A message to atheists

[rEVOLVEr]

rEVOLVEr, I didn't say you had an agenda or ask if you did. I said, "if you have an agenda..."

Am I not welcomed here?

I would say anyone is welcome until they violate TOS. But no one has indicated that you aren't welcome.

OK, that's great. I almost had a feeling that my opinion is not important on this forum. ;)

 

[JoJo]

...

 

[ChattyMute]

However, I'm thinking about including a 3rd category: because they are bored and it is just something to do to pass the time.

That would be correct. At least in my case. I'm also here to procrastinate a paper I should be writing.

But didn't you say that you didn't buy that earlier on in this thread? Change you mind?
Edit:

I don't buy the reason of boredom at all.

From page 2.

 

[JoJo]

Not entirely. That's why I said, "I'm thinking about including a 3rd category..." I still don't think boredom is a solid enough reason for registering with a specific forum. Glance through the pages maybe (if there is some interest) but to register and become a posting member?

 

[ChattyMute]

Not entirely. That's why I said, "I'm thinking about including a 3rd category..." I still don't think boredom is a solid enough reason for registering with a specific forum. Glance through the pages maybe (if there is some interest) but to register and become a posting member?

Well, in my case, it is out of pretty much boredom, as I explained earlier. However, I do have an interest in religions in general, although that is usually not what I post about (if I post) here.

 

[JoJo]

Well, we Christians can be pretty entertaining.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Well, we Christians can be pretty entertaining.

:biglol Oh, yes. You certainly can. :biglaugh

 

[JoJo]

It appears that some atheists are hung up on needing "proof." But I believe an atheist should never require this element when he can't provide it himself:

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

You can't prove that prayer doesn't work.

You can't prove that Christianity isn't the only true religion.

You can't prove that Jesus isn't the Messiah.

You can't prove that hell doesn't exist.

You can't prove that there is no devil.

If you can't provide proof to back up your arguments, why do you expect us to?

 

[rEVOLVEr]

It appears that some atheists are hung up on needing "proof." But I believe an atheist should never require this element when he can't provide it himself:

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

You can't prove that prayer doesn't work.

You can't prove that Christianity isn't the only true religion.

You can't prove that Jesus isn't the Messiah.

You can't prove that hell doesn't exist.

You can't prove that there is no devil.

If you can't provide proof to back up your arguments, why do you expect us to?

Wrong, wrong, wrong... Just plain wrong.
I've heard and answered all these questions so many times that it's just boring now.
All you are doing is asking Atheists to prove a negative. We (Atheists) don't make any of those claims. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
Instead of giving you all the boring answers, let me ask you this.
Prove that I'm not God.

 

[JoJo]

All you are doing is asking Atheists to prove a negative.

I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I am claiming that you can't prove those things.

We (Atheists) don't make any of those claims. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.

You don't? Did you not say, "BTW, praying doesn't work."

Prove that I'm not God.

Now who's asking who to prove something? This brings me back to my original comment, "It appears that some atheists are hung up on needing "proof." But I believe an atheist should never require this element when he can't provide it himself."

 

[rEVOLVEr]

All you are doing is asking Atheists to prove a negative.

I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I am claiming that you can't prove those things.

[quote:3kudn1c5]We (Atheists) don't make any of those claims. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.

You don't? Did you not say, "BTW, praying doesn't work."

Prove that I'm not God.

Now who's asking who to prove something? This brings me back to my original comment, [/quote:3kudn1c5]

1. You're claiming all those things? Is that why you believe in God?
2. I did the exact same thing that you did before. I was claiming. I knew you'd fall for this.
3. "It appears that some atheists are hung up on needing "proof." But I believe an atheist should never require this element when he can't provide it himself." In other words, faith is more important than evidence?

 

[JoJo]

Maybe I'm just tired and need a nap or something, but your points don't make sense to me, especially #2.

Look, we could go back and forth all day like tennis players, but it's all going to come down to a difference in opinion. I am truly sorry you think my beliefs are bunk. It is my heart's desire that you would open your mind to Christ and be able to experience Him as I do.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Maybe I'm just tired and need a nap or something, but your points don't make sense to me, especially #2.

Look, we could go back and forth all day like tennis players, but it's all going to come down to a difference in opinion. I am truly sorry you think my beliefs are bunk. It is my heart's desire that you would open your mind to Christ and be able to experience Him as I do.

I'm glad you said this. Especially, your last sentence. But I accept the fact that you need a break.
Let me know when you're ready again.

 

[ChattyMute]

It appears that some atheists are hung up on needing "proof." But I believe an atheist should never require this element when he can't provide it himself:

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

You can't prove that prayer doesn't work.

You can't prove that Christianity isn't the only true religion.

You can't prove that Jesus isn't the Messiah.

You can't prove that hell doesn't exist.

You can't prove that there is no devil.

If you can't provide proof to back up your arguments, why do you expect us to?

There is no such thing as proof when it comes to science. I want evidence.
Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. You cannot "prove" a negative, which is what atheism is. It is the rejection of religions (a negative claim). Yes, some atheists hold that there is no gods/God. However they are idiots because they are now making a positive claim that cannot be "proven" scientifically.

I could say the same to you.
You can't prove that the Greek gods don't exist; therefore, they do.
You can't prove that the FSM doesn't exist; therefore, it does.
You can't prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn the trunk of my car; therefore, it is there.
See how ridiculous those statements are?

 

[rEVOLVEr]

deleted

 

[jasoncran]

no

 

[rEVOLVEr]

deleted

 

[Carpathian]

It appears that some atheists are hung up on needing "proof." But I believe an atheist should never require this element when he can't provide it himself:

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

You can't prove that prayer doesn't work.

You can't prove that Christianity isn't the only true religion.

You can't prove that Jesus isn't the Messiah.

You can't prove that hell doesn't exist.

You can't prove that there is no devil.

If you can't provide proof to back up your arguments, why do you expect us to?

There is no such thing as proof when it comes to science. I want evidence.
Logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. You cannot "prove" a negative, which is what atheism is. It is the rejection of religions (a negative claim). Yes, some atheists hold that there is no gods/God. However they are idiots because they are now making a positive claim that cannot be "proven" scientifically.

I could say the same to you.
You can't prove that the Greek gods don't exist; therefore, they do.
You can't prove that the FSM doesn't exist; therefore, it does.
You can't prove that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn the trunk of my car; therefore, it is there.
See how ridiculous those statements are?

Actually, specifically stated in the bible - under various parts of the bible, that there is only ONE god, and that is GOD. Take it or leave it. Second, invisible pink unicorns are of the creation of man. Ahem, before you say something like "you can say the same for God" can an invisible figment speak to you and give you His word? If he does, then some serious psychiatric help is in the question. Just want to clarify that Jungle book is on and I'm missing the part where mogley is being harassed.

 

[ChattyMute]

Actually, specifically stated in the bible - under various parts of the bible, that there is only ONE god, and that is GOD. Take it or leave it. Second, invisible pink unicorns are of the creation of man. Ahem, before you say something like "you can say the same for God" can an invisible figment speak to you and give you His word? If he does, then some serious psychiatric help is in the question. Just want to clarify that Jungle book is on and I'm missing the part where mogley is being harassed.

The bible is not proof of God. That is circular reasoning.
I'll leave it. It is not evidence, it doesn't deserve to be treated as such.
Invisible figments can't speak to you. God is an invisible figment. I could go further into that but it would be getting off subject.

 

[JoJo]

Here is an interesting point from another thread:

Seems like if you believe that I'm going to be horribly tortured for all eternity that you'd have to be a monster to not try to prove Christianity to me.

Do you not think that it breaks my heart to imagine you or anyone else spending all of eternity separated from God and all that is good? It breaks my heart to imagine anyone just living life on this earth without God in their lives. If only you knew Him! If only you had but just a glimpse of His loving care! Don't you know that if I could prove God to you, I would? Don't you know that if there was just one little tiny thing I could say to influence you, I would?

But I cannot prove Christianity. I cannot prove God's existence. You should not expect me to prove that God exists anymore than I should expect you to prove that He doesn't. It's impossible. Thus, the burden of proof is not on me because proof does not factor into this equation. As I said earlier in this thread, it is ultimately a battle of opinions.