Car Versus Baby

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Thanks CG I have no intention of trolling I do find that everyones IQ is so higher than mine thank when I'm honestly trying ask a question I actually put thought into it gets regarded as garbage. We must understand our viewpoints are like Kim kardashian vs Kristen stewart. There is no match.

 

I am willing to learn and try to comprehend anything I am told. If I hurt upset or offend anyone I'm willing to make amends instantly and truly try to see a different point if view.

 

I'm not the bad guy here if I wanted to troll oooh truusst me when I tell you I can troll. But I see no production in that.

 

I enjoy being here not to piss people off but because I have learned so much being in this group that I didn't know before about the bible or questions I didn't think of.

 

When I get unconstructive response then I will respond with bad humor instead of belittlement condescending or jdugement or hateful ad honinems. I will not feed into unpositive responses. You will find that nothing said here will make me run away. I eat insults for breakfast they make me stronger as a person and adds variety to my understanding.

 

This site has helped me more than anything. I am not here to hate hurt or troll. I am here to learn understand and grow. Appreciate all i have learned so far and continuing to learn For that say to all of you. Thank u

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

For everyones Christmas present after this post I will make no spelling errors until after Christmas. merry Christmas! Or happy holidays b which ever u prefer.

 

aw is t that a nice gift your eyes won't bleed anymore?

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

For everyones Christmas present after this post I will make no spelling errors until after Christmas. merry Christmas!

 

Good luck with that.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

For everyone's Christmas present, after this post, I will make no spelling errors until after Christmas. mMerry Christmas! Or, happy holidays, b which_ever you prefer.

 

aAw, is t that a nice gift: your eyes won't bleed anymore?

 

Fixed that for you. No problem, my pleasure.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

The questions asked by A1 at the start of this thread are legitimate questions. Whether or not A1 is willing to find the answers for himself or ignore the answers given, the questions he is asking should still be answered, if not for him, then at least for the lurkers who may actually be seeking information, but are either unsure of where to find these answers or are afraid of what they might find if they were to look on their own.

 

I don't see how getting pissed off and attacking A1 is constructive. If he is intentionally trolling for a reaction, based on the responses of this thread, I'd say that he is winning and taking his fill. Since negative reactions are what trolls want, then giving those reactions is feeding them.

 

I admit, I didn't really read the questions because I expected them to be more of the usual nonsense, and I knew others would likely address them.  His pattern seems to be to ignore the responses, but I agree that lurkers can benefit from them.

 

I agree, getting pissed off with him is not worth the bother.  There are plenty of things in this world that are more worthy of our anger.  I believe he is intentionally trolling for a reaction, and that reacting is feeding him.  That said, if I see the opportunity for a bit of humour, I will take it.

[mymistake]

The questions asked by A1 at the start of this thread are legitimate questions. Whether or not A1 is willing to find the answers for himself or ignore the answers given, the questions he is asking should still be answered, if not for him, then at least for the lurkers who may actually be seeking information, but are either unsure of where to find these answers or are afraid of what they might find if they were to look on their own.

 

I don't see how getting pissed off and attacking A1 is constructive. If he is intentionally trolling for a reaction, based on the responses of this thread, I'd say that he is winning and taking his fill. Since negative reactions are what trolls want, then giving those reactions is feeding them.

 

 

I agree that some of the questions he asked are legitimate.  However I responded to those questions with genuine dialogue and A1 choose to be a liar and an ass.  What more can I do?  Since he won't have a dialogue with us there is nothing more to do.  One way or another I'm sure the trolling will stop soon.  For now I encourage everyone to put A1 on ignore.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The questions asked by A1 at the start of this thread are legitimate questions. Whether or not A1 is willing to find the answers for himself or ignore the answers given, the questions he is asking should still be answered, if not for him, then at least for the lurkers who may actually be seeking information, but are either unsure of where to find these answers or are afraid of what they might find if they were to look on their own.

 

I don't see how getting pissed off and attacking A1 is constructive. If he is intentionally trolling for a reaction, based on the responses of this thread, I'd say that he is winning and taking his fill. Since negative reactions are what trolls want, then giving those reactions is feeding them.

Fair enough.

 

A1, the problem with your OP, as I see it, is that you are working off of the assumption that an atheist is someone who does not believe in god.  This is not an adequate definition of atheism, though, because it makes us all, yourself included, into atheists.  None of us believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Allah; therefore, by your definition, we are all atheists.

 

A better definition of atheist, as I have explained to you before, is someone who rejects the claim that a god or gods exist, based on insufficient evidence to support such a claim.  Rejecting a claim is not the same as not believing something.

 

To help you understand this, it may be helpful to consider a criminal court case being held before a jury.  The jury is given two possible options for deciding on the verdict.  These two options are "guilty" or "not guilty", as opposed to "guilty" or "innocent".  However, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".  When a juror casts a vote of "not guilty" he or she is simply indicating that the case against the defendant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Said juror my believe that the defendant is guilty as hell; but must reject the claim of guilt, based upon the evidence.

 

In the same way, a person may know that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim of god's existence, but still believe god exists.  However, in the case of an atheist, the claim of god's existence is simply dismissed, rejected, due to the lack of evidence to support it.

 

Can a car or a baby reject the claim of god's existence, based upon a thorough inspection of the evidence?  Decide for yourself.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Hmm thanks for the methodical break down. This is interesting. Because I have always wonder that. Why they say innocent until proven guilty but then if they not convicted they are *not guilty* instead of *innocent*. But then how COULD they prove they actually are innocent then?

 

And the definition I usually here is lack of belief in God to define athiesm I tried using the rejecting definition in a fscdbool group and they got mad at me saying they can't reject what doesnt exist because rejecting requires an existence first

[florduh]

And the definition I usually here is lack of belief in God to define athiesm I tried using the rejecting definition in a fscdbool group and they got mad at me saying they can't reject what doesnt exist because rejecting requires an existence first 

 

I reject the unfounded assertion for god(s). I also reject the assertions made for alien shape shifters and fairies. I can't believe someone's extraordinary claims without evidence, and none has been forthcoming regarding any such nonsense.

 

A game of semantics doesn't produce any evidence for any proposed gods (or fairies). Semantics and twisted definitions are, however, often used in apologetics by necessity in place of actual evidence.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Hmm thanks for the methodical break down. This is interesting. Because I have always wonder that. Why they say innocent until proven guilty but then if they not convicted they are *not guilty* instead of *innocent*. But then how COULD they prove they actually are innocent then?

 

And the definition I usually here is lack of belief in God to define athiesm I tried using the rejecting definition in a fscdbool group and they got mad at me saying they can't reject what doesnt exist because rejecting requires an existence first

In other words, the case supporting the existence of god simply has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Just as the juror who must cast a vote of "not guilty" because the case against the defendant was insufficient, so the atheist, myself included, has no option but to reject the claim of god's existence, and for the same reason.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

A better definition of atheist, as I have explained to you before, is someone who rejects the claim that a god or gods exist, based on insufficient evidence to support such a claim.  Rejecting a claim is not the same as not believing something.

 

 

So, perhaps it would be a good idea to just use this definition for what an atheist is? The definition that I have used prior to this to define atheism is a "lack of belief in gods". Is the definition I have been using too simplistic or maybe incorrect? The "better definition" that you are using seems preferable to the one that I was using.

 

I realize that you were, for the most part, replying to what A1 was saying, but I thought it would be a good idea to ask about this.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

A better definition of atheist, as I have explained to you before, is someone who rejects the claim that a god or gods exist, based on insufficient evidence to support such a claim.  Rejecting a claim is not the same as not believing something.

 

 

So, perhaps it would be a good idea to just use this definition for what an atheist is? The definition that I have used prior to this to define atheism is a "lack of belief in gods". Is the definition I have been using too simplistic or maybe incorrect? The "better definition" that you are using seems preferable to the one that I was using.

 

I realize that you were, for the most part, replying to what A1 was saying, but I thought it would be a good idea to ask about this.

 

This is the definition that works for me.  If it works for you, too, then, by all means, feel free to use it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

And the definition I usually here is lack of belief in God to define athiesm I tried using the rejecting definition in a fscdbool group and they got mad at me saying they can't reject what doesnt exist because rejecting requires an existence first

The flaw in the thought process of your fscdbool buddies is their misperception of what is being rejected.  The existence of god is not being rejected here.  Rather the claim of god's existence, which actually does exist and is bandied about like a ragdoll, is what is being rejected.  Whether god exists or not will probably keep humanity busy for many years to come; however, I don't think anyone would argue that the claim of god's existence is present in just about every culture on just about every continent on earth.

 

Claims, however, require supporting evidence.  Without such, only a fool would believe in them.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

The flaw in the thought process of your fscdbool buddies

 

 

 

lol i see what you did there....

 

 

 

 

soo ok i have a new understanding, you dont reject God but the claims FOR God or reject the evidence put up in his defense. This is interesting. Man im learnin alot here. Ok soooo Atheist are the juror, they are nuetral and Christians are the prosecutors presenting evidence and the juror will determine if they are convinced.  in this case God is non existent until proven existent?

 

I have confusion on some things here

How would you detect Supernatural Causation in the natural world, IF science can only detect the natural?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

The flaw in the thought process of your fscdbool buddies

 

 

 

soo ok i have a new understanding, you dont reject God but the claims FOR God or reject the evidence put up in his defense. This is interesting. Man im learnin alot here. Ok soooo Atheist are the juror, they are nuetral and Christians are the prosecutors presenting evidence and the juror will determine if they are convinced.  in this case God is non existent until proven existent?

 

 

Exactly.  And so far, the prosecution's case simply fails.  The only evidence ever presented is hearsay, circumstantial evidence, and a book that has already proven itself to be unreliable at best.  

 

I have confusion on some things here

How would you detect Supernatural Causation in the natural world, IF science can only detect the natural?

 

Your confusion begins with the assumption that "supernatural causation" exists.  If you're going to claim it does, be prepared to present your evidence.  Keep in mind, you're now dealing with a scientist.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

no no thats my points i cant prove supernatural causation exists using science by default science DEFINES supernatural out of existence instantly (just because i cant prove it doesnt mena it doesnt exist) i used that as a label/expression to describe a process, it can be re worded as this....How can you detect when the natural comes in contact with the non natural?

 

I ask this because when i ask this general question, how would you detect the supernatural using natural means, Its becomes Category error for science to use its methodology on anything that is not natural, so how could it verify the supernatural with a methodology that is not designed to detect and this response usually gets an Atheist to say, i need to provide a time where the supernatural intervened into the natural world then they would believe or would be a start

 

Then i proceed to ask what does a supernatural causation even look like, how could they detect it in the first place...How do you cross the bridge from the natural to the non natural.....you canot use a metal detector to find cotton candy, so why are you using science a natural detecting system to find non natural sources.

 

Then you ask show me something that is non natural, well laws of logic are one, but thats a different topic, but the point is that how can we ask someone for evidence for something they have no description of they would not even know what it is or that they are even verifying

 

so it leaves me with the afroementioned question How would you detect Supernatural Causation in the natural world, IF science can only detect the natural?

[Astreja]

For all intents and purposes, "supernatural" just means "probably only exists in the imagination."

 

There's no reason that an actual god would have to be supernatural.  If it existed, and if it could communicate with the physical world in any detectable way, it would have a natural component.  That's how we would detect it -- Through its influence on the natural world.

 

The lack of physical evidence may not indicate that a god is imaginary, but it does strongly suggest that it cannot or will not take any actions that actually affect us.

[midniterider]

Then i proceed to ask what does a supernatural causation even look like, how could they detect it in the first place...How do you cross the bridge from the natural to the non natural.....you canot use a metal detector to find cotton candy, so why are you using science a natural detecting system to find non natural sources.

 

 

If you dont want to believe in something supernatural then you apply a measuring device you are certain will not detect it.

 

But please answer why this Jesus never makes himself known? Never appears. Never speaks. Why is the almighty so powerless? What good is it to believe in something so useless. Something no more real than your imagination?

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

If according to the bible people still didn't believe Jesus even when he was physical in front of them face to face talking. They killed him because they didn't believe him...even tho...he...was...right there...

 

Tsk tsk.. What makes you think people would believe him Today???? who cant even see him. Haha If the people back then didn't believe when he was seen clear as day.

 

Human affairs have not changed they didn't believe then and they won't now even tho they had more to work with back then and still cast it aside.

 

Jesus spoke specifically about this pehnomenon you guys are ex c. You should know the verse that answer your question right there

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If according to the bible people still didn't believe Jesus even when he was physical in front of them face to face talking. They killed him because they didn't believe him...even tho...he...was...right there...

 

Tsk tsk.. What makes you think people would believe him Today???? who cant even see him. Haha If the people back then didn't believe when he was seen clear as day.

 

Human affairs have not changed they didn't believe then and they won't now even tho they had more to work with back then and still cast it aside.

 

Jesus spoke specifically about this pehnomenon you guys are ex c. You should know the verse that answer your question right there

You're taking the bold assumption that what the bible says about jesus is actual history.  You'll need to provide historical evidence, outside of the bible, to support your assumption.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

no no thats my points i cant prove supernatural causation exists using science by default science DEFINES supernatural out of existence instantly (just because i cant prove it doesnt mena it doesnt exist) i used that as a label/expression to describe a process, it can be re worded as this....How can you detect when the natural comes in contact with the non natural?

 

I ask this because when i ask this general question, how would you detect the supernatural using natural means, Its becomes Category error for science to use its methodology on anything that is not natural, so how could it verify the supernatural with a methodology that is not designed to detect and this response usually gets an Atheist to say, i need to provide a time where the supernatural intervened into the natural world then they would believe or would be a start

 

Then i proceed to ask what does a supernatural causation even look like, how could they detect it in the first place...How do you cross the bridge from the natural to the non natural.....you canot use a metal detector to find cotton candy, so why are you using science a natural detecting system to find non natural sources.

 

Then you ask show me something that is non natural, well laws of logic are one, but thats a different topic, but the point is that how can we ask someone for evidence for something they have no description of they would not even know what it is or that they are even verifying

 

so it leaves me with the afroementioned question How would you detect Supernatural Causation in the natural world, IF science can only detect the natural?

There are tons of non-natural elements present in our world--GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, monosodium glutamate.  Science can not only detect the non-natural, it can also produce it.

 

You're taking the bold assumption that something exists beyond what we can detect.  That may be true; but until it is definitively proven, the prudent response is skepticism, just like the unconvinced juror. 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Lol when I say non natural I'm talking about that is non material non natural as in not tangible or can be touched or seen.

[florduh]

 

Lol when I say non natural I'm talking about that is non material non natural as in not tangible or can be touched or seen. 

 

 

In other words, imaginary.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

No in other words laws of logic

[florduh]

I propose that a (ridiculously improbable entity) exists. It can't be seen or detected in any way. Just because this entity, be definition, is beyond discovery or examination, I submit that it exists precisely because I can't demonstrate its existence; if I could then it wouldn't be the entity I proposed. The evidence we DO have is that you are unable to disprove it!!!