannot exist, by definition  so everyone that claims to be an atheist is just mistaken.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Yes, i explained how an atheist cannot exist, by definition  so everyone that claims to be an atheist is just mistaken.


A believer cannot exist by your same explanation and criteria. Believers cannot know there is a god with any more certainty than an Atheist knows there is not a god.
Welcome to the club.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Yes, i explained how an atheist cannot exist, by definition  so everyone that claims to be an atheist is just mistaken.


You failed miserably.  The logic you used in your argument has a hole in it big enough to drive a tank brigade through it.  You are just the only one who doesn't see it


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 8, 2015)

please explain further so I can correct the mistake


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> please explain further so I can correct the mistake


Mistaken believer, See post 113.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> please explain further so I can correct the mistake


Its been pointed out to you a dozen times already but for some reason you are so invested in the claim that there are no real Atheists that you keep ignoring it. Go back up to the post where you typed real slow and in little logical steps.  Your first question 
was does the Atheist belive as they say that there is no God?
And the answer is yes that's what they BELIEVE. 
Your next question is how does he know?
STOP THERE.   Here's the important part.
He doesn't have to know there are no Gods.He only has to BELIEVE
there are no Gods.  That's where your argument ends. The rest of your argument is he can't know unless he is a god blah blah blah so it is null and void. That's why I kept giving you the definition of ATheist which specifies lack of belief or does not believe. Look at the definition you provided. It also specifies belief.  
Since your argument MUST by definition end at the 2nd question the rest goes in the trash.  Therefore your conclusion that there cannot 
be a real Atheist goes in the trash with it.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 8, 2015)

He believes what He thinks is untrue?
Does an atheist say one thing yet believes another? or 
Does an atheist believe what He claims, "There is no God"?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> He believes what He thinks is untrue?
> Does an atheist say one thing yet believes another? or
> Does an atheist believe what He claims, "There is no God"?


You obviously do not understand it so why continue?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> He believes what He thinks is untrue?
> Does an atheist say one thing yet believes another? or
> Does an atheist believe what He claims, "There is no God"?


You are racking your brain trying to find a way around it. There isn't one.  I didn't give you my opinion I gave you facts. And facts are facts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Market you said above -
> So a real Atheist cannot exist.
> You also said above -
> A real Atheist does not post on spiritual boards he ignores spiritual matters.
> ...



I think what Market is saying is that real Atheist and real Christians don't take part in internet discussions or any discussions because they know what they believe.
They don't need to defend their beliefs and to do so shows or proves that one is a fake Atheist or a fake Christian.
That a real Christian is guided by the Holy Spirit and not man. Only a fake Christian would seek guidance from man. Only a fake Christian would feel a need to defend his beliefs.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 8, 2015)

LOL.   Fab.  There are  3-4 forums up index that are waiting for the pronouncement they are not real Christians.   Have fun!


----------



## welderguy (Aug 8, 2015)




----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think what Market is saying is that real Atheist and real Christians don't take part in internet discussions or any discussions because they know what they believe.
> They don't need to defend their beliefs and to do so shows or proves that one is a fake Atheist or a fake Christian.
> That a real Christian is guided by the Holy Spirit and not man. Only a fake Christian would seek guidance from man. Only a fake Christian would feel a need to defend his beliefs.


Market didn't /isn't saying that at all. If Market thought that he would have joined to participate in any forums whatsoever.
You seem to have put that together from a few different posts or else you are just trying to help him off the hook.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Market didn't /isn't saying that at all. If Market thought that he would have joined to participate in any forums whatsoever.
> You seem to have put that together from a few different posts or else you are just trying to help him off the hook.



what hook?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Its been pointed out to you a dozen times already but for some reason you are so invested in the claim that there are no real Atheists that you keep ignoring it. Go back up to the post where you typed real slow and in little logical steps.  Your first question
> was does the Atheist belive as they say that there is no God?
> And the answer is yes that's what they BELIEVE.
> Your next question is how does he know?
> ...



I follow your logic and your position, You specify the difference between believing God doesn't exist and knowing God doesn't exist?  I understand the difference.

Did I phrase that correctly to fit your statement?

That is why I mention we have to take that position of believing God doesn't exist at face value and ask the next question.  To believe God doesn't exist, unless the atheist, knows all, must include that there might. I stress "might ", exist outside the Atheist set of knowledge or belief other information that might effect the belief. 

Did I say that correctly?  In any belief, based upon knowledge or speculation, we being limited have to accept that belief is also limited and might be changeable if further information is known. The legal phrases is often "to the best of my knowledge" etc.

So the reasonable Atheist says he doesn't  "believe" there is a God, is saying ,by using the word "believe"  is adding or implying "to the best of my knowledge or understanding"
This leaves the possibility of a God existing that is beyond the Atheist's set of knowledge and speculation, which changes the atheist to an agnostic.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> what hook?


Using your logic for an Atheist also dictates there are no real believers.
Neither can truly know for sure so both are in the same spot.
If you claim a real atheist would not contribute to forum that you claim is a spiritual forum but in all actuality is a forum that clearly includes atheist in it's title, why are you here and not above where the christian and spiritual talk take place? An atheist in here is right where they belong. It is you that is in a place where, according to your own theory, a real believer wouldn't be.

You are your own worst(for you) and best (for us)example to show why your claim is false.


----------



## rmp (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> what hook?



I've been to three goat ropings and witnessed one train wreck.  This has to be the worst of them all.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Using your logic for an Atheist also dictates there are no real believers.
> Neither can truly know for sure so both are in the same spot.
> If you claim a real atheist would not contribute to forum that you claim is a spiritual forum but in all actuality is a forum that clearly includes atheist in it's title, why are you here and not above where the christian and spiritual talk take place? An atheist in here is right where they belong. It is you that is in a place where, according to your own theory, a real believer wouldn't be.



Will you please stop making perfect sense?  

Believing is not knowing.  I think it is impossible to prove whether or not a God exists.  In all of my life, I have yet to see any definite evidence, one way or the other.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Using your logic for an Atheist also dictates there are no real believers.
> Neither can truly know for sure so both are in the same spot.
> If you claim a real atheist would not contribute to forum that you claim is a spiritual forum but in all actuality is a forum that clearly includes atheist in it's title, why are you here and not above where the christian and spiritual talk take place? An atheist in here is right where they belong. It is you that is in a place where, according to your own theory, a real believer wouldn't be.
> 
> You are your own worst(for you) and best (for us)example to show why your claim is false.



oh no, I don't believe as an self proclaimed atheist, I know there are those who claim to be an atheist  or agnostics. They actually fit into my doctrine and are proof of what I believe.

Atheism makes no claim on the belief of others, It suggests others are believing in something that doesn't exist.  

Believing that something does exists  should invite action or investigation but to believe and act upon something  that does not exist, is quite the opposite and is not logical.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

rmp said:


> I've been to three goat ropings and witnessed one train wreck.  This has to be the worst of them all.



I do not understand at all, 

How have I misrepresented this?.  Should I have used the terms "self proclaimed atheist" instead of "atheist" in the explanation or "real atheist" as "self proclaimed atheist"?


It is all rather simple, you can't prove a (most) negative statement. You can prove a positive statement.  
Believing something does not exist, if not a lie, tries to prove a negative statement.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> oh no, I don't believe as an self proclaimed atheist, I know there are those who claim to be an atheist  or agnostics. They actually fit into my doctrine and are proof of what I believe.
> 
> Atheism makes no claim on the belief of others, It suggests others are believing in something that doesn't exist.
> 
> Believing that something does exists  should invite action or investigation but to believe and act upon something  that does not exist, is quite the opposite and is not logical.


Check out a Marvel comics forum and get back to me. Please link us to the post where you tell grownups they shouldn't be having conversations about things that do not exist.  I know I will find the replies interesting.

Many Atheists become Atheists because they had first tried to prove there was a god or gods and the lack of evidence has led them to their current state.. They are confident there are no deities due to the sheer lack of evidence. There is no evidence to provide any proof. They have enough non-evidence to decide it is more likely than not god/gods do not exist.
Believers on the other hand have convinced themselves of evidence that only exists in their own minds,differs greatly between each believer and is unable to be proved in any fashion. Yet believers proclaim to know a god exists.

Why are you here and not above?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Why are you here and not above?



Because this is where apologetics are most needed.

Why are you here?This is GON,not PON.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Because this is where apologetics are most needed.
> 
> Why are you here?This is GON,not PON.


1. You and a few others do not represent an apologetic and have never made an apologetic post.
2. I did check the rules and it is not necessary to reside in Ga in order to be a member of this forum and talk to like minded individuals.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 9, 2015)

Glad to see some newer posters in here.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Check out a Marvel comics forum and get back to me. Please link us to the post where you tell grownups they shouldn't be having conversations about things that do not exist.  I know I will find the replies interesting.
> 
> Many Atheists become Atheists because they had first tried to prove there was a god or gods and the lack of evidence has led them to their current state.. They are confident there are no deities due to the sheer lack of evidence. There is no evidence to provide any proof. They have enough non-evidence to decide it is more likely than not god/gods do not exist.
> Believers on the other hand have convinced themselves of evidence that only exists in their own minds,differs greatly between each believer and is unable to be proved in any fashion. Yet believers proclaim to know a god exists.
> ...



If I thought something didn't exist I sure would go around talking about it nor telling other I do not believe . I would ignore it.

To believe something exists is quite different to believe something, anything, does not exist. As I have explained.

So you want only those self proclaimed atheist to post?  What you gonna do , send posts back and for telling each other how much you do not believe in something you suppose  does not exist?  You gonna compare disbelief levels?


You are actually the evidence that God and His plan is in full effect.

You cannot know God at your terms. He has set His terms to have a relationship with Him.  You cannot approach Him directly anymore than a prisoner in the Federal prison approach the President. It is possible but others make the introduction.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If I thought something didn't exist I sure would go around talking about it nor telling other I do not believe . I would ignore it.
> 
> To believe something exists is quite different to believe something, anything, does not exist. As I have explained.
> 
> ...


I enjoy the conversation with all of the AAAs in here. It stimulates the brain.

Guys like you and welder do not provide anything but claims that you are incapable of backing up with facts.
Your reply above is proof of that.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

I haven't claimed anything.  I used the logic from the statements. Period,  Your brain stimulation must be on the low setting.

Would you care for me to try further stimulation?  A a self proclaimed atheist , you might enjoy the comedic posts and I might learn how you react?

If God exists and has made the physical world to His purpose, there  should be evidence somewhere?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I haven't claimed anything.  I used the logic from the statements. Period,  Your brain stimulation must be on the low setting.
> 
> Would you care for me to try further stimulation?  A a self proclaimed atheist , you might enjoy the comedic posts and I might learn how you react?
> 
> If God exists and has made the physical world to His purpose, there  should be evidence somewhere?


You're knowledge about me is as weak as your claims.
I am not a self proclaimed Atheist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> oh no, I don't believe as an self proclaimed atheist, I know there are those who claim to be an atheist  or agnostics. They actually fit into my doctrine and are proof of what I believe.
> 
> Atheism makes no claim on the belief of others, It suggests others are believing in something that doesn't exist.
> 
> Believing that something does exists  should invite action or investigation but to believe and act upon something  that does not exist, is quite the opposite and is not logical.


Slow down, you are doing it again. Split this sentence in half -


> Atheism makes no claim on the belief of others, It suggests others are believing in something that doesn't exist.


1. Atheism makes no claim on the belief of others
2. It suggests others are believing in something that doesn't exist.  
See how they contradict each other?
It (and the crazy claims you make) make it very difficult to figure out what the heck you are trying to say.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If I thought something didn't exist I sure would go around talking about it nor telling other I do not believe . I would ignore it.
> 
> To believe something exists is quite different to believe something, anything, does not exist. As I have explained.
> 
> ...


You dont realize it but you are in effect saying religion/Christianity is not worth talking about unless you believe in it.
There are a number of reasons why that is ridiculous.
See if you can think of a few.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If I thought something didn't exist I sure would go around talking about it nor telling other I do not believe . I would ignore it.
> 
> To believe something exists is quite different to believe something, anything, does not exist. As I have explained.
> 
> ...


The history of all our discussions is right there for you to look at. If you bother to look you will find Christian participation in EVERY one of them. If you bother to look you will find numerous posts where A/As have even said that if Christians didnt participate we would have nothing to talk about.
You really have a serious case of open mouth insert foot disease. 
And its because you just blurt crap out without having the slightest idea of what you are talking about and whats worse you dont bother to find out first.
Our patience with you is running out.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

Walt, when I put the shoe on the other foot for him he cannot tie the laces.
He keeps making my point for me yet does not see it.
Without "us" he has no conversation in here either. Which backs up my twist on his "real" Atheist claim that a "real" Christian would also not need to be in a forum talking about non-god stuff. He is the prime example for us to use to counter his made up claims.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I follow your logic and your position, You specify the difference between believing God doesn't exist and knowing God doesn't exist?  I understand the difference.
> 
> Did I phrase that correctly to fit your statement?
> 
> ...





> You specify the difference between believing God doesn't exist and knowing God doesn't exist?  I understand the difference.
> 
> Did I phrase that correctly to fit your statement?


No. I'll try to use an example but its going to require you to think.
Think of a food you dont like. We'll use brocolli as an example.
You believe brocolli doesnt taste good. Therefore you KNOW that to you brocolli doesnt taste good. If you were asked if brocolli taste good you would say NO.
The key is its all a matter of opinion.
Just like the existence of God or gods.
Its all a matter of personal opinion.
1 + 1 = 2 is a fact.
God exists is a personal opinion.
God doesnt exist is a personal opinion.
Therefore the Atheist can say he believes God doesnt exist and if asked he can say no.
You cant prove him wrong.
Just like you can say you believe the Christian God exists and if asked you can say yes.
And he cant prove you wrong.


> So the reasonable Atheist says he doesn't  "believe" there is a God, is saying ,by using the word "believe"  is adding or implying "to the best of my knowledge or understanding"
> This leaves the possibility of a God existing that is beyond the Atheist's set of knowledge and speculation, which changes the atheist to an agnostic.


In effect yes that may be the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic.
But being reasonable isnt required. If it was required YOU would be Agnostic too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Walt, when I put the shoe on the other foot for him he cannot tie the laces.He keeps making my point for me yet does not see it.
> Without "us" he has no conversation in here either. Which backs up my twist on his "real" Atheist claim that a "real" Christian would also not need to be in a forum talking about non-god stuff. He is the prime example for us to use to counter his made up claims.


Thats why I keep using examples to try to get him to look "in" and not just "out".
So far I dont think we are making any progress.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> It is all rather simple, you can't prove a (most) negative statement. You can prove a positive statement.
> Believing something does not exist, if not a lie, tries to prove a negative statement.



So then by that logic you as a professed Christian cannot rule out Hindu theology.   Hindu theology is inconsistent with Christian theology.  So how can you prove your positive statement of Christian theology if you can't rule out the truth of other inconsistent theologies?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats why I keep using examples to try to get him to look "in" and not just "out".
> So far I dont think we are making any progress.


Agreed


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The history of all our discussions is right there for you to look at. If you bother to look you will find Christian participation in EVERY one of them. If you bother to look you will find numerous posts where A/As have even said that if Christians didnt participate we would have nothing to talk about.
> You really have a serious case of open mouth insert foot disease.
> And its because you just blurt crap out without having the slightest idea of what you are talking about and whats worse you dont bother to find out first.
> Our patience with you is running out.



Kinda like religious Tourette's


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 10, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No. I'll try to use an example but its going to require you to think.
> Think of a food you dont like. We'll use brocolli as an example.
> You believe brocolli doesnt taste good. Therefore you KNOW that to you brocolli doesnt taste good. If you were asked if brocolli taste good you would say NO.
> The key is its all a matter of opinion.
> ...



it was never positioned as matter of opinion. 

 It was positioned as proving of a negative.  You can't prove something, anything does NOT exist.  By stating an opinion something does not exist, as only an opinion, reduces the strength of the belief and includes the possibility of something existing unknown to you or outside your belief.

"This only my opinion" opens other possibilities, opinion of others, limited knowledge experience etc.

If you believe an all knowing entity does not exist, you have declared yourself to be one.

If you allow that an all knowing entity might exist but you do not know, you have become an agnostic.

I agree with opinions as far as broccoli tastes, but it exists.
To say Broccoli does not exist , because I do not or have never eaten it, is way wrong


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> it was never positioned as matter of opinion.
> 
> It was positioned as proving of a negative.  You can't prove something, anything does NOT exist.  By stating an opinion something does not exist, as only an opinion, reduces the strength of the belief and includes the possibility of something existing unknown to you or outside your belief.
> 
> ...


Yeah you just arent going to get it.


> it was never positioned as matter of opinion.


The existence of God is an opinion.
Thats why one can claim there is or isnt.
You should just stick with whatever you want to believe.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 10, 2015)

The logic in this discussion is getting absolutely ridiculous (at least on one side).

Since I don't believe in flying unicorns, then I am declaring myself to be a flying unicorn.


----------



## rmp (Aug 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> You can't prove something, anything does NOT exist.



Yet here you are trying to prove an atheist does NOT exist.



marketgunner said:


> Yes, i explained how an atheist cannot exist


----------



## Hoot (Aug 10, 2015)




----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2015)

Hoot said:


>


Fantastic thanks


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 10, 2015)

no , the definition of Atheist  does not claim it to be an opinion.

It is a "lack of belief" or "denying the existence" . An opinion allows others to have opinion. 

Even the word itself theist vs atheist. A theist believes in the existence of God , an atheist denies the existance of God.

From the Dictionary.com "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings".

that is why I used "deny" or "disbelieve " in the opening post .

Deny or to disbelieve is not the same thing.

You  are right that choosing to believe in God is an  preference of opinion, but to deny the existence of God is a false position,  as I have posted.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> no , the definition of Atheist  does not claim it to be an opinion.
> 
> It is a "lack of belief" or "denying the existence" . An opinion allows others to have opinion.
> 
> ...


At this point, on this subject, the only logical and intelligent thing to do is dismiss you.
Take Care.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> to deny the existence of God is a false position,  as I have posted.



Do you accept that there could be more than one god?
Or, do you deny the existence of all gods except the one you believe?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 13, 2015)

I haven't shown my beliefs at all on this thread,  We have to define the terms in your question, so I can answer properly. This is because I might not believe as you think I do.

I believe in one GOD, (the capital letters are used) and many lessor mighty beings , whom you might call gods.  You are of the latter. 

Jesus called humans this term
hn 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Quoting from Psalms 82. The word is elohyim, it means "heavenly hosts"

Jesus is GOD, ye are gods. In particular, we are the "elohyim" who were expelled from Heaven. 



This is quite different from traditional church teaching, which now is advancing humanism.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I haven't shown my beliefs at all on this thread,  We have to define the terms in your question, so I can answer properly. This is because I might not believe as you think I do.
> 
> I believe in one GOD, (the capital letters are used) and many lessor mighty beings , whom you might call gods.  You are of the latter.
> 
> ...



You would be a great politician. I think you know full well what I was asking. If you really have no clue, further conversation is pointless.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 14, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I haven't shown my beliefs at all on this thread,  We have to define the terms in your question, so I can answer properly. This is because I might not believe as you think I do.
> 
> I believe in one GOD, (the capital letters are used) and many lessor mighty beings , whom you might call gods.  You are of the latter.
> 
> ...



With humanism should come humility, where telling someone that they are, even a lesser, god is flattering.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 16, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> With humanism should come humility, where telling someone that they are, even a lesser, god is flattering.



Humanism is the exaltation of the human experience, definitely not humility.  

In the example I submit, we are the bad guys. Humanity is the life preserver, not the "special favorite creation of God" nor a chance evolution


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 30, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> You can't affirm the negative. To say "there is no God" is quite different from "I believe there is no God".
> 
> "There is no God" can only be said by an omnipotent being who has complete knowledge of everywhere.
> 
> "I believe there is no God" is egocentric limited by the knowledge of the speaker and may leave room for change.



You're wrong. 

I'm far from omnipotent and I KNOW there is NO God. Never has been. How do I 'know' this? Well one, I trust my common sense and two, we KNOW 'it' was made up by men, we know when and we know who did it. Just like we know Spiderman was made up by a man. We know who did it and when.

The only difference between the two is the nuttiness of the fan base. Both are made up fiction. That's it, nothing more. So yes, I'm 100% sure god is not real, just like I KNOW Spiderman is not real. 

Not to knock anyone on here who isn't as certain as I am about this, but I just don't see how any rational person can come up with anything other than this conclusion.

To take it a step further I'd say deep 'faith' or genuine belief in a god is a mental illness. Just the same as a deep belief that Spiderman is real and talks to you, guides you and ....Well ya get it..


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 30, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> I'm far from omnipotent and I KNOW there is NO God. Never has been. How do I 'know' this? Well one, I trust my common sense and two, we KNOW 'it' was made up by men, we know when and we know who did it. Just like we know Spiderman was made up by a man. We know who did it and when.
> 
> ...




You can't know for certain because you don't have all the information; meaning "all the information in the Universe" but we do know how the idea of God(s) came up. 

We do have enough information to say rather authoritatively that rocks fall down and donkeys don't talk.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You can't know for certain because you don't have all the information; meaning "all the information in the Universe".
> 
> We do have enough information to say rather authoritatively that rocks fall down and donkeys don't talk.
> 
> But we do know how the idea of God(s) came up.



Bull. 

There is much I do not know but what I DO KNOW is that men made up god, that's it, end of story, no need to one step further. 

The other stuff, separate subjects. How the world and galaxy were formed, those are among the many things I don't know, other than to say, Spiderman,  errr, god, had NOTHING to do with it. 

I'm very comfortable with what I don't know and very comfortable leaving some things 'blank', and feel no desire to 'fill in' that blank with a comfortable answer. God is usually the placeholder for those too uncomfortable to leave things simply blank.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2015)

Lol


----------



## welderguy (Aug 30, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> I'm far from omnipotent and I KNOW there is NO God. Never has been. How do I 'know' this? Well one, I trust my common sense and two, we KNOW 'it' was made up by men, we know when and we know who did it. Just like we know Spiderman was made up by a man. We know who did it and when.
> 
> ...



What do you think will happen to you when you die?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 30, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Bull.
> 
> There is much I do not know but what I DO KNOW is that men made up god, that's it, end of story, no need to one step further.
> 
> ...


Just a question/comment -
We know its a proven fact that Stan Lee created Spiderman.
Its not a proven fact yet how life/the universe etc were created.
What do you see as the difference between filling in the blank with a god and removing a god as being elegible to fill in the blank?
Wouldnt "I dont know" disqualify one from doing either?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 30, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a question/comment -
> We know its a proven fact that Stan Lee created Spiderman.
> Its not a proven fact yet how life/the universe etc were created.
> What do you see as the difference between filling in the blank with a spiderman and removing a spiderman as being elegible to fill in the blank?
> Wouldnt "I dont know" disqualify one from doing either?



 before I answer, replace spiderman with God. 

The answers, well, obvious to me. 

Nothing invented by a man, out of his head, created the universe. Sorry. 

Now, I don't know what created it, but I have a pretty big list of what I KNOW did not have a part in its creation. That's not rocket science. 


In your question, when you realize that God and spiderman are basically,  exactly the same, you naturally KNOW spiderman had nothing to do with the big bang or whatever. No need to get all philosophical about it. It won't change the basic facts. 

I don't feel the need to entertain the obviously impossible.  I leave that for the religious. When I say "I dont know" , I say it with the knowledge that fictional magic super friends have NO bering on reality and when they find out the actual answer, it will not be 'god'(or spiderman)...n pretty much how I know that 'my toaster' will never fit into creation questions answer .


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 30, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> before I answer, replace spiderman with God.
> 
> The answers, well, obvious to me.
> 
> ...


Believe me I get where you are coming from.
But lets put Spiderman and God aside for a moment and focus stricly on the argument.


> God is usually the placeholder for those too uncomfortable to leave things simply blank.


Leaving things simply blank is neither filling in nor taking away.
Basically you are using the Christian argument but in reverse.
And the argument could be made that they BOTH derive from -


> those too uncomfortable to leave things simply blank


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 30, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Lol



It's still not quite as funny as "dunking vs. sprinkled", "wine vs. grape juice", "Jonah :metaphor or literal" or "predestination vs. freewill" but I understand how you might be amused.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 30, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Believe me I get where you are coming from.
> But lets put Spiderman and God aside for a moment and focus stricly on the argument.
> 
> Leaving things simply blank is neither filling in nor taking away.
> ...



I see where you're coming from but I just plain disagree. 

If it's blank, when it's filled IT WILL be 'filled' with 'something' that's 'real'. Fiction isn't real, by definition, so you can in fact rule out the fictional while still leaving it blank, the answer, if ever know will be based in the real, physical world.. or non fiction.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 30, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What do you think will happen to you when you die?



A lot of things will happen, I just won't be part of it.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 30, 2015)

I think this forum does not lack in alpha males with an opinion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 30, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What do you think will happen to you when you die?


Decomposition.
Or in my case, ashes sprinkled at a desired location.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 30, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> I see where you're coming from but I just plain disagree.
> 
> If it's blank, when it's filled IT WILL be 'filled' with 'something' that's 'real'. Fiction isn't real, by definition, so you can in fact rule out the fictional while still leaving it blank, the answer, if ever know will be based in the real, physical world.. or non fiction.



I think you might be hung up on the common notions of what "God" is thought to be and rightfully so.  

You might not be as adverse to the notion of God if it were proposed/theorized as some natural force; an "energy" with or without a consciousness (although some might argue that without a consciousness it wouldn't qualify as God. YMMV). 

I agree with you though that Medieval men most likely didn't have a clear notion of what the Universe and the forces that shape it are truly like, thus their creation of "Spiderman".


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think you might be hung up on the common notions of what "God" is thought to be and rightfully so.
> 
> You might not be as adverse to the notion of God if it were proposed/theorized as some natural force; an "energy" with or without a consciousness (although some might argue that without a consciousness it wouldn't qualify as God. YMMV).
> 
> I agree with you though that Medieval men most likely didn't have a clear notion of what the Universe and the forces that shape it are truly like, thus their creation of "Spiderman".



I don't think I'm 'hung up' on it as its actually the topic in discussion.. 

For the sake of the argument, god is god, Spiderman is Spiderman. 

It was about 'knowing' that god, (as he's known in this forum) does not exist as fact. I say I know for a fact. In the same way I know about Spidie.  ITS Obvious.

 The funny thing is.. I feel most folks who claim to truly believe,  DON'T. They lie to themselves more than anyone. I know this because I was indoctrinated since birth so I had experienced a full range of emotions to get where I am now. The hardest part was dealing with me and  what was programmed vs what IS real. It's too tough a journey for some. 

The actual true believers who he talks to and 'works' through,  they are straight up crazy people, as in mentally ill. I don't even think that's debatable. 

Well worth it though, when you stop lying and making excuses to yourself about what you know is, and isn't. (I'm not saying you are Ambush). That's just MY experience with it.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> A lot of things will happen, I just won't be part of it.



In body, no.

But, what do you think will happen to your spirit upon your death?
Matt.10:28


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

_The actual true believers who he talks to and 'works' through, they are straight up crazy people, as in mentally ill. I don't even think that's debatable. 
_

Wow, that's pretty low, even for you. Of all the non-believers I have conversed with on this forum, all but you have been able to carry on a civil debate, even if we vehemently disagree.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> I'm far from omnipotent and I KNOW there is NO God. Never has been. How do I 'know' this? Well one, I trust my common sense ...






> When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In body, no.
> 
> But, what do you think will happen to your spirit upon your death?
> Matt.10:28



Like a flame, it just goes out. Life just ends.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> _The actual true believers who he talks to and 'works' through, they are straight up crazy people, as in mentally ill. I don't even think that's debatable.
> _
> 
> Wow, that's pretty low, even for you. Of all the non-believers I have conversed with on this forum, all but you have been able to carry on a civil debate, even if we vehemently disagree.



I'm civil. There's just not a 'nice enough' way to say what I think AND to not offend 'someone'. So, I just don't care, either block me or put yer big boy pants on. My opinion stands though,  if Spiderman talks to you, you're freaking crazy. Seriously mentality ill. Same with any 'god', as they are made up, man made fiction, that's it. That not me being 'mean' or going out of the way to hurt anyone, it just is what it is.. There's nothing 'low' about it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> I'm civil. There's just not a 'nice enough' way to say what I think AND to not offend 'someone'. So, I just don't care, either block me or put yer big boy pants on. My opinion stands though,  if Spiderman talks to you, you're freaking crazy. Seriously mentality ill. Same with any 'god', as they are made up, man made fiction, that's it. That not me being 'mean' or going out of the way to hurt anyone, it just is what it is.. There's nothing 'low' about it.




That's true.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> I'm civil. There's just not a 'nice enough' way to say what I think AND to not offend 'someone'. So, I just don't care, either block me or put yer big boy pants on. My opinion stands though,  if Spiderman talks to you, you're freaking crazy. Seriously mentality ill. Same with any 'god', as they are made up, man made fiction, that's it. That not me being 'mean' or going out of the way to hurt anyone, it just is what it is.. There's nothing 'low' about it.



Oh, trust me, I don't need to block you or put my big boy pants on. If you think you are the only rabid atheist I have ever encountered, then you are the one with the mental problem. I just find it amusing how much your hatred of Christianity has consumed you. It spills out into 99% of your posts in other forums, whether they are religious or not. But, yeah, I'm the one with the mental illness.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> I'm civil. There's just not a 'nice enough' way to say what I think AND to not offend 'someone'. So, I just don't care, either block me or put yer big boy pants on. My opinion stands though,  if Spiderman talks to you, you're freaking crazy. Seriously mentality ill. Same with any 'god', as they are made up, man made fiction, that's it. That not me being 'mean' or going out of the way to hurt anyone, it just is what it is.. There's nothing 'low' about it.



There isn't anything you could possibly come up with that would offend me. 

I know that you're not versed in philosophy, you're just spouting off your opinion and what you think you know to be facts. 

Coming on this forum and saying people like Ravi Zacharias are mentally ill shows that you're just mad at the Christians you grew up around.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

I think some of you guys are getting wrapped around the axle of his tone. He did bring up a good question.

If someone came to you and told you that they spoke directly to God, would you think them blessed or crazy?


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think some of you guys are getting wrapped around the axle of his tone. He did bring up a good question.
> 
> If someone came to you and told you that they spoke directly to God, would you think them blessed or crazy?



That's a good question. I guess for me personally, I would hear what they had to say about it and see how that lined up scripturally. The man who shot the reporter and her camera man last week claimed that Jehovah had told him to do so. That directly contradicts the bible, so I can assume that while he undoubtedly heard voices, it wasn't that of God. The devil parades around as an angel of light, and presents things to people with just enough truth in them that they buy it. 
As for BRW, I am confident we could put the religious talk aside and hog hunt together or eat spare ribs with no issues. I don't know him personally, but he obviously has a past that has made him very hostile to the concept of Christianity. I would encourage anyone not to lose hope. As I have said before, if there is breath, there is hope. I have loved ones who are devout non-believers. I treat them as I am supposed to and continue to pray for their salvation. I would do the same for anyone on here.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2015)

I tried a pair of big boy pants on once.They had me all bound up.So I put my man size ones back on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> That's a good question. I guess for me personally, I would hear what they had to say about it and see how that lined up scripturally. The man who shot the reporter and her camera man last week claimed that Jehovah had told him to do so. That directly contradicts the bible, so I can assume that while he undoubtedly heard voices, it wasn't that of God. The devil parades around as an angel of light, and presents things to people with just enough truth in them that they buy it.
> As for BRW, I am confident we could put the religious talk aside and hog hunt together or eat spare ribs with no issues. I don't know him personally, but he obviously has a past that has made him very hostile to the concept of Christianity. I would encourage anyone not to lose hope. As I have said before, if there is breath, there is hope. I have loved ones who are devout non-believers. I treat them as I am supposed to and continue to pray for their salvation. I would do the same for anyone on here.



I'm not trying to discuss BRW, rather the question he posed. 

Why couldn't God contradict the Bible? It's only because of hindsight that we know that He wouldn't actually make Abraham kill Isaac, but for the time that he obeyed God right up until God stopped him, that was in direct contravention of the Commandment.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not trying to discuss BRW, rather the question he posed.
> 
> Why couldn't God contradict the Bible? It's only because of hindsight that we know that He wouldn't actually make Abraham kill Isaac, but for the time that he obeyed God right up until God stopped him, that was in direct contravention of the Commandment.



So, are you saying God the Father was wrong for pouring out His wrath on His own Son?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I tried a pair of big boy pants on once.They had me all bound up.So I put my man size ones back on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So, are you saying God the Father was wrong for pouring out His wrath on His own Son?



I'm not laying judgment. I'm just saying that He gave a commandment not to kill and then told one of His children to kill anyway. At the time He gave the second command there was no way of knowing that it was only a test, and one that wasn't going to be gone all the way through with, so His voice contradicted His word, so that doesn't seem to me to be a good metric of whether the voice someone is hearing is God or not. 

I heard someone say something in a TV show that fits here, and I'm paraphrasing:

If you talk to God, that's fine. That's called prayer. If God talks to you, though, it's time to call the men in the white coats.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> That's a good question. I guess for me personally, I would hear what they had to say about it and see how that lined up scripturally. The man who shot the reporter and her camera man last week claimed that Jehovah had told him to do so. That directly contradicts the bible, so I can assume that while he undoubtedly heard voices, it wasn't that of God. The devil parades around as an angel of light, and presents things to people with just enough truth in them that they buy it.
> As for BRW, I am confident we could put the religious talk aside and hog hunt together or eat spare ribs with no issues. I don't know him personally, but he obviously has a past that has made him very hostile to the concept of Christianity. I would encourage anyone not to lose hope. As I have said before, if there is breath, there is hope. I have loved ones who are devout non-believers. I treat them as I am supposed to and continue to pray for their salvation. I would do the same for anyone on here.





> That directly contradicts the bible, so I can assume that while he undoubtedly heard voices, it wasn't that of God


Theres some pretty wack stuff in the Bible. It surely isnt all hugs and kisses.
I mean at the foundation is believe in me or burn and you didnt listen to me so you are all (except for Noah and fam) going for a swim.
I think you kind of have to close one eye to make the "it wasnt that of God" claim.


> The devil parades around as an angel of light, and presents things to people with just enough truth in them that they buy it.


If one were to believe in the devil a pretty good argument can be made that religion including the Bible could be his greatest work.
What else has divided so many, caused so many wars, ill will toward others etc? From back then until this very moment.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> That's a good question. I guess for me personally, I would hear what they had to say about it and see how that lined up scripturally. The man who shot the reporter and her camera man last week claimed that Jehovah had told him to do so. That directly contradicts the bible, so I can assume that while he undoubtedly heard voices, it wasn't that of God. The devil parades around as an angel of light, and presents things to people with just enough truth in them that they buy it.
> As for BRW, I am confident we could put the religious talk aside and hog hunt together or eat spare ribs with no issues. I don't know him personally, but he obviously has a past that has made him very hostile to the concept of Christianity. I would encourage anyone not to lose hope. As I have said before, if there is breath, there is hope. I have loved ones who are devout non-believers. I treat them as I am supposed to and continue to pray for their salvation. I would do the same for anyone on here.



SO many lil sprinkles of crazy in your post, and I mean that in the nicest way possible...


It's not just Christianity. All major religion sucks. All.are.equally.scary. They are full of crazy people. Crazy people who can justify ANY act of barberism and request forgiveness from a magical friend or worse, feel no need to ask forgiveness because they feel RITIOUS in whatever insane act they commit.  The sane ones are the ones who are terrible AT their religion, the ones who are most fun to hang out with too.. They don't believe ANY of the mumbo-jumbo but have just the right mix of doubt n desire ( thanks to decades of brain washing starting before they can talk) to be socially accepted, they tolerate the crazies and do just enough to keep networking for work.. That's the bulk of it imo..


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Theres some pretty wack stuff in the Bible. It surely isnt all hugs and kisses.
> I mean at the foundation is believe in me or burn and you didnt listen to me so you are all (except for Noah and fam) going for a swim.
> I think you kind of have to close one eye to make the "it wasnt that of God" claim.
> 
> ...



Ain't  that the truth.. 

I mean really, when looking for a book to use as a moral compass, I've always wondered how much pedophilia is TOO much to disqualify a book? I guess the bible has the right amount for some. Too much for me!!


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> ...  if Spiderman talks to you, you're freaking crazy.



What about Wolverine?

We don't talk, but we do exchange emails.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> SO many lil sprinkles of crazy in your post, and I mean that in the nicest way possible...
> 
> 
> It's not just Christianity. All major religion sucks. All.are.equally.scary. They are full of crazy people. Crazy people who can justify ANY act of barberism and request forgiveness from a magical friend or worse, feel no need to ask forgiveness because they feel RITIOUS in whatever insane act they commit.  The sane ones are the ones who are terrible AT their religion, the ones who are most fun to hang out with too.. They don't believe ANY of the mumbo-jumbo but have just the right mix of doubt n desire ( thanks to decades of brain washing starting before they can talk) to be socially accepted, they tolerate the crazies and do just enough to keep networking for work.. That's the bulk of it imo..



Just out of curiosity, would you say that Billy Graham and other elder statesmen (DL Moody, etc.) of the Christian faith are lunatics?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> Just out of curiosity, would you say that Billy Graham and other elder statesmen (DL Moody, etc.) of the Christian faith are lunatics?



Yes. Mixed in with equal parts snake oil peddler and life after death insurance salesmen creepiness. .


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Yes. Mixed in with equal parts snake oil peddler and life after death insurance salesmen creepiness. .



From your point of view, is there ANYTHING that would ever cause you to change your views on Christianity?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Yes. Mixed in with equal parts snake oil peddler and life after death insurance salesmen creepiness. .



And what about the good that they've done also in the name of their God? 

Washed away by lunacy?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And what about the good that they've done also in the name of their God?
> 
> Washed away by lunacy?



Yes. 

The same as you'd call it a 'wonderful dining experience', if 2 of the 9 course's of your meal involved the chef taking a dump on your plate at the table.



Let's be serious,  right now there ARE muslims talking over coffee saying "look at the good ISIL has done".. crazy, in any religion.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Yes.
> 
> The same as you'd call it a 'wonderful dining experience', if 2 of your 9 course's or your meal involved the chef taking a dump on your plate at the table.



That's quite an analogy. So you would discount all the good done by Christian charities both in the US and around the world as bad things simply because they were done in the name of Christ?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Yes.
> 
> The same as you'd call it a 'wonderful dining experience', if 2 of your 9 course's or your meal involved the chef taking a dump on your plate at the table.



Wow. Question answered. Have fun.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

Would you refuse to go to a faith-based hospital?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> Would you refuse to go to a faith-based hospital?



Are they gonna pray for me, or do hey have real Dr's ?


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Are they gonna pray for me, or do hey have real Dr's ?



Very cute, but you didn't answer the question. Hospitals run by Catholic Health Initiative or any of the other denominational groups that are highly regarded in the medical field. Would you refuse to be treated there simply because of the association with the Christian faith? I've had several surgeries at Memorial in Chattanooga and not once did I worry that I was going to be preached to, prayed over, or had a rattlesnake dropped in my lap.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wow. Question answered. Have fun.



I am. 


They should be reviled for what they aren't doing right now as much as for what they've done that's straight evil. I can show you pictures of starving, sick children with easily curable ailments, that will kill them. Taken within days of today, and I can show you pictures of mega churches and old guys in funny hats literally sitting on thrones of freakin gold n jewels.. So no, they get NO quarter from me . I'm Old school about right n wrong. Today you have evangelical crazies going to third world rat hokes and convincing basically primitive people that gays are evil and should be killed, and they passed laws and they DO kill them.  Today. Not 200 years ago.  So, no amount of 'good' now washes them clean as they are either not doing what they say they should be doing or they are doing exactly what their crazy book says and that's barbaric.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> I am.
> 
> 
> They should be reviled for what they aren't doing right now as much as for what they've done that's straight evil. I can show you pictures of starving, sick children with easily curable ailments, that will kill them. Taken within days of today, and I can show you pictures of mega churches and old guys in funny hats literally sitting on thrones of freakin gold n jewels.. So no, they get NO quarter from me . I'm Old school about right n wrong. Today you have evangelical crazies going to third world rat hokes and convincing basically primitive people that gays are evil and should be killed, and they passed laws and they DO kill them.  Today. Not 200 years ago.  So, no amount of 'good' now washes them clean as they are either not doing what they say they should be doing or they are doing exactly what their crazy book says and that's barbaric.



What are you doing for the starving pygmy's down in Africa? And, if nothing, how does that make you morally superior enough to castigate anyone else?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> Very cute, but you didn't answer the question. Hospitals run by Catholic Health Initiative or any of the other denominational groups that are highly regarded in the medical field. Would you refuse to be treated there simply because of the association with the Christian faith? I've had several surgeries at Memorial in Chattanooga and not once did I worry that I was going to be preached to, prayed over, or had a rattlesnake dropped in my lap.



Sure. It wouldn't be rational to refuse lifesaving medical procedures from trained Dr's. So ya know, I bet less than 1 in 50 actually believe it for real. The rest are lying.  so I'm safe I think.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Sure. It wouldn't be rational to refuse lifesaving medical procedures from trained Dr's. So ya know, I bet less than 1 in 50 actually believe it for real. The rest are lying.  so I'm safe I think.



I'm guessing some folks working for Christian charities don't "believe it for real". Does that still make the charities bad?


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Sure. It wouldn't be rational to refuse lifesaving medical procedures from trained Dr's. So ya know, I bet less than 1 in 50 actually believe it for real. The rest are lying.  so I'm safe I think.



By the way, your assumption of 1 in 50 may be a little off....

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050622-religious.html


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What are you doing for the starving pygmy's down in Africa? And, if nothing, how does that make you morally superior enough to castigate anyone else?



Look man, you asked about them. You asked about the church. This isn't about me. It's not. I think I've been perfectly clear about my thoughts n beliefs so I'm sure you can fill in the blanks pretty easy.. 

I don't put myself out as working for a god that said to take care of the sick n starving around the globe. I don't take billions of bucks to DO that work. They do. They have earned our castigation. They have earned our fear of their faithful. 

I am definitely morally superior to most true religious crazies. No mild way to say that. No way to say that without sounding arrogant or a few other unflattering traits one could associate with a statement like that. But, here's how I qualify that. They follow the bible or the Koran or some LRon Hubbard or golden plates  and those books ARE ALL  morally flawed on so many levels. So if I just live a normal decent life, don't rape, or kill or discriminate or enslave anyone in my lifetime, I led a far more superior moral life than a believer who did any of those things as per their 'religion'.. it's not bragging or being being big headed. It is what it is.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Look man, you asked about them. You asked about the church. This isn't about me. It's not. I think I've been perfectly clear about my thoughts n beliefs so I'm sure you can fill in the blanks pretty easy..
> 
> I don't put myself out as working for a god that said to take care of the sick n starving around the globe. I don't take billions of bucks to DO that work. They do. They have earned our castigation. They have earned our fear of their faithful.
> *
> I am definitely morally superior to most true religious crazies.* No mild way to say that. No way to say that without sounding arrogant or a few other unflattering traits one could associate with a statement like that. But, here's how I qualify that. They follow the bible or the Koran or some LRon Hubbard or golden plates  and those books ARE ALL  morally flawed on so many levels. *So if I just live a normal decent life, don't rape, or kill or discriminate or enslave anyone in my lifetime, I led a far more superior moral life than a believer who did any of those things as per their 'religion'.. *it's not bragging or being being big headed. It is what it is.



How? 

If two people live otherwise identical lives, you'd throw out the guy who did it for God as morally flawed? It's the same acts committed for two different reasons.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

So, because of your view of Christianity and disdain for all things associated with it, you would chastise the thousands of missionaries who leave behind a standard of living that 90% of the world would envy and go to regions that most of the world would rather not admit existed in order to change those areas for the good? Really?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> So, because of your view of Christianity and disdain for all things associated with it, you would chastise the thousands of missionaries who leave behind a standard of living that 90% of the world would envy and go to regions that most of the world would rather not admit existed in order to change those areas for the good? Really?



I'd bet yes.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd bet yes.



Probably so. I worked alongside both Christians and non-believers helping clean up in Trenton, Georgia after the tornados blew threw a few years back. Our differences in doctrine or belief as a whole never influenced our ability to feed families who just lost everything or kept us from clearing debris together.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> Probably so. I worked alongside both Christians and non-believers helping clean up in Trenton, Georgia after the tornados blew threw a few years back. Our differences in doctrine or belief as a whole never influenced our ability to feed families who just lost everything or kept us from clearing debris together.



Yep. I don't care what motivates a person to do things, I care what they do. I can't see your motivations, but I can see your acts. There are some "clergy" like Creflo Dollar using and abusing their flock for personal gain, but most of the faithful are just good natured people trying to make it in a rough world, and leave it better than they found it, according to their belief structures. 

Wait, that last part sounds exactly like what BRW is trying to do here...


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep. I don't care what motivates a person to do things, I care what they do. I can't see your motivations, but I can see your acts. There are some "clergy" like Creflo Dollar using and abusing their flock for personal gain, but most of the faithful are just good natured people trying to make it in a rough world, and leave it better than they found it, according to their belief structures.
> 
> Wait, that last part sounds exactly like what BRW is trying to do here...



Yeah, old Creflo is quite the smooth operator. What's the old proverb about how pride cometh before a fall?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How?
> 
> If two people live otherwise identical lives, you'd throw out the guy who did it for God as morally flawed? It's the same acts committed for two different reasons.


Yes. If I help a stranded person on the roadside because it's the right thing to do and someone else drives by n thinks ' I should help so I don't burn for eternity, or so they get sky miles for heaven" and they wouldn't have without the threat or  the reward, then yes. One is morally superior to the other. I let you decide that for yourself which one. 


smokey30725 said:


> So, because of your view of Christianity and disdain for all things associated with it, you would chastise the thousands of missionaries who leave behind a standard of living that 90% of the world would envy and go to regions that most of the world would rather not admit existed in order to change those areas for the good? Really?


 Get off the persecution pony. I said all religions. Repeatedly. 



smokey30725 said:


> Probably so. I worked alongside both Christians and non-believers helping clean up in Trenton, Georgia after the tornados blew threw a few years back. Our differences in doctrine or belief as a whole never influenced our ability to feed families who just lost everything or kept us from clearing debris together.



If you need a book to tell you, or to force you to do the right thing and you wouldn't do it without its direction, than you're not a good person. You're imitating being a good person to save your hide or get a leg up so to speak. 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep. I don't care what motivates a person to do things, I care what they do. I can't see your motivations, but I can see your acts. There are some "clergy" like Creflo Dollar using and abusing their flock for personal gain, but most of the faithful are just good natured people trying to make it in a rough world, and leave it better than they found it, according to their belief structures.
> 
> Wait, that last part sounds exactly like what BRW is trying to do here...



Nobody's sacrificing their virgin daughters to Posiden anymore to ensure good fishing seasons. We, as a people grew out of those beliefs. I have faith we will eventually outgrow religion as it is now in our world. I'd love to live another 100 years and see.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

_Get off the persecution pony. I said all religions. Repeatedly. 
_

Once again, question avoided / unanswered


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 31, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep. I don't care what motivates a person to do things, I care what they do. I can't see your motivations, but I can see your acts. There are some "clergy" like Creflo Dollar using and abusing their flock for personal gain, but most of the faithful are just good natured people trying to make it in a rough world, and leave it better than they found it, according to their belief structures.
> 
> Wait, that last part sounds exactly like what BRW is trying to do here...



How about that?  I think most non-believers REALLY do think that religion does more harm than good.  When they plead with believers to think rationally I think they are trying to improve the world at large.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> So, because of your view of Christianity and disdain for all things associated with it, you would chastise the thousands of missionaries who leave behind a standard of living that 90% of the world would envy and go to regions that most of the world would rather not admit existed in order to change those areas for the good? Really?



Dude.. They do not ride in and leave behind Walmart. They ride in and try to swoop up all the new believers they can, when they are at the lowest point in their lives. They bring an archaic book that the poor people take literally then hack up other villages with machetes and kill gays, rape victims. Modern day stuff. Not the crusades.. I'd have more respect for them if they came in and left behind schools and farming tech and aid and pushed no religion. Let the kindness and the acts they perform draw in the curious to such a fine organization. Right. But I don't get my way. Soni feel free to have disdain for all of them as I wish. I'm an equal opportunity religious hater.. 

If the catholic church were sitting on say, trillions in cash,real estate, artifacts, gems and other assets, and could fund meals for every starving person in Africa, Asia and Europe, ...and DID NOT do that, just how much 'good' in other areas do they have to do to make up for that? I mean 'if' they had trillions stashed ??


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 31, 2015)

You do realize that every initiative you listed has been supported by or constructed by faith-based charities, right? But I guess in your view, it would be better that they were never there, right?


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> You do realize that every initiative you listed has been supported by or constructed by faith-based charities, right? But I guess in your view, it would be better that they were never there, right?



Religion does more harm than good any way you shake it. Sorry. You won't change my mind. At least not until the religions of the world do a 180. I don't see that happening.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

Where are the Atheists charities?  

They cannot have a charitable inkling, survival of the fittest right.

So if a self proclaimed atheist does have a real soft heart , it proves the spiritual exists within himself.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Where are the Atheists charities?
> 
> They cannot have a charitable inkling, survival of the fittest right.
> 
> So if a self proclaimed atheist does have a real soft heart , it proves the spiritual exists within himself.




Softness of the heart proves the spiritual....

We never did finish that conversation about what kind of spiritual shape someone is in if they like rap or Marilyn Manson.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Where are the Atheists charities?
> 
> They cannot have a charitable inkling, survival of the fittest right.
> 
> So if a self proclaimed atheist does have a real soft heart , it proves the spiritual exists within himself.



Objection!  Speculation.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Where are the Atheists charities?
> 
> They cannot have a charitable inkling, survival of the fittest right.
> 
> So if a self proclaimed atheist does have a real soft heart , it proves the spiritual exists within himself.


That is only proof of the spiritual to you.
In reality it is called humanity because we are humans.
And is DIRECTLY related to survival of the fittest. Humans have learned there is strength in numbers. Compassion makes friends,lots of friends mean strength. Strength means survival.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

bad spirituality, negative , spiritually wanting, it also proves the spiritual exists, 

We are the bad guys, it is a matter of degree.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 31, 2015)

bullethead said:


> That is only proof of the spiritual to you.
> In reality it is called humanity because we are humans.
> And is DIRECTLY related to survival of the fittest. Humans have learned there is strength in numbers. Compassion makes friends,lots of friends mean strength. Strength means survival.



Because that's how God made it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> bad spirituality, negative , spiritually wanting, it also proves the spiritual exists,
> 
> We are the bad guys, it is a matter of degree.


Spiritual is having something to do with religion or out of this world. You are trying to insert and include "spiritual" where it does not fit. You are asserting this spiritual word where it does not have a place and you refuse to define or explain what exactly you mean by spiritual.
Spiritual does not mean "having a soft heart" or "caring" or "compassion" etc.
You take words that already have definitions and interject "spiritual" as being in their definition when it is no way associated. 
You are dishonest in your definitions.
You can get away with that stuff when you have a like minded audience, but not in here.

Or am I being too spiritually observant?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

most religions have nothing to do with spirituality

Having a soft heart is evidence of response to spiritual stimuli

I was trying not to use words that an atheist would reject,  Some would call it the soul, 

That is not spiritually observant at all,  it is all in your mind, the psyche.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> most religions have nothing to do with spirituality
> 
> Having a soft heart is evidence of response to spiritual stimuli
> 
> ...


Hey, all you have to do now is back up what you have claimed.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

I did, and used  the "Atheists" as examples.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I did, and used  the "Atheists" as examples.


Swing=Miss


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> bad spirituality, negative , spiritually wanting, it also proves the spiritual exists,
> 
> We are the bad guys, it is a matter of degree.



Bull Pucky


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 3, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Bull Pucky



Why do you appreciate beauty?  in a sunset or a picture?

Why do you tear up at the thoughts of your loved one or even a picture of your loved one?

Why does music affect you? Why are millions spent to get the background music right in a horror movie?

How is one creative in art?

Why do you love your kids?  Surely, it is against evolution to not fight to survive as the fittest? Why do you give up resources to other people?  

Why do you feel shame?  surely fighting for survival should not feel be a cause of shame.

You are posting on a spiritual help and discussion board because you are starving spiritually

You are the example to prove there is a soul.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Why do you appreciate beauty?  in a sunset or a picture?
> 
> Why do you tear up at the thoughts of your loved one or even a picture of your loved one?
> 
> ...


I am telling you, this stuff that you post is absolutely without any merit.
Please, seriously please connect the dots for us and prove any of what you claim.

Look at a plastic shopping bag from Walmart. That is proof that unicorns fly and their poop is the lifeblood of all mankind.

It is blatantly obvious that you have not done any homework on these ridiculous claims you make.

You are in the Atheist section because deep down you know there is no god and are trying,unsuccessfully, to make a case for a god so you can sleep at night.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 3, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Why do you appreciate beauty?  in a sunset or a picture?
> Because sunsets are pretty
> 
> Why do you tear up at the thoughts of your loved one or even a picture of your loved one?
> ...



My Bull Pucky comment was in regards to your 'we are all bad guys'.

I will never understand the need to grovel at an imaginary Lord's feet.  I'm so bad.  I'm not worthy.  AND you link it to some mythical female eating a mythical forbidden fruit.

I'll pray for you.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 5, 2015)

What is pretty?

What makes an artist creative?

Many male animals kill their own young and other male's offspring, why are you different?

You are on the Spiritual help and discussion side of the forum,  hunting forum is up the page

Please elaborate on your "spark of force"


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 5, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> My Bull Pucky comment was in regards to your 'we are all bad guys'.
> 
> I will never understand the need to grovel at an imaginary Lord's feet.  I'm so bad.  I'm not worthy.  AND you link it to some mythical female eating a mythical forbidden fruit.
> 
> I'll pray for you.



you missed it , we are not sinners because of Eve,  We sin because we are sinners.  We were condemned long before the fruit was eaten.

We are the bad guys, the ones who were expelled and required this space and time to be needed.  

You have been drinkin' the same koolaid the "church" people have,  You reject it  for the wrong reasons, they accept it incorrectly for a different reason.

Both groups are wrong , yet equal.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 5, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you missed it , we are not sinners because of Eve,  We sin because we are sinners.  We were condemned long before the fruit was eaten.
> 
> We are the bad guys, the ones who were expelled and required this space and time to be needed.
> 
> ...


Yes now you are getting it.

Your all knowing god already knew what his creatures would do and will do. He knows what will happen eons before it happens,yet he holds against us what he already knows we are going to do..predestined to do. Then he sends a version of himself to cleanse the sinners of their sin. He devises a plan, not a snap his fingers and its done plan, but obviously the ONLY plan an all powerful god could come up with to send his only Son (himself which he splits into two entities so he can sit beside himself on his own couch after its all over) to earth to be killed by the people,the very people he wants to save. He claims it is a sacrifice but in reality he is sending himself to die (but not really)so that he can come back and literally live forever.  So in reality it is absolutely no sacrifice what so ever. It is just some twisted being that knows he cannot die sending himself to pretend to die so that he can watch a dramatic play unfold to give him a sense of what dying must be like. Then because it amused him so much he forgave all of us sinners but he created guys like you that are convinced his Son died to save us but we are not really saved because you still, daily, try to beat yourself up on how you are not worthy, we are not worthy, and we are all still sinners even though in the next breath you try to tell us some hoaky book tells us a 2000 year old Jewish guy died to wipe our sins away....
We are not sinners,we are forgiven,we are sinners,we are not forgiven. Which is it?
What did the guy die for almost 2000 years ago if we are back to square one?
If Jesus died for our sins then we are good to go. Our sins are forgiven.
If Jesus didn't die for our sins then that book needs a rewrite.

You are the one wearing the giant red costume in the shape of a pitcher full of a refreshing yet highly sugar filled drink that keeps busting through walls while yelling this nonsense above. You are the koolaide regional rep handing out samples in hopes that someones likes it so much that they get hooked.
No thanks. I ain't buying what you are trying to sell because it is one big circular line of ridiculousness.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 6, 2015)

You seem to be very confused

The pardon is offered, in total, you have to accept it.

The life ring has been thrown, if you reject it you will drown.

We know humanity exists because of sin. We know God who became the son, became the Son of man because of sin,  space and time and this world system only exist because of sin.

The space and time we are in is a temporary holding cell, the pardon is offered before final judgement is carried out.
Time will end , physical space will end. Mercy will end.

I suggest you go as I have done, try to determine man's opinion as compared to facts, as presented in scripture, (ie, not the KJV, ) as well as pure science, without bias. When the opinion is removed, the truth can be seen clearer.

After all if God is God, and created this place, true science and true scripture cannot conflict.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> You seem to be very confused
> 
> The pardon is offered, in total, you have to accept it.
> 
> ...


"We know...."
You know nothing and have not been able to offer anything but outlandish claims and provide zero proof.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 6, 2015)

you reject a world wide flood despite the evidence,  because you do not understand a thing makes it untrue?

You must have a real problem with cell phones or microwaves maybe the reloading you do.  Do you understand a double based nitrocellulose ?

If you only accept things you understand, you must believe very little.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 6, 2015)

On this thread, 
1. I proved an real atheist doesn't exit. It is an oxymoron.

2.The agnostics are the most truthful of the doubters.

3. That most A/A are just as confused as many self proclaimed "Christians" and certainly most religions.

4, That most A/A problems are with the "incorrect" teachings of the "church"  that has bias in translations causing the real meanings to be obscured and the man made errors to become evident


----------



## bullethead (Sep 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you reject a world wide flood despite the evidence,  because you do not understand a thing makes it untrue?
> 
> You must have a real problem with cell phones or microwaves maybe the reloading you do.  Do you understand a double based nitrocellulose ?
> 
> If you only accept things you understand, you must believe very little.


There is no evidence of a world wide flood to reject.
My only problem is with guys that make these claims and cannot back them up.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> On this thread,
> 1. I proved an real atheist doesn't exit. It is an oxymoron.
> 
> 2.The agnostics are the most truthful of the doubters.
> ...


All you have proved is that you and Roger Goodell would make a great team.
You both make up your own evidence to convince yourself but the truth is much different.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> On this thread,
> 1. I proved an real atheist doesn't exit. It is an oxymoron.


Everybody but you missed that.
Show us where you proved that.



marketgunner said:


> 2.The agnostics are the most truthful of the doubters.


GREAT people



marketgunner said:


> 3. That most A/A are just as confused as many self proclaimed "Christians" and certainly most religions.


With yourself at the top of the confused heap holding the flag.



marketgunner said:


> 4, That most A/A problems are with the "incorrect" teachings of the "church"  that has bias in translations causing the real meanings to be obscured and the man made errors to become evident


You have not showed us one single correct teaching. You have not shown us how these teachings are correct. Nor have you showed us anything in it's original language.

All we have gotten,like with every single one if your posts,  is claims without the evidence to back them up.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 7, 2015)

IF YOU SAY THERE IS NO GOD NO WHERE,  THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS CLAIM TRUE IS TO BE OMNISCIENT,  A CHARACTERISTIC IF GOD.  
so by saying a negative is true, you have to know all , which is a definition of being GOD.

do you understand this ?

It is like saying, In my opinion, no humans has an opinion.  The statement makes the statement untrue?


Do you follow this?


If you say , "It is my belief" or "as far as I know" there is no God, then you are saying, there might be a God outside of your belief or outside of your knowledge,  So you are conceding God might exist .
Then you change from a atheist to an agnostic,

so  real atheists do not exist.

Do you follow?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> IF YOU SAY THERE IS NO GOD NO WHERE,  THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS CLAIM TRUE IS TO BE OMNISCIENT,  A CHARACTERISTIC IF GOD.
> so by saying a negative is true, you have to know all , which is a definition of being GOD.
> 
> do you understand this ?
> ...


Your definition of an Atheist is incorrect from the start.
An Atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. Therefore Atheists exist.

Like everything else you post in here you try to pass off YOUR definition instead of the REAL definition.

If you want to use your definition then Christians do not exist either because there is no way they know for sure if their god actually exists.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> IF YOU SAY THERE IS NO GOD NO WHERE,  THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS CLAIM TRUE IS TO BE OMNISCIENT,  A CHARACTERISTIC IF GOD.
> so by saying a negative is true, you have to know all , which is a definition of being GOD.
> 
> do you understand this ?
> ...





> so by saying a negative is true, you have to know all , which is a definition of being GOD.





> so  real atheists do not exist.



Do you follow?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 8, 2015)

a·the·ist

/ËˆÄ�THÄ“É™st/

noun

1.a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"he is a committed atheist" synonyms:nonbeliever,disbeliever,unbeliever,skeptic,doubter,...
more
 antonyms: believer

Marketgunner,can you see where you started with a false definition and base your entire argument on a false premise? 

By your definition EVERYBODY is Agnostic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

bullethead said:


> a·the·ist
> 
> /ËˆÄ�THÄ“É™st/
> 
> ...


He cant comprehend that you only have to BELIEVE there are no gods, not PROVE there are no gods to be an Atheist.
Not sure why its so difficult when you consider Christians only have to BELIEVE there is a  Christian God not PROVE there is a Christian God to be a Christian.
He's been told this repeatedly but since it completely sinks his argument he chooses to ignore it.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure why its so difficult when you consider Christians only have to BELIEVE there is a  Christian God not PROVE there is a Christian God to be a Christian.



HA! I'm glad to see you finally say that.Now maybe you'll stop hammering believers to try to prove everything.

Now if only that bullhead...I mean bullethead would agree with you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> HA! I'm glad to see you finally say that.Now maybe you'll stop hammering believers to try to prove everything.
> 
> Now if only that bullhead...I mean bullethead would agree with you.


You havent been paying attention.
You will not find one, not a single post, where I claimed its a fact that there is not a god (any of them).
I have said I dont believe there is. 
I have said there is insufficient evidence of one. 
I have argued against every claim that says there IS a god.
If you claim there is a God its completely reasonable for me to ask you to prove it.
So far neither you or anyone else has been able to.
You are confusing arguing against your argument with saying there are no gods.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> HA! I'm glad to see you finally say that.Now maybe you'll stop hammering believers to try to prove everything.
> 
> Now if only that bullhead...I mean bullethead would agree with you.


If you had a shred of comprehension you would know I do not hold anyone's beliefs against them. It is when some people, like you for instance,that make the leap from beliefs to wild claims of reality..that lead me to ask for proof.
I don't need proof you believe...I need proof of what you claim to be truths. If they were truths evidence would not be so hard to come by.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Now maybe you'll stop hammering believers to try to prove everything.



That's because the believers have the burden of proof. 
NOT, the unbelievers.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 8, 2015)

660griz said:


> That's because the believers have the burden of proof.
> NOT, the unbelievers.



And the trigger is when they go from "I believe.." to "...the universal truth of God..."

Or "God exists..."

Maybe they're just phrased that way for expedience, but those kinds of statements demand proof.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 8, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If you had a shred of comprehension you would know I do not hold anyone's beliefs against them. It is when some people, like you for instance,that make the leap from beliefs to wild claims of reality..that lead me to ask for proof.
> I don't need proof you believe...I need proof of what you claim to be truths. If they were truths evidence would not be so hard to come by.



Rainbows, dude. Rainbows.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> He cant comprehend that you only have to BELIEVE there are no gods, not PROVE there are no gods to be an Atheist.
> Not sure why its so difficult when you consider Christians only have to BELIEVE there is a  Christian God not PROVE there is a Christian God to be a Christian.
> He's been told this repeatedly but since it completely sinks his argument he chooses to ignore it.



When you "believe"  there is no God, then you are admitting your knowledge is limited by the extent of your beliefs, or knowledge,.  It is the same as "in my opinion" or to the extent of my knowledge".  If you say you believe there is no God, you are admitting there MIGHT be a God that you do not know of,  so you once again are not an atheist but an agnostic.

Am I saying this wrong or are yall just being stubborn?


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 9, 2015)

You are right, neither position is proving there is a God, but it proving there is no athesits.

A "Christian"believing there is a God is nothing, pardon the use of scripture, even the devils know there is a God, 

Believing in a God in not enough,


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> You are right, neither position is proving there is a God, but it proving there is no athesits.
> 
> A "Christian"believing there is a God is nothing, pardon the use of scripture, even the devils know there is a God,
> 
> Believing in a God in not enough,


Too bad you cannot grasp the meaning of the definition that was provided.
There certainly are Atheists,true Atheists, as described.
Your homemade definition does not count.
Therefore, you proved nothing except your unwillingness to comprehend the definition of an Atheist.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> When you "believe"  there is no God, then you are admitting your knowledge is limited by the extent of your beliefs, or knowledge,.  It is the same as "in my opinion" or to the extent of my knowledge".  If you say you believe there is no God, you are admitting there MIGHT be a God that you do not know of,  so you once again are not an atheist but an agnostic.
> 
> Am I saying this wrong or are yall just being stubborn?


The entire problem is that you do not understand the ACTUAL definition of an Atheist. 
Not only are you saying it wrong but it is you that is stubborn.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> When you "believe"  there is no God, then you are admitting your knowledge is limited by the extent of your beliefs, or knowledge,.  It is the same as "in my opinion" or to the extent of my knowledge".  If you say you believe there is no God, you are admitting there MIGHT be a God that you do not know of,  so you once again are not an atheist but an agnostic.
> 
> Am I saying this wrong or are yall just being stubborn?



Of course there is no God. When you say that you believe there is a God then you are admitting your knowledge is limited by the extent of your beliefs, or knowledge. Basically, you are saying, my family believed this so, I will to. What you should do is not believe anything until there is evidence. One book, written a long time ago, by multiple anonymous authors, is not evidence of a supreme, all powerful, loving, all knowing entity. If that does constitute evidence for you well...

I made plans to attend a concert next year. Bought tickets, and scheduled the time off. Is there a chance I will not be alive next year? Of course there is, should I be wishy washy on plans because of a possibility I will not be alive? Of course not. Well, to me anyway. 

I also turn on my alarm clock every night before I go to sleep. Is there a chance I could die in my sleep?  Yes. 
Am I sure I am going to wake up? Yes. Possibility is there that I could die, but the probability is that I will survive, based on the last 4 or 5 decades of evidence. 

Now, apply all that to Gods. I am sure there are no Gods based on the lack of evidence and just a little common sense and deductive reasoning. Is there a possibility I could be wrong? Of course there is. Not probable but, possible. Does that mean I can't be an atheist?  No. 

Once again. Please read the definitions for atheist and agnostic carefully. 

However, if there is a point you wish to make where it is essential that everyone is either theist or agnostic, please assume we agree and make the point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> When you "believe"  there is no God, then you are admitting your knowledge is limited by the extent of your beliefs, or knowledge,.  It is the same as "in my opinion" or to the extent of my knowledge".  If you say you believe there is no God, you are admitting there MIGHT be a God that you do not know of,  so you once again are not an atheist but an agnostic.
> 
> Am I saying this wrong or are yall just being stubborn?



And you guys saying you believe in God means you admit that He might not exist? 

Turn that phrase around on yourself and see if it still holds true. I would suggest you have a flawed premise.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And you guys saying you believe in God means you admit that He might not exist?
> 
> Turn that phrase around on yourself and see if it still holds true. I would suggest you have a flawed premise.



Dang. That is much better and more to the point than what I wrote. 

Marketgunner, skip what I wrote and just read SH's response.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> Dang. That is much better and more to the point than what I wrote.
> 
> Marketgunner, skip what I wrote and just read SH's response.



Thanks. I'd prefer a response over it just being read, but I'll bet they're limbering up for their routine right now.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

Could it be a possibility that there is a God and that He has hidden a true knowledge of Himself from certain people?
Is it possible that He's blinded certain people from seeing certain things about Himself, causing them to think it's foolishness?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Could it be a possibility that there is a God and that He has hidden a true knowledge of Himself from certain people?
> Is it possible that He's blinded certain people from seeing certain things about Himself, causing them to think it's foolishness?



Could it be that the question scares you? 

If the word belief means that I'm acknowledging that God may exist, doesn't your belief similarly acknowledge that He might not? 

They're both yes or no questions.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Could it be that the question scares you?
> 
> If the word belief means that I'm acknowledging that God may exist, doesn't your belief similarly acknowledge that He might not?
> 
> They're both yes or no questions.



It doesn't scare me at all and I'll tell you why.
There's an element to belief that you know nothing about because you obviously haven't personally experienced it.Faith.
Faith is a very real thing to some but a foolish concept to others.It lives inside a person.But not all people.I wish it did but that's not up to me and I should not question Him for that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It doesn't scare me at all and I'll tell you why.
> There's an element to belief that you know nothing about because you obviously haven't personally experienced it.Faith.
> Faith is a very real thing to some but a foolish concept to others.It lives inside a person.But not all people.I wish it did but that's not up to me and I should not question Him for that.



You're evading, but thanks for condescending.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're evading, but thanks for condescending.



Like I said, foolishness to some.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Like I said, foolishness to some.



Like I said, you're being condescending.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Like I said, you're being condescending.



We should put our feelings on the shelf and stick with the issues.I would rather shoot you straight than feed you a big pack of balogni.There are many who would sugar coat words and tell you all you have to do is say a prayer or decide to believe and poof you're saved.It doesn't work that way.God must first make you able to believe through faith, which He alone gives.No man can work it up.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We should put our feelings on the shelf and stick with the issues.I would rather shoot you straight than feed you a big pack of balogni.There are many who would sugar coat words and tell you all you have to do is say a prayer or decide to believe and poof you're saved.It doesn't work that way.God must first make you able to believe through faith, which He alone gives.No man can work it up.



My feelings are fine. Your condescension doesn't impact them. I was merely stating what you were doing. 

About the rest of your post, that's not what was being discussed. 

Someone laid out the premise that since someone says they "believe" God doesn't exist that they're admitting the possibility that He does and are thereby agnostic versus atheist. 

I asked if the opposite was true; that if a believer says that they believe that God exists do they also admit the possibility that He might not? If the answer to that is no, then the premise is flawed and the first statement also has to be thrown out.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It doesn't work that way.God must first make you able to believe through faith, which He alone gives.No man can work it up.



How do you know all this? Did God personally convey this message to you or, did you read it from a book written by man, interpreted by man?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> How do you know all this? Did God personally convey this message to you or, did you read it from a book written by man, interpreted by man?



Then there's option #3, "I just know it because it feels right."


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then there's option #3, "I just know it because it feels right."



They all say that they had some supernatural experience that "pricked/softened/opened their heart", "he spoke to me" (in the privacy of their own thoughts) or he created a very private and individual miracle, for which there are never any witnesses.

Why would anyone believe any of that?

Very much like the experience Jodi Foster has in the movie _Contact_.  She asks the aliens why they contact people in that way to which the alien responds "It's just always been done that way".


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We should put our feelings on the shelf and stick with the issues.I would rather shoot you straight than feed you a big pack of balogni.There are many who would sugar coat words and tell you all you have to do is say a prayer or decide to believe and poof you're saved.It doesn't work that way.God must first make you able to believe through faith, which He alone gives.No man can work it up.


Thats in direction contradiction to John 3:16 which you have quoted here before.


> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


It does not say -
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever He decides will believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 

These things either mean what they say or they dont.
That you can go find something to interpret that contradicts exactly what it says only proves that Bible contradicts itself.


----------



## smokey30725 (Sep 10, 2015)

In my admittedly simplistic view of things, I feel that at some point in everyone's life, God reveals Himself to them and the offer of a deeper relationship is presented. Some people accept and others do not. I won't argue semantics of denial or disbelief because they both stem from the same decision. The reality of it is, as much as we debate back and forth, the question will be answered in totality the moment each of us draws our last breath.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> In my admittedly simplistic view of things, I feel that at some point in everyone's life, God reveals Himself to them and the offer of a deeper relationship is presented. Some people accept and others do not. I won't argue semantics of denial or disbelief because they both stem from the same decision. The reality of it is, as much as we debate back and forth, the question will be answered in totality the moment each of us draws our last breath.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

Someone explain then why Esau was hated before he was born, having done neither good nor evil?

Or why the Father is going to say to some "depart from me, for I NEVER knew you" ??


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> In my admittedly simplistic view of things, I feel that at some point in everyone's life, God reveals Himself to them and the offer of a deeper relationship is presented. Some people accept and others do not. I won't argue semantics of denial or disbelief because they both stem from the same decision. The reality of it is, as much as we debate back and forth, the question will be answered in totality the moment each of us draws our last breath.




My experience was that the idea of God was instilled in me as a child.  I was only exposed to one God.  I was instructed on how to pray to God and what His requirements were of me. I never heard from God.   When I got older I assessed the validity of the idea of God.

Where in this experience was the "revealing"?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Someone explain then why Esau was hated before he was born, having done neither good nor evil?
> 
> Or why the Father is going to say to some "depart from me, for I NEVER knew you" ??



Because of predestination.  Now, you be a good fellow and properly interpret the word of God for me with your  discerning powers that He gave specifically to you.


----------



## smokey30725 (Sep 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> My experience was that the idea of God was instilled in me as a child.  I was only exposed to one God.  I was instructed on how to pray to God and what His requirements were of me. I never heard from God.   When I got older I assessed the validity of the idea of God.
> 
> Where in this experience was the "revealing"?



Since I am not you, I cannot answer for you. Perhaps it is still yet to come.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Because of predestination.



Exactly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And you guys saying you believe in God means you admit that He might not exist?
> 
> Turn that phrase around on yourself and see if it still holds true. I would suggest you have a flawed premise.



Still waiting for someone to attempt this, though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Exactly.


Maybe not.
You are referring to Esau as only an individual.
However -


> Jacob and Esau are not only individuals but they are also PEOPLE and/or NATIONS. This is important to remember in order to not read things into Romans 9 which are not stated. Romans 9 is not about individuals being elected TO BELIEVE, but it’s about a people who has sprung up from individuals, and it’s the line of Jacob which is chosen (for good reasons) to bring forth the Messiah.





> Romans 9:13 refers back to Malachi and there we can read:
> Mal 1:2I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.5And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel.





> ”They”. The entire people that came from Esau are being spoken of as being hated. Thus, when Paul quotes Malachi in Romans 9, he is referring to what happened to the people, not to the individual sons. The quote ”Jacob I have loved but Esau have I hated” has to do with the nations that came from the brothers. In Obadiah, the reasons for this hatred from God are clearly shown. Did God hate Esau personally? He very well may have, and the despising of the birthright is used in Hebrews as evidence of his godlessness. This godlessness, and his marriage to pagan wives, would have affected not only his children, but their children and the children after them as well.


Is the above interpretation correct?
Couldnt tell you. 
However it does show there are interpretations in direct conflict with your interpretation.


----------



## smokey30725 (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Still waiting for someone to attempt this, though.



I will give it a shot. I don't simply "believe" that God is real. I've experienced and witnessed too much throughout the course of my life that I know for a fact He exists. I've shared a few of my experiences in other threads and been called crazy, a liar, etc., but that doesn't change what I experienced or witnessed. I admit, I've seen and experienced some things that would make a non-believer question their premise and serve to reinforce the position of believers. I guess that's where believers and non-believers have the hardest time. I, as a believer, know what I know. Nonbelievers know what they know. It's just my personal belief that God at some point, reveals Himself to people to afford them a chance of a relationship with Him. I cannot and will not judge a man for which decision he makes. That's up to the individual. I will, however, pray for those I know who are unbelievers that they experience what they need to solidify a faith and build upon that. I've seen it happen many times, so just because a friend or loved one may currently fall into the non-believer camp, I still have hope.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I will give it a shot. I don't simply "believe" that God is real. I've experienced and witnessed too much throughout the course of my life that I know for a fact He exists. I've shared a few of my experiences in other threads and been called crazy, a liar, etc., but that doesn't change what I experienced or witnessed. I admit, I've seen and experienced some things that would make a non-believer question their premise and serve to reinforce the position of believers. I guess that's where believers and non-believers have the hardest time. *I, as a believer, know what I know. *Nonbelievers know what they know. It's just my personal belief that God at some point, reveals Himself to people to afford them a chance of a relationship with Him. I cannot and will not judge a man for which decision he makes. That's up to the individual. I will, however, pray for those I know who are unbelievers that they experience what they need to solidify a faith and build upon that. I've seen it happen many times, so just because a friend or loved one may currently fall into the non-believer camp, I still have hope.



Thanks for answering. The highlighted phrase contradicts itself, though. 

If you know then there's no need, or room, for belief because belief precedes knowledge.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

I wonder if God reveals himself to folks who know nothing about God or Gods? Hmmmm
I think not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> I wonder if God reveals himself to folks who know nothing about God or Gods? Hmmmm
> I think not.



I think we need to check Africa, or South America in the Amazon for reports of Spontaneous Christianity.


----------



## smokey30725 (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thanks for answering. The highlighted phrase contradicts itself, though.
> 
> If you know then there's no need, or room, for belief because belief precedes knowledge.



I think that's just due to the term I used. I should have substituted with Christian. I was actually reading over Jeremiah 29:11-13 while reading over this thread. It summarizes my thoughts very well on the matter.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 10, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe not.
> You are referring to Esau as only an individual.
> However -
> 
> ...



I believe the interpretation is correct but incomplete.I see it as Paul showing a chosen nation and an unchosen nation Through the literal example of two unborn children (one elect, the other nonelect).
He states "that the purpose of election might stand".The context of the whole 9th chapter is election.

What about the other verse I gave?
"Depart from Me ye workers of iniquity, for I never knew you."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I think that's just due to the term I used. I should have substituted with Christian. I was actually reading over Jeremiah 29:11-13 while reading over this thread. It summarizes my thoughts very well on the matter.



The promise of no harm sticks with me as well. I would argue that, if my life has played out according to His plan, I and those around me have been irreparably harmed. 

The only way one could rationalize around that, if they lived the same sort of life, would be to say that the paradise of heaven offsets any earthly torments, and that's predicated on me getting there either by election, salvation through Christ, or by redeeming acts and no one can clarify any more than anyone else which is the truth.


----------



## smokey30725 (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The promise of no harm sticks with me as well. I would argue that, if my life has played out according to His plan, I and those around me have been irreparably harmed.
> 
> The only way one could rationalize around that, if they lived the same sort of life, would be to say that the paradise of heaven offsets any earthly torments, and that's predicated on me getting there either by election, salvation through Christ, or by redeeming acts and no one can clarify any more than anyone else which is the truth.



I understand your point about being harmed. I too have had experiences in my life that are very personal and painful. The story of Job in the old testament tells me that sometimes it's part of our life. You can call it faith-building, bad luck, fate, or whatever you like, but it hurts nonetheless. I know I've had plenty of "Why Me, God???" moments in my life and am pretty sure I will have many more. 
As far as eternity, Christ said it pretty plainly when He spoke that "for those who knock, the door will be opened to them. for those who seek, they will find." Predestination and election, in my view, are points of theology that do more to confuse people than bring them to Christ. He simply asked that we repent from our previous way of living and follow Him. I think most modern day Christians get too hung up on doctrinal technicalities and semantics and in doing so, fail to convey the message of salvation to a lost and dying world.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I understand your point about being harmed. I too have had experiences in my life that are very personal and painful. The story of Job in the old testament tells me that sometimes it's part of our life. You can call it faith-building, bad luck, fate, or whatever you like, but it hurts nonetheless. I know I've had plenty of "Why Me, God???" moments in my life and am pretty sure I will have many more.
> As far as eternity, Christ said it pretty plainly when He spoke that "for those who knock, the door will be opened to them. for those who seek, they will find." Predestination and election, in my view, are points of theology that do more to confuse people than bring them to Christ. He simply asked that we repent from our previous way of living and follow Him. I think most modern day Christians get too hung up on doctrinal technicalities and semantics and in doing so, fail to convey the message of salvation to a lost and dying world.



It's a fair point, but the newer promise seems to go against that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I believe the interpretation is correct but incomplete.I see it as Paul showing a chosen nation and an unchosen nation Through the literal example of two unborn children (one elect, the other nonelect).
> He states "that the purpose of election might stand".The context of the whole 9th chapter is election.
> 
> What about the other verse I gave?
> "Depart from Me ye workers of iniquity, for I never knew you."


Of course you view it as incomplete. Because it doesnt include -


> two unborn children (one elect, the other nonelect).


So no chance your view is incorrect. Of course its that their view is incomplete.
Hence 30,000 plus denominations.
But I give you credit for prefacing your comment with "I believe".


> What about the other verse I gave?
> "Depart from Me ye workers of iniquity, for I never knew you


Well if taken literally then God is not omniscient.
If used the way we use the phrase" I dont even know you" its when someone does something completely out of the ordinary or unexpected.
If taken that way God is not omniscient.
After that it all depends on what Christian crowd you ask.
Theres the once saved always saved crowd.
Theres the have to repent crowd.
Theres the "works" crowd.
Theres the Jesus dies for my sins past, present and future crowd.
Theres the elect crowds - who disagree on what being of the elect even means.
They would all view the verse you gave differently.
Pick one from the buffet and it will only take a minute to find you what they believe and using the Bible, why they think they are right and all the other crowds wrong.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I understand your point about being harmed. I too have had experiences in my life that are very personal and painful.



Very few members of the human race today have a 'truly' hard life. Compared to the other species on the planet, we have it pretty good. 
Sure, loved ones suffer, bad things happen to good people etc. but, still beats living the life of a lion or pretty much any other beast. 
Life is tough...or anybody could do it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> Very few members of the human race today have a 'truly' hard life. Compared to the other species on the planet, we have it pretty good.
> Sure, loved ones suffer, bad things happen to good people etc. but, still beats living the life of a lion or pretty much any other beast.
> Life is tough...or anybody could do it.



Struggle and challenge are relative. 

The worst thing you've faced may not even register with me, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean it isn't still the toughest thing you've done and no one has the right to marginalize it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Struggle and challenge are relative.
> 
> The worst thing you've faced may not even register with me, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean it isn't still the toughest thing you've done and no one has the right to marginalize it.




"No one suffers like the rich."

     --Unknown (maybe Paris Hilton)


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Struggle and challenge are relative.
> 
> The worst thing you've faced may not even register with me, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean it isn't still the toughest thing you've done and no one has the right to marginalize it.



Not sure if if marginalize falls under the first amendment but, some may say, "putting things into perspective".
Perhaps that is marginalization to some. 
I have ALWAYS been the, "it could be worse" kind of guy. So, you are correct. However, I marginalize my own bad times. It could be worse.

Luckily, or unluckily, depending on perspective, I don't have a entity to blame or take credit. Just life. 
I deal with it the best way I know how. Suck it up, know that it could be worse and move on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> Not sure if if marginalize falls under the first amendment but, some may say, "putting things into perspective".
> Perhaps that is marginalization to some.
> I have ALWAYS been the, "it could be worse" kind of guy. So, you are correct. However, I marginalize my own bad times. It could be worse.
> 
> ...



I'm not speaking constitutionally. I'm speaking philosophically. 

If the worst thing you've ever dealt with is this papercut then it's wrong to have someone else come up and say, "Well, I compound fractured both legs before, that's nothing, get over it..." 

You can do with your own feelings what you will. This applies exclusively to how we treat others, IMO.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not speaking constitutionally. I'm speaking philosophically.
> 
> If the worst thing you've ever dealt with is this papercut then it's wrong to have someone else come up and say, "Well, I compound fractured both legs before, that's nothing, get over it..."
> 
> You can do with your own feelings what you will. This applies exclusively to how we treat others, IMO.



I see your point but, depending on how you convey the compound fracture story, it may help the others put their paper cut in perspective. Unless of course, they relish in wallowing in their paper cut misery. 

Yes, the way we treat others is important.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> I see your point but, depending on how you convey the compound fracture story, it may help the others put their paper cut in perspective. Unless of course, they relish in wallowing in their paper cut misery.
> 
> Yes, the way we treat others is important.



It's just my opinion that brushing off our own struggles with thoughts of others who may have it worse isn't learning how to deal with our own struggle fully. 

Just because someone else dealt with something worse that doesn't mean that you're capable of dealing with your own problems in the same manner. Maybe you need some help from a friend, or you need to talk to a trauma counselor about your papercut. That's okay. We all deal with struggles differently.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's just my opinion that brushing off our own struggles with thoughts of others who may have it worse isn't learning how to deal with our own struggle fully.
> 
> Just because someone else dealt with something worse that doesn't mean that you're capable of dealing with your own problems in the same manner. Maybe you need some help from a friend, or you need to talk to a trauma counselor about your papercut. That's okay. We all deal with struggles differently.



Well, we all have opinions.
In my opinion, putting ones 'struggles' into perspective is not brushing them off. But, I guess I do deal with things differently. Key word being 'I' deal with them. No help needed...yet.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> Well, we all have opinions.
> In my opinion, putting ones 'struggles' into perspective is not brushing them off. But, I guess I do deal with things differently. Key word being 'I' deal with them. No help needed...yet.



Brushing off might have been a bad choice of words. 

The last part is the point I was trying to make. You haven't sought help, I'm sure it was offered at varying points, but you didn't seek it out and likely because of the "the other guy has it worse than me" standpoint. 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

My wife moved here from out of state a few years ago. It was the first time she'd lived more than 30 miles away from her entire family. Grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, all except for one cousin lived within a 30 mile radius of her and this is a great family. Gatherings all the time, people always got along, so it was close-knit. She wanted to experience more of the world so when the chance came to move here, she did. 

So we move in together and one night she's in bed and on the verge of tears. She's homesick, and in a bad way. She tries to stiffen her upper lip saying that she can't believe how silly she's being when she compares it to losing my kids, having cancer, divorced, etc. She was trying to shift her perspective off of fully dealing with her own pain, by marginalizing it in comparison with mine. 

That's not dealing with pain, and struggle, and wouldn't have helped her in the long run. Instead, I sat there and had her tell me things that she was missing so she could fully feel what her body was trying to get her to feel, and then we called her family and sat on the phone for a few hours and made plans for them to come into town every 6 months or so and for us to go back to her hometown every Christmas so she could have those get togethers instead of miss them. 

If she'd have focused on just getting over it because it wasn't as bad as the stuff I've been through, she could have wound up making herself worse. 

Trivialize is the word I was looking for when I landed on marginalize. 

If you're in pain, or suffering, trivializing it by comparing it to someone else isn't dealing with it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> Well, we all have opinions.
> In my opinion, putting ones 'struggles' into perspective is not brushing them off. But, I guess I do deal with things differently. Key word being 'I' deal with them. No help needed...yet.


I'm pretty much the same way.
I'm more a less a "it could be worse, it has been worse and there will probably be worse things in the future" kind of guy. Helps me not dwell on something that cant be changed and move forward.


> Originally Posted by StripeRR HunteRR
> Maybe you need some help from a friend, or you need to talk to a trauma counselor about your papercut. That's okay. We all deal with struggles differently.


I also agree here.
Do what you need to do however you need to do it.
(within reason of course). If a woman breaks your heart chopping her up into small pieces although theraputic is probably not reasonable.
Big pieces however is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm pretty much the same way.
> I'm more a less a "it could be worse, it has been worse and there will probably be worse things in the future" kind of guy. Helps me not dwell on something that cant be changed and move forward.
> 
> I also agree here.
> ...



So long as it fits in the brown bags that the lawn waste goes into.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If you're in pain, or suffering, trivializing it by comparing it to someone else isn't dealing with it.



Depends on the person. It sure helps me. 
Didn't help her. Like you said, we all deal differently.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 10, 2015)

660griz said:


> Depends on the person. It sure helps me.
> Didn't help her. Like you said, we all deal differently.



Fair enough.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> Of course there is no God. When you say that you believe there is a God then you are admitting your knowledge is limited by the extent of your beliefs, or knowledge. Basically, you are saying, my family believed this so, I will to. What you should do is not believe anything until there is evidence. One book, written a long time ago, by multiple anonymous authors, is not evidence of a supreme, all powerful, loving, all knowing entity. If that does constitute evidence for you well...
> 
> I made plans to attend a concert next year. Bought tickets, and scheduled the time off. Is there a chance I will not be alive next year? Of course there is, should I be wishy washy on plans because of a possibility I will not be alive? Of course not. Well, to me anyway.
> 
> ...



already , given the definination. look at the thread OP

deny and disbelief are two different things

proving a negative is impossible,   believing a positive is logical

unless you are admitting you do not believe as you say , then you are stating you are sure there is no God., no where.

I can believe there is a God, act upon it , possible benefit from it.

But you cannot do that with a negative.  You ignore a negative


----------



## 660griz (Sep 14, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> proving a negative is impossible,   believing a positive is logical


 Maybe Not



> unless you are admitting you do not believe as you say , then you are stating you are sure there is no God., no where.


 That is what I am saying. No God, no where.



> I can believe there is a God, act upon it , possible benefit from it.


 Yes you can. You can also believe in God, act upon it to the detriment of your fellow man. Numerous horrific recent examples of this. 



> But you cannot do that with a negative.  You ignore a negative


 Yes, after I determine it is a 'negative'.  No need to linger.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 17, 2015)

660griz said:


> Maybe Not
> 
> That is what I am saying. No God, no where.
> 
> ...



Are you sure there is no God , no where?

How do you know this?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Are you sure there is no God , no where?
> 
> How do you know this?




"Wanting something to be true isn't a good surrogate for evidence that it is true."

--Sam Harris

Your evidence, my good man.  Parade it proudly in front of us in a way that we will helplessly believe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Is there a difference between denying the existence of God as compare to disbelieving the existence of God?
> 
> I was reading the definition of atheist and are asking this question



Jesus said:

John 14:6

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the *Truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


At it's heart atheism is a denial of the Truth.  Its not disbelief.  It's pure denial based solely on active rebellion against the known truth and is also why having an honest conversation with an atheist is all but impossible.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 17, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Jesus said:
> 
> John 14:6
> 
> ...


Another guy that makes up his own dictionary.
Unless of course you can provide us with an actual definition from a reliable source that backs up what you say.
I'll wait.......


----------



## 660griz (Sep 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Are you sure there is no God , no where?
> 
> How do you know this?



Doesn't the Bible teach that God is everywhere?
So, the fact that I have to search or that I just haven't looked in the right place, is proof enough. There is more of course but, trying to keep is short.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 18, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Jesus said:
> 
> John 14:6
> 
> ...



I think your deep association with religion makes it difficult for you to understand what an honest conversation is.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> Doesn't the Bible teach that God is everywhere?
> So, the fact that I have to search or that I just haven't looked in the right place, is proof enough. There is more of course but, trying to keep is short.



so you looked and didn't find God?  God is omnipresent and yet you could not find God.  and that makes God not exist?

maybe it is the "looker".  Are you a good "looker"? Are you also omnipresent or omniscient?  



You do not have to search, you have to access God the way God chooses, not you. We see evidence of God , which you dismiss. Because you do not recognize God, or His handiwork does not mean God doesn't exist.

compare a prisoner in a Federal Prison demanding to see the President, exactly when the prisoner wants.

not gonna happen.

If that prisoner submitted to the proper channels, representatives that have been set up, then access is possible, at the Presidents favor.

That the way it is with God,

Remember, we are the bad guys


----------



## 660griz (Sep 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> compare a prisoner in a Federal Prison demanding to see the President, exactly when the prisoner wants.
> 
> not gonna happen.
> 
> ...


 So, God is like an uppity man with huge security concerns? Got it. Doesn't seem like much of a God. 



> Remember, we are the bad guys



Speak for yourself. You may need God to be good. I don't.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 25, 2015)

you  are not good.

Why would an atheist even know what is "good" 
Do you have an innate moral compass?
Where did you get it?

You might not have found God, 
You can only find God on His terms

But He knows you, even wrote about you.

 Psa 53:1
[[To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you  are not good.
> 
> Why would an atheist even know what is "good"
> Do you have an innate moral compass?
> ...



Rock solid, man.  Can't argue against that.  Totally outgunned.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Rock solid, man.  Can't argue against that.  Totally outgunned.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 28, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you  are not good.


 Judge not...etc.


> Why would an atheist even know what is "good"
> Do you have an innate moral compass?


 We have covered this on numerous occasions. 


> Where did you get it?


 Amazon.com Free shipping.



> You might not have found God,
> You can only find God on His terms


 I shouldn't have to FIND a God. 



> But He knows you, even wrote about you.
> 
> Psa 53:1
> [[To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.



God can write?  Get out of town!
Somebody wrote about you too.
"As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;"


----------



## marketgunner (Oct 4, 2015)

moron

You act the same as God, yet you criticize God.

I assume you keep a very clean home, yet when one of your friends or loved ones comes to the door after tromping though a muddt pig sty, you wouldn't let them in. You would sat "not with those dirty boots".  Yet when you want to find God, God says, "I want to have a relationship with you buy I can't abide that sin on you"

You say God is wrong.


----------



## Canis latrans (Oct 4, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> moron
> 
> You act the same as God, yet you criticize God.
> 
> ...



Please answer these two questions, with a simple "Yes" or "No".  Thank you.

1)  Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

2)  Would Christ call someone a moron simply because that person had a different viewpoint than him?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> moron
> 
> You act the same as God, yet you criticize God.
> 
> ...


Assumptions and false dichotomy rule your world and those are two great reasons on why you are so far out of touch with reality.
Do you pray to your god with that mouth?
WWMGD? Hurl insults when all his arguments fail.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 5, 2015)

Canis latrans said:


> Please answer these two questions, with a simple "Yes" or "No".  Thank you.
> 
> 1)  Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
> 
> 2)  Would Christ call someone a moron simply because that person had a different viewpoint than him?



Actually,"moron" is quite mild compared to what Jesus called some in His day.
Jesus was no pantywaist.He called a spade a spade.I like that.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Actually,"moron" is quite mild compared to what Jesus called some in His day.
> Jesus was no pantywaist.He called a spade a spade.I like that.


What names did Jesus use to call people that he was upset with? You can use the translated names since I doubt you actually know the exact names.
I wonder if Jesus clicked an "I agree" button when he signed up for the GON forums and read the rules?


----------



## Canis latrans (Oct 5, 2015)

Isn't it funny to see "Christians" get their panties in a wad when simple, logical facts are pointed out, and direct questions (that they refuse to answer) are asked?

Won't be long 'til they pull out their version of the "race card" and say, "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - we're being persecuted".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 5, 2015)

Canis latrans said:


> Isn't it funny to see "Christians" get their panties in a wad when simple, logical facts are pointed out, and direct questions (that they refuse to answer) are asked?
> 
> Won't be long 'til they pull out their version of the "race card" and say, "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - we're being persecuted".



I don't know where you've been but that's been going on since the SCOTUS said that gays could marry.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 5, 2015)

Canis latrans said:


> Isn't it funny to see "Christians" get their panties in a wad when simple, logical facts are pointed out, and direct questions (that they refuse to answer) are asked?
> 
> Won't be long 'til they pull out their version of the "race card" and say, "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - we're being persecuted".



It's ok.There's coming a day when all tears will be wiped away.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's ok.There's coming a day when all tears will be wiped away.




Weak as water.


----------



## Canis latrans (Oct 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's ok.There's coming a day when all tears will be wiped away.



That's pretty funny.  Fairy tales are soothing to the imagination, aren't they?  At least for some people.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 6, 2015)

> You act the same as God, yet you criticize God.


What? I haven't killed anybody.



> I assume you keep a very clean home, yet when one of your friends or loved ones comes to the door after tromping though a muddt pig sty, you wouldn't let them in.


 Sure I would. They just have to remove there boots.


> You would sat "not with those dirty boots".


 Ture. 





> Yet when you want to find God, God says, "I want to have a relationship with you buy I can't abide that sin on you"


 Jibberish.



> You say God is wrong.


 Nope. I say there is no God.


----------



## marketgunner (Oct 21, 2015)

then you proving to be ignorant.

you can't know there is no God , unless you are omniscient or , I know I will have to explain it to you,  "all knowing"
Since you declare yourself to be "all knowing" , a attribute of God , you declare yourself God,  Proving your statement to be wrong,

What grade are you in anyway?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 21, 2015)

Marketgunner.  Please don't let the things said on this forum about God bait you into acting Ungodly.  Speaking from experience here.  Truth is most A/As here are not interested in seeking  truth  but rather defending rebellion, and that's not going to change.  It's not worth getting upset over when you consider the terrain you're attempting to sow on.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> then you proving to be ignorant.
> 
> you can't know there is no God , unless you are omniscient or , I know I will have to explain it to you,  "all knowing"
> Since you declare yourself to be "all knowing" , a attribute of God , you declare yourself God,  Proving your statement to be wrong,
> ...



Are you trolling?  You keep using words like moron and ignorant. Either you are not very strong in your faith and it doesn't take much for you to show your teeth, or you are not really a Christian and just enjoy role playing. Which is it?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 21, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Marketgunner.  Please don't let the things said on this forum about God bait you into acting Ungodly.  Speaking from experience here.  Truth is most A/As here are not interested in seeking  truth  but rather defending rebellion, and that's not going to change.  It's not worth getting upset over when you consider the terrain you're attempting to sow on.



There you go again using the word "truth" in a world of make believe.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Oct 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> then you proving to be ignorant.
> 
> you can't know there is no God , unless you are omniscient or , I know I will have to explain it to you,  "all knowing"
> Since you declare yourself to be "all knowing" , a attribute of God , you declare yourself God,  Proving your statement to be wrong,
> ...



This is poor form, sir. I doubt it will be accepted by many.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

The short answer is yes, there is a difference between the two. An 'Agnostic' Atheist is someone who does not *personally* believe in a god. A 'Gnostic' Atheist is someone who claims to know there is no god.

I'll drop this info-graphic first, then do my best to explain in context of the original question:

http://i.imgur.com/F01Uj.jpg

There are two different sets of descriptors that we commonly use to describe the general spectrum of religious belief. The first is Theism or Atheism. The second is Gnosticism or Agnosticism. Theism or Atheism simply describes whether a person believes personally that there is a god or not, while Gnosticism or Agnosticism denotes whether or not a person is 100% certain that their belief is correct. So we end up with the 4 general categories seen in the chart:

**Gnostic Theist: Claims to know with 100% certainty that there is a god. ( Eg. Religious)

**Agnostic Theist: Believes there is a god, but not 100% certain. (Eg. Deist / Spiritual?)

**Gnostic Atheist: Does not believe in gods, claims to be 100% certain gods don't exist (Eg. Anti-Theist, although I disagree with the terminology because Gnostic Atheists are generally non-violent, this is usually what people are thinking of when they consider someone a 'militant' atheist)

**Agnostic Atheist: Does not *personally* believe in gods, does not claim to be 100% certain their belief is correct. (Eg.. well.. Me)

This is still somewhat of a simplification, as people's religious beliefs are extremely varied, but this is a good starting point if you are interested in the differences.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> The short answer is yes, there is a difference between the two. An 'Agnostic' Atheist is someone who does not *personally* believe in a god. A 'Gnostic' Atheist is someone who claims to know there is no god.
> 
> I'll drop this info-graphic first, then do my best to explain in context of the original question:
> 
> ...



Thanks for your input.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 26, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Is there a difference between denying the existence of God as compare to disbelieving the existence of God?
> 
> I was reading the definition of atheist and are asking this question



My understanding of Atheism, as exhibited by my friends and neighbors that are Atheist, is that it has absolutely nothing to do with God, per se, and more to do with what they do believe in. 

Anti-deity, more succinctly anti-God based belief is Misotheism.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 26, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Are you trolling?  You keep using words like moron and ignorant. Either you are not very strong in your faith and it doesn't take much for you to show your teeth, or you are not really a Christian and just enjoy role playing. Which is it?


Or he is a real Christian that believes how the Bible describes an unbeliever. In that case, a real Christian would speak this way and not dance around it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> My understanding of Atheism, as exhibited by my friends and neighbors that are Atheist, is that it has absolutely nothing to do with God, per se, and more to do with what they do believe in.
> 
> Anti-deity, more succinctly anti-God based belief is Misotheism.



I'm not hateful of Gods. I'm embarrassed for humanity when I see people perform acts of devotion (which include praying before meals and football games and flying jets into buildings) and I am saddened by how far we still have to go before we leave those kinds of ideas behind. Look how long it took humanity to shelve Zeus.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Or he is a real Christian that believes how the Bible describes an unbeliever. In that case, a real Christian would speak this way and not dance around it.



Only a Moron would believe in Zeus.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 26, 2015)

> then you proving to be ignorant.


 Based on what you read in an old book written by man? Yea. Right.



> you can't know there is no God , unless you are omniscient or , I know I will have to explain it to you, "all knowing"


 Based on MY reasoning, logic, and of course ruling out all religious texts. Bible, Quran, etc. Yea. I can confidently say there is no God. However, unlike some, I am open to change my mind if evidence arises. 


> Since you declare yourself to be "all knowing" , a attribute of God , you declare yourself God, Proving your statement to be wrong,


 Since I breathe oxygen, I must be a whale. Since I am bipedal, I must be a bird. 
Now, do you see how classifying based on one attribute can get you in trouble?  Probably not.



> What grade are you in anyway?


 Well, I don't believe in God so that pretty much rules out elementary. 
I could write a book better than the bible so that rules out 7-8th grade. I don't ask "what grade are you in?" as an insult anymore so that rules out k-12.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 26, 2015)

Canis latrans said:


> Please answer these two questions, with a simple "Yes" or "No".  Thank you.
> 
> 1)  Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
> 
> 2)  Would Christ call someone a moron simply because that person had a different viewpoint than him?



Actually, because I watch Black Jesus, I know he WOULD call someone a moron.  To be fair after he did that, he'd give em a hug n a blunt and some fish tacos then he'd tell em about the goodness of the lord. Saw it with my own eyes. Have it on TIVO. So 'yes' to #2 ...


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 26, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Marketgunner.  Please don't let the things said on this forum about God bait you into acting Ungodly.  Speaking from experience here.  Truth is most A/As here are not interested in seeking  truth  but rather defending rebellion, and that's not going to change.  It's not worth getting upset over when you consider the terrain you're attempting to sow on.



Yep


----------



## 660griz (Oct 26, 2015)

> Please don't let the things said on this forum about God bait you...



Bait?
Title of Forum: Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics   

This is not, "Lets discuss allergies." 

If how folks really feel is considered bait in an A/A/A forum, then maybe you are in the wrong place. Just saying. 
You won't catch me upstairs calling folks a moron.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

660griz said:


> Bait?
> Title of Forum: Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics
> 
> This is not, "Lets discuss allergies."
> ...



Yep.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for your input.



Yep thanks, I hope it's informative, from skimming through the discussion it seems the understanding here is that agnostics and atheists are two mutually exclusive categories of non-belief, when really they are both on a different spectrum.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Yep thanks, I hope it's informative, from skimming through the discussion it seems the understanding here is that agnostics and atheists are two mutually exclusive categories of non-belief, when really they are both on a different spectrum.




I would add that there are what I would call "Practical Atheists".  

There are those that don't believe in God the same way that they don't believe in Unicorns.  If pressed they might concede that Unicorns may exist in some unknown part of the Universe but what's the point in that?

Richard Dawkins says that even though he's 99.99999999% sure that gods don't exist he wouldn't call himself an Agnostic.

I would call myself an Aunicornist in the same way that I call myself an Atheist.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I would add that there are what I would call "Practical Atheists".
> 
> They are those that don't believe in God the same way that they don't believe in Unicorns.  If pressed they might concede that Unicorns may exist in some unknown part of the Universe but what's the point in that?
> 
> ...



I fully agree. I've heard him speak about this as well and as such if I am asked will identify as an atheist. Unfortunately if you told most people you were an 'Agnostic Atheist' they would likely look at you funny and suggest that you have to be either one or the other. It's simpler and probably more accurately understood to simply say you are an Atheist and then clarify afterwards if they ask that you aren't 100% certain there is no god.

Personally I am an Agnostic Atheist in that I'm not certain there is no God. However I AM fairly certain that our religions have it wrong if there is one. If there is a god he's so disinterested in human endeavors as to not matter practically as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I fully agree. I've heard him speak about this as well and as such if I am asked will identify as an atheist. Unfortunately if you told most people you were an 'Agnostic Atheist' they would likely look at you funny and suggest that you have to be either one or the other. It's simpler and probably more accurately understood to simply say you are an Atheist and then clarify afterwards if they ask that you aren't 100% certain there is no god.
> 
> Personally I am an Agnostic Atheist in that I'm not certain there is no God. However I AM fairly certain that our religions have it wrong if there is one. If there is a god he's so disinterested in human endeavors as to not matter practically as far as I'm concerned.



How would you know?  What if the religions got some of it right?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How would you know?  What if the religions got some of it right?



Then they would need to produce some serious proof for me to take them seriously. Great claims require great evidence.

The fact is although adherents usually don't want to admit it, most religious directly contradict themselves in pretty major ways. They also make claims that fly in the face of the things about our universe we have learned over time. Certainly there are ways that apologists can try to twist the things the books say into not contradicting the things we now know, but the fact remains that a being capable of the things we typically think of 'God' being able to do shouldn't need humans to defend their truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Then they would need to produce some serious proof for me to take them seriously. Great claims require great evidence.
> 
> The fact is although adherents usually don't want to admit it, most religious directly contradict themselves in pretty major ways. They also make claims that fly in the face of the things about our universe we have learned over time. Certainly there are ways that apologists can try to twist the things the books say into not contradicting the things we now know, but the fact remains that a being capable of the things we typically think of 'God' being able to do shouldn't need humans to defend their truth.




Non believers often use that rationale "If I were God that's not how I would do it" as an explanation against God.  Which, if you grant a God, becomes nonsensical.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No believers often use that rationale "If I were God that's not how I would do it" as an explanation against God.  Which, if you grant a God, becomes nonsensical.



I don't grant a God. I state simply that there is no reason to believe, and a lot of reasons to be extremely critical of many of the claims made by 'religious experts' trying to sell you on their version of god.



I've been reading a book called 'D-a--m--n_e--d (remove the spacers) Good Company' that talks about various times in history where religions and the anti-knowledge stance that some hold has completely derailed societies that were well on their way to being havens of intellectual freedom. Learning about all of the times we were so close to developing out of the dark ages just to be plunged back in is leaving me with a bit of a bitter spot for the religions we have at present. Even now the christian right is fighting to teach abstinence-only sex education, and perhaps even worse to teach intelligent design (thinly veiled creationism) as an alternative to evolution...

uhh.. /endrant


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I don't grant a God. I state simply that there is no reason to believe, and a lot of reasons to be extremely critical of many of the claims made by 'religious experts' trying to sell you on their version of god.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't grant a god either and I see alot of harm that continued deism causes (I talk about it alot here) but I just don't like that argument "If I were god I would do it this way" or "God wouldn't do it  that way".  It doesn't hold water.  

A couple of times when the powers that be first separated the heathens out by giving them their own sub-forum, I asked the apologists to offer a naturalistic explanation of "walking on water" or "unconsumed burning, talking bush".  I even offered that Jesus might have changed the density of his feet, the molecular make up, or some such thing that allowed him to walk on water.   It got no traction and I understand why.  They don't care.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 27, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't grant a god either and I see alot of harm that continued deism causes (I talk about it alot here) but I just don't like that argument "If I were god I would do it this way" or "God wouldn't do it  that way".  It doesn't hold water.
> 
> A couple of times when the powers that be first separated the heathens out by giving them their own sub-forum, I asked the apologists to offer a naturalistic explanation of "walking on water" or "unconsumed burning, talking bush".  I even offered that Jesus might have changed the density of his feet, the molecular make up, or some such thing that allowed him to walk on water.   It got no traction and I understand why.  They don't care.



It wasn't really my intention to argue on what I would do if I were a god. I was speaking from the gut and saying that humans needing to defend a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being from people who either believe in a different god or people who do not believe at all is a ridiculous concept to me. You may be right, I'm sure any problem with how logical the choices gods make per their holy book can be explained away by the old non-sequitur cop-out "God works in mysterious ways".


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> It wasn't really my intention to argue on what I would do if I were a god. I was speaking from the gut and saying that humans needing to defend a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being from people who either believe in a different god or people who do not believe at all is a ridiculous concept to me. You may be right, I'm sure any problem with how logical the choices gods make per their holy book can be explained away by the old non-sequitur cop-out "God works in mysterious ways".




It's beyond reproach or definition.  The perfect argument.


----------

