The Faith of Atheism

[sigmapi1501]

I have a Dog.

(So far this is the only post in this thread not completely full of BS  )

[queenofnines]

or those who have the evidence but use terms that offend the first claiments? Which one is truly arrogant - ones who continually personally attack others - or, ones who try to keep to the subjects being debated? I wonder how an objective observer would answer these questions? oh well!

Once again, you are guilty of this as well (mocking).  If you bothered to look at the history of posts beyond this specific thread of the people you claim are attacking you, you'd see that their style is filled with plenty of good info and insights and does not personally attack all the time for no good reason.  That being said, this is a forum, and if you expect people to not call you on your sh*t when you are blatantly spewing nonsense, you're in the wrong place.  If you truly knew what objective meant, you would be able to see that.

I think it's about time to wrap up this poor thread.  It's obviously going nowhere. 

[queenofnines]

The fact that they knew we were dust says something. We are dust (star dust).  

- There are two different stories of man's creation in Genesis.  One of the earliest examples of a contradiction in the Bible.
- Star dust is not the same thing as dirt dust.  It's quite clear the latter is what Biblegod is referring to.
- Since you mentioned dust, snakes don't literally eat it like the Bible says they're supposed to.  They have heads that can swallow small animals whole for their diet.

P.S.  Only a very small percentage of scientists believe in "intelligent design".  1% fringe loonies versus 99% sound scientists is not a balanced argument.

(I'm not saying the 1% is completely incapable of good science, btw)

[rwdeese]

You assume correctly

Well then I will rephrase, and perhaps you will give me an answer. Do you consider yourself an absolute believer in god? And if so, how do you justify this without solid proof of existence?

I believe in God.


I base my believe on the rules of evidence.

Blessings

[rwdeese]

I have a Dog.

(So far this is the only post in this thread not completely full of BS  )

These kind of statements say more about the author then about the posts.

[rwdeese]

RW: or those who have the evidence but use terms that offend the first claiments? Which one is truly arrogant - ones who continually personally attack others - or, ones who try to keep to the subjects being debated? I wonder how an objective observer would answer these questions? oh well!

Once again, you are guilty of this as well (mocking).

These are known as rhetorical statements. They only mock those who practice them? They are specifically designed to show how silly regular ad homs are. I am glad you acknowledged them, in a round about way, of course.

If you bothered to look at the history of posts beyond this specific thread of the people you claim are attacking you, you'd see that their style is filled with plenty of good info and insights and does not personally attack all the time for no good reason.

Actually, you are wrong. I would say that there may have been 5% of legitimate discussion that has taken place.

That being said, this is a forum, and if you expect people to not call you on your sh*t when you are blatantly spewing nonsense, you're in the wrong place.

I think an objective observor would notice that the non-sense is not coming from my side. en your first five arguments about why one should not believe in God proves this one! They are mere shallow emotive appeals to those who have not done any serious research. So far, no one has called me on my .............! Why? Because they haven't prsented anything that legitimately pcountered anything - they are too busy name calling!

If you truly knew what objective meant, you would be able to see that.

Now, I must admit, coming from you, this is a wild statement. Again, all one needs to do is read your first five arguments why one should not believe in God and one will quickly realize that objectivity is not what you use for your arguments.

I think it's about time to wrap up this poor thread.  It's obviously going nowhere. 

You are right about that - ting for real conversation about the points prsented (actually there is one person who has engaged a little bit)

[queenofnines]

all one needs to do is read your first five arguments why one should not believe in God and one will quickly realize that objectivity is not what you use for your arguments.

This is the only part worth responding to.  It is by being objective that I got out of Christianity...by realizing/learning about the types of things I presented in my quick list.  After 5 years of mostly just going with the believing crowd and being willfully naive like most Christians, I began to read the Bible cover-to-cover and desire REAL truth...whether that truth pointed to there being a god, or not.  I dared to ask myself, "What are the reasons atheists are convinced there's not a god?" and *explore that*, thinking surely they wouldn't be so hasty as to risk damning their eternal souls on a whim.

[oonamas]

I believe in God.

I base my believe on the rules of evidence.

There is no absolute evidence that god exists, and no absolute evidence that he doesn't. Everyone can argue all they want, but the fact that people can argue about it only helps to prove that point. You refuse to answer the question directly of whether you're an absolute believer or an agnostic believer, but you have to be one or the other. One makes you arrogant under your own definition, the other shows that you do not have the proof you pretend to. Again, if there was proof either way we wouldn't be here debating. You are not some great holder of truth. Take a long look in the mirror and humble yourself a bit.