it takes more faith to be atheist..

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by lyricalpriest, Jan 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    your just playing with words there.

    as for the claims i made, it's mostly hypothetical seeing as i don't have a true understanding of where your beliefs stand..

    so lemme get this str8 you believe in god, just not the god the bible or man has created for us?

    that's understandable.. i dont think man could describe god anyways.. these books and beliefs are supposed to catapult us into our next level of enlightenment.

    i just clinge to the cross as i grow, because that is what my heart tells me to do.

    what does your heart tell you?
    test
  2. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    I know what Pascal's Wager is. My argument is that I am not aware of God and I am not able to believe in God because the faith I had took such a strong hit in a mere instant. No one expected it. I didn't expect it. I posted in the Alley like an hour after I stopped believing. Guys like Riz actually thought I was joking, and I've had a few discussions with him on here about certain things. Pretty sure it was understood that I was not really lacking in the faith department.
    test
  3. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    momento is there links to this revelation your talking about i'd appreciate to know where your coming from. as it will assist me when we continue these discussions. when directing you and your view
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    u cant give me the footnotes?
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  5. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    No, I tried to clear up the misconception you seem to be having. Unsuccessful.


    I don't believe in any god. I can't disprove God. I can't disprove the Bible. I'm not one of those people who expect you to prove your god or provide evidence for His existence. I have no awareness of His existence. I have no awareness of Intelligent Design either.

    To pay attention, I guess. I'm not finished with my search, that's one certainty.
    test
  6. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    You guys are being vague in your requests? ... revelation? footnotes? Be specific.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    What is this dramatic event that made you go from believing to doubting.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  8. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Does investigating claims count as a dramatic event? I doubt it. There was no dramatic event. I just no longer believe in God. I've told you, my faith took a hit to the point of not believing. This was not typical in the case of having bad things happen, meaning if something bad happened it wouldn't shake my faith in God. I was strong not to let bad things that happen get to me. I still clearly had faith until I came to stop believing. Maybe I had been trained to avoid doubting when I did not have clear enough reasons to doubt. It's like carrying something heavy. You lift it up and you don't feel that it's really all too heavy. Try running your fastest with it, and see how quickly you run out of gas.
    test
  9. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    If you wanna hang in apologetics, I suggest you learn about presuppositional apologetics.
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    talk about vague. I get you stopped believing, i see your example so what r u saying you just couldnt reason out why you were holding onto faith in a God that didnt make himself clearly known to you?
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  11. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    I'm glad we can continue this string of petty pot calling the kettle black rhetoric. But why can't I rely solely on analogy to explain things when the entire argument by LP/Frank Turek was riddled with them, e.g. the argument for intelligent design (the "drink coke" in the clouds analogy.)

    No. When you posit the existence of a God it is Deus Ex Machina. It is an argument from ignorance. Today, it is appeal to tradition. It is relying on circular reasoning. So forth. How do you suppose we come to grips with this?
    test
  12. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    ive used plent of presuppositional arguements both moral factual and historical factual. But at the end of the day its really a selfless purpose for even bothering to try an persuade a belief for reasons we feel are greater than the ridicule we may get from side comment interfereance. An u may go home unpersuaded by my opinions or attempts to try an reason out things upon request but "jesus rejoices over the seed" so if it at least gets u thinking on the topic, i can be thankful for the oportunity and let God take the reigns and begin speaking to your heart stripping the layers of hardness that weve all built up over time.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  13. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    this post basically sums up why intelligent design isn't taken seriously as a scientific theory. it relies completely on hypothetical rhetoric rather than real scientific hypothesis, testing and observation. a sound theory has to not only be applicable to current data sets, it has to make predictions that are potentially falsifiable. intelligent design is not falsifiable because its all hypothetical, thus its not certifiable either. i.e. everything said is based on faith.

    the 'coke' example is one of the many dumbed down pieces of rhetoric that they use to trick people who have no understanding of biology. but the obvious difference is that the english alphabet is known to be created by man as a form of communication. thus any appearance of the word 'coke' is assumed to have a human creator, rightfully so. that said, if those four letters existed as elements in nature, it would be completely plausible that they could have randomly appeared together in that order.
    test
  14. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    and if you want to talk about the evidence behind common descent:

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

    hence why humans and chimpanzees share 96% of their genetic code, and why any two given humans will share more than 99%. all living organisms share these basic building blocks for life, demonstrating the general relatedness of all life on earth. and what makes this theory valid is that it makes predictions which are easily falsifiable:

    so common descent is widely supported by scientific evidence and so it doesnt matter if you say god planted the first life, life arose on its own, or it was synthesized by intergalactic aliens... evolution is not discredited by any of these proposed theories. it would simply mean that god created the first single celled life, and then set the mechanisms of evolution in place. but i'm sure that's not what you believe.

    now lets say you propose that god created each species individually in some sort of traditional 'creation story.' this is actually falsifiable by scientific evidence, and has been proven inconsistent by fossil records which suggest that all species are not the same age, some species have long gone extinct and other species didn't appear until long after the world was already teeming with life. the only way this could be possible is through evolution.

    in conclusion, it takes more faith to chalk it all up to a biblical creation myth than it does to accept the apparent facts at hand while acknowledging that we don't know everything there is to know about how life first arose.
    test
  15. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    but it really doesnt matter if we were 99.99999 similar to the apes genetics still will never change to an entirely different species. Thats the problem with that is cross-species hinderance. We have 70% similarity to a sea sponge that doesnt mean it was involved into our ancestorial makeup.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  16. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    that's an assumption on your part, and a false one. according to common descent, we are related to the sea sponge. but the divergence between vertebrate/invertebrate species is such a basic distinction that our last surviving common ancestor would've been very primitive and thus our evolutionary paths split a very long time ago, which is why judging by appearance you'd never think we could have been related.

    but all life is related, as demonstrated by our shared basic genetic code. the fact that something as obscure as a sea sponge would share 70% of our genetic make up only further proves that all life is in fact related.

    i have a serious question.. how do you explain all the extinct hominid species that we have discovered through fossil remains that are more closely related to us than any of the modern primates?

    Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    these primates were more advanced than any of the ones that exist today excluding humans. they are defined by their use of tools (sound familiar?) so why would they go extinct if they were so far ahead of the game? answer: evolution took its course and a greater species emerged (us).
    test
  17. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    i could agree with reggie when he says god could have made the first forms of life and let the set evolution take place.. even so, if evolution is the answer, it'd be because god "intelligently designed" evolution..

    here's the thing.. we live in a world, were EVERYTHING is Parent/Child Relation.

    Master/servant

    what i mean by this is.. from natural laws all the way to the build up of society all rely on the same principles..

    Creation/Foundation/Advancements.(or provisions)/death

    even flowers reproduce.

    even flowers come from a seed.. and begin their own course of existence.

    similar to all life forms.. we Live and Die.. there for there is evidence for a negative and a positive element that NOTHING OR NO ONE can deny or escape. some would call it nature.. but i think that something that has such a dominant influence ON ALLLLL life..

    is for sure beyond nature.. it is evident even in society this life/death theory
    ei:
    rome wasn't built in a day.. but how fast did it take for the fall of rome?(creation/death)
    even the most sound doctrine of the past have become outdated and replaced(evolution)

    and like all things human and not.. even things which don't possess life like.. rules

    all need advancments, and provisions. not of food but of implement.

    just like we eat to survive

    a rule must be "fed" for the result to remain living. other wise if the rule becomes outdated or another one takes it's place we stop "feeding" that rule and let it die out.

    therefor

    if god didn't exist..

    we wouldn't have purpose to exist neither..
    test
  18. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    REASON WHY ATHEIST HAVE TO HAVE MORE FAITH:

    Millions of people have died/killed for religion..

    IDK any atheist that died for atheism.. i could be wrong.

    if every one stops at a stop light, then it takes less faith to believe a red light means stop

    vs. the atheistic view, where everyone is stopping at the stop lights, but the atheist doesnt believe in what the law tells us bc it isn't from a perfect set of laws, therefore they dont stop at the stop light

    they have more faith to go against what was the foundation of mankind.. then to conform to it.

    religion has shaped and guided mankind and society since the beggining. our constitution is based on biblical principles too an extent... (leaving out the religion)

    being an atheist is questioning all that we have already built our society and the world off of. they take all the good morals and principals and reject the god power behind them. that's faith.

    to conform to religion and reject it at the same time.(obeying constitutional laws) and believing thats right thats not blind faith thats ignorance

    LoL

    play on words??
    test
  19. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Macroevolution would cause way too many theological problems. The two CAN NOT coexits. Microevolution sure, theres proof of that. Not macro or cross species evolution. It doesnt work in the context of creationism. Watch that creation ministries international link i sent you they go much more in depth on it
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)