Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A1 Wants To Learn :)


1AcceptingAThiest1

Recommended Posts

i hear it all the time people sounding off like a black crow at night

 

when an Atheist says that God didnt do this Caw! or God didnt do That, CaW! Or That wasnt God!, Caw...Im thinking dont they realize the error they are making???

Those very statements ASSUMES that one knows God themself, they are essentially saying they know what Gods Limits are Caw! or what GOD can or cant do Caw! Caw!

 

Teach me and help me understand.....ladies and Gentlemen

 

How can you say Something ISNT capable of doing something if you DONT know its capabilities?

Give me an example of NOT knowing what Someone or something CAN do..... and then based on your LACK of knowledge of what they CAN do, then assert what they CANT DO?

 

even if you didnt know God like a close relative point is you would be *AFFIRMING* God and no longer lacking beleif in him if you knew how he goes about things and what he can or cant do or what saying what you KNOW can be attribute to him as a cause or not.

If you dont know what something can do...again how can you say what it CANT do, if you dont even know what its even capable of??

 

Athiest Sauce Says

knowing that mario like mushrooms and princess doesnt not mean i affirm he exists

Knowing that a fictional character like sperman doesnt like to eat dirt and rocks for breakfeast doesnt me i affirm he exist

 

A1 Sauce Counters

Sorry sir but that! scenario is in based IN a fictional world.

 

If you claim that x event wasnt from God or that X wasnt from God or that God didnt Cause X....These Xs would be in OUR world the universe, planet EARTH, so to say that God didnt do x based on our world.

 

Again *Affirms* him because you are saying you KNOW how he reacts in this world, and his capabilites of what he can or cant do in this world, what can or cant be caused BY him in this world, and know his limits are what his capabilities are in this world.

 

Folks please teach me Please im begging you!!..

 

If you DOnt know what something IS.....How can you say what it isnt?

If you DONT know what something can DO......How can you say what it CANT do?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a miracle worker.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what most atheists are saying is that the Christian God is a fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason you can't understand this stuff A1 is because Merlin the magician has put a hex on you.  Oh I know what you are thinking.  You are thinking Merlin isn't real, or he died a long time ago, or magic isn't real, or Merlin didn't have that kind of power, or Merlin didn't want to put a hex on you.  Sorry but you are wrong on all counts.  Merlin is pissed at you and that is why you have that hex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This the best y'all got is red herrings? Caw caw.

No question truly addressed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you say Something ISNT capable of doing something if you DONT know its capabilities?

 

Give me an example of NOT knowing what Someone or something CAN do..... and then based on your LACK of knowledge of what they CAN do, then assert what they CANT DO?

 

 

Its quite simple, the it we are talking about (God) has no capabilities because it does not exist. A fictional being is incapable of doing anything in the real world. 

 

The Bible is mostly fiction from what I can gather, tales and legends past on from previous civilisations and generations. So your retort to the reasonable reply that knowing what a fiction character can do does not affirm his existence is irrelevant. The world in which the Bible is set is mostly fictional, certainly there are some details that mirror the real world, but that doesn't make it any more real.

 

We know that this God (if we suspend our disbelief for a moment) isn't capable of doing things that his book tells us that he can because there is no evidence of these things happening.

 

 

At least that's how I see it, and I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for everyone on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This the best y'all got is red herrings? Caw caw.

No question truly addressed

 

You got it completely wrong but getting you to understand why would take a miracle.  Perhaps you lied when you said you want to learn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say a lephechaun couldn't play let's say basketball because you know its height and it has no basketball skills....so when you say God cannot do x....this presupposes you Know what God CAN do to asses what he cannot do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bible is a good judge of God, what he does and doesn't do in it, his double standards and so forth. If in the OT he acts just like a whiny, pety, homicidal/genocidal person, we can judge him based on these actions.

 

Basically your argument is we cannot know the will of God nor understand it so he is above our comprehension. We know enough based on the bible that if bible God exists, he is a Hitler and unworthy of our worship. CAW!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do y'all believe in non empirical evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you say a lephechaun couldn't play let's say basketball because you know its height and it has no basketball skills....so when you say God cannot do x....this presupposes you Know what God CAN do to asses what he cannot do

 

No, when someone says a leprechaun (I assume that's what you meant) can't play basketball because of it's size, that just means whoever made that statement is familiar enough with the lore to know it's not a tall creature. Doesn't mean they think leprechauns exist. And by the way, people used to think leprechauns where real too, some probably still do.

 

I don't believe god can do anything, because I don't believe god exists. Well, to clarify, I don't believe god exists outside of your imagination, and therefore cant do anything beyond what you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by non-empirical evidence you mean faith, then I think it would be fair that most atheists have rejected this kind of 'evidence'.

 

If that isn't what you mean, then perhaps you could provide us with your definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are told what God is capable of by Christians and the Bible. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. Whether we like it or not.

 

So when we say that God did or didn't or should or shouldn't, we're mocking the concept of God. We're saying he doesn't exist, because the concept is illogical. If I say, "I guess God couldn't save the Christian kid that got hit by a car while delivering Bibles to the needy," I'm not assuming God exists or that he has any powers. It's blasphemy with a slice of logic to taste; I'm saying, "if God as described by Christians existed, obviously he could have saved that kid and chose not to. Any way you slice it, the God described by Christians doesn't exist."

 

Of course, the God described in the Bible is not the God described by Christians, but they're both fiction. The former is evil, given to fits of rage and known for being a homicidal egomaniac. The latter is a cosmic bell boy/"teddy bear from Grandma," to quote good Dr. House. They are contradictions, and both equally illogical in the world we live in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here is the thing there is a flaw

 

.... People say all day they Dont believe a God exists.

 

Yet they respond with (God **didn't** do this or that.) In a positive affirmative fashion.

This is a direct contrast to a lack of belief because not enough evidence yet type defense Caw Caw

 

 

If you believed he doesn't exist then your response to Any claim shouldn't be in the affirmative that God didn't do this or that.

 

It should be I Dont know if God did this or that or I Dont believe God did this or that.

 

 

But No.....that is not what I hear

 

I hear God didn't do that!

Or you F#%#&ing idiot that wasn't God!

You morally bankrupt piece of #& No it want God!

 

All positive affirmative statements

 

 

 

and I can test this 100 times on any atheist group forum Facebook twitter or AnYwhere to prove my case. Try me

 

I bet i n a week comb this forum and find people positively stating that God didn't do this or that or wasn't responsible In . Positive affirmative as they knew it was true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, we're told by Christians what their God can and can't do, so when we make a comment about his abilities, it's based on what we're told, and it's usually in a mocking manner (or in that "I'm sick of the ignorance" manner).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once I allowed "god is imaginary" reprogrammed my mind all of sudden the way everyone around me acted, what motives them, the "why" they do what they do, became clear, so clear, for the first ever in my life. When I was under the control of the Evangelicals, very little fit together. Little made sense. Indeed,once I understood that "the Earth goes around the sun", and not the other around, MY WORLD FINALLY MADE SENSE. It is this "new world" I live in. A world of ZERO rational doubts. A world where no reasoning is twisted into highly improbably patterns. It is this reasoned and "makes sense" that proves to me that no god exist; especially any god reliant on the mangled twisted words contained in some old dust laden book.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sniffs half-empty sauce bottle*

 

This stuff is rancid, and needs to be thrown out before people catch something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Once I allowed "god is imaginary" reprogrammed my mind all of sudden the way everyone around me acted, what motives them, the "why" they do what they do, became clear, so clear, for the first ever in my life. When I was under the control of the Evangelicals, very little fit together. Little made sense. Indeed,once I understood that "the Earth goes around the sun", and not the other around, MY WORLD FINALLY MADE SENSE. It is this "new world" I live in. A world of ZERO rational doubts. A world where no reasoning is twisted into highly improbably patterns. It is this reasoned and "makes sense" that proves to me that no god exist; especially any god reliant on the mangled twisted words contained in some old dust laden book.

If people reason differently how do you know your reason is the reason all should follow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL free wow that made my day or night or morning its 3am Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you claim that x event wasnt from God or that X wasnt from God or that God didnt Cause X....These Xs would be in OUR world the universe, planet EARTH, so to say that God didnt do x based on our world.

 

Again *Affirms* him because you are saying you KNOW how he reacts in this world, and his capabilites of what he can or cant do in this world, what can or cant be caused BY him in this world, and know his limits are what his capabilities are in this world.

 

I'm going to try to treat this seriously, A1, because you seem very confused, and I don't like confusion.

 

It seems to me that you have asked the wrong question. I can only speak for myself, but I don't make a habit of saying "God can't do x". I am happy to accept that if God exists, then He can do whatever he likes. This is elementary. He is, after all, posited to be omnipotent. His existence, however, has not been demonstrated by anyone. Therefore, someone who says "God did x" is making a groundless claim.

 

I said before that I don't say "God can't do x". What I do say is "God didn't do x". There is a very important difference between these two statements. If we a looking at a particular claim, it is one thing to say that this claim is not true; but it is entirely another to say that it could not possibly be true. Take for example the claim "Aaron Rodgers is the quarterback of the New England Patriots". This claim is not true. Tom Brady is. But it does not follow that "Aaron Rodgers cannot be the quarterback of the New England Patriots". He is capable of it. It's not a logically inconsistent claim, it just doesn't happen to be true.

 

Similarly, if you say "God healed my cancer!", I may say "Actually, that was medicine". If I were to say this, I would not be presupposing anything about what God is or is not capable of; I would merely be stating that I have found a different reason that your cancer is gone. If we can identify the cause of an event in the natural world, then God is no longer needed to explain that event. The simple fact is, there is nothing in the natural world that specifically requires God as its explanation. This does not mean that God doesn't exist, but it does mean that He doesn't necessarily exist.

 

I hope that helps.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't and didn't yes I see they can be used different be they can also be used the same but see what your saying.... That if someone does say God didn't do x then this automatically assumes they do know what x is or caused by x or caused x.

 

 

 

If someone claimed God did x and you say God didn't do x ......the question is then how do you KNOW that God didnt do x? I like ur above example because u had an explanation... For people claiming God didn't do X without a substitute explanation are they then relying on faith if not what are they relying in to posit a positive statement such as God didn't do x....they would have been better off saying I Dont know.m.is this correct?

 

3 thoughts

 

1

you don't know what he can't do(because you Dont believe he exist so logically you don't believe he actually CAN do anything since he doesn't exist to do it) so if you Dont believe he can't do anything then you cannot lump together lack of believe with a positive phrase i Know he didnt do anything at the same time

 

2. You Dont know Gods limits and capabilities even on an meta-level due to reason one because you don't even think he exist. Yet you can make a positive negative claim about know he didn't do something. You need to believe and know what God CAN do to know what he Cannot do or his capabilities just because you have an explanation doesn't mean God is removed from The equation because again this assumes you know how he interacts with the natural world.

 

3

If I Dont know you and a friend says you can play piano and I respond with No he can't!

This is an very rash judgement because if I Dont know you or who you are how could I even make such. Bold assertion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the above is persuasive toward belief in God.

 

At most you're claiming that someone can't prove that there is no God.

 

It's not necessary, however, to posit the existence of a term in an argument in order to talk about it. We talk about Hamlet, but one of the assumptions that we all bring to such talk is the assumption that Hamlet does not exist.

 

If you standardize an argument about God, you use some symbol to stand for members of the set of all things that have the properties that you're ascribing to God. It may turn out that there is no X such that it has those properties.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not looking for followers.  I am not looking to convert people.  I do have empathy for the majority of folks who are programmed to believe that there is more past their own single life... they do not understand how precious every day of their existence is.  It is all they have.  All I know is that once I reprogrammed my mind with "god is imaginary" everything around me made sense.  It fits together.  I find comfort in these observations.  No twisted logic needed.  No mental gymnastics.  No complicated apologetics.  And, most importantly, for me, no more anxiety.  Much more happiness. 

 

Yes.... I guess it is just might be "possible" that the sun goes around the earth, and not the other way around.  But, the model of the Earth going around the sun makes soooooo much more sense.  Even your question of me uses the word "reason" three times is the start of a complicated and twisted string of "what ifs" and other twisted logic.

 

I am a peace, and for the first time have peace of mind, such accepting the world as it is given to me, and using my reasoning skills to look for the most likely "whys" for why things happen they way they do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone claimed God did x and you say God didn't do x ......the question is then how do you KNOW that God didnt do x? I like ur above example because u had an explanation... For people claiming God didn't do X without a substitute explanation are they then relying on faith if not what are they relying in to posit a positive statement such as God didn't do x....they would have been better off saying I Dont know.m.is this correct?

 

Not exactly, but you're getting closer.

 

Let's say you are claiming "God did x". I don't need to actually demonstrate conclusively that God did not do x in order to say that He probably didn't. It seems to me that we must ask ourselves which is more likely: that the creator of the universe has just suspended natural law, or that we are under a misapprehension. Given that every single question of this type which has ever been answered has turned out to have a more satisfying natural explanation, why on earth would I assume that God did something simply because I don't yet know what this alternative explanation is?

 

Of course there are many cases where we already do know the alternative explanation, and in these cases we may speak with more certainty. But in either case, the burden of proof surely lies on those who are making claims about what God is and is not doing. These are very prodigious claims. Those of us who doubt them need not demonstrate that we are reasonable to do so, especially given that it has not been demonstrated that God actually exists.

 

As for your three thoughts, I can't really improve on what ficino said with respect to numbers 1 and 2. Put another way, it is one thing to say that God exists as a concept, and entirely another to say that He exists in reality. We can have academic discussions about God without granting that He actually exists.

 

#3 seems to me to be beside the point. If you are aware that I actually exist, then the claim that I can play the piano is not a particularly odd one. Yet you would be entirely justified in doubting this claim if you wanted. As it turns out, I can't play the piano. This is also not particularly odd. The difference is, in either case whether I can or cannot play the piano could be very easily proven to you. The same may not be said of claims about God's actions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the above is persuasive toward belief in God.

 

At most you're claiming that someone can't prove that there is no God.

 

It's not necessary, however, to posit the existence of a term in an argument in order to talk about it. We talk about Hamlet, but one of the assumptions that we all bring to such talk is the assumption that Hamlet does not exist.

 

If you standardize an argument about God, you use some symbol to stand for members of the set of all things that have the properties that you're ascribing to God. It may turn out that there is no X such that it has those properties.

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god.  Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god.  The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.