Originally posted by Impediment
Because it offended me that you offered me a quiz that tries to debunk my beliefs, or tries to change my views, while you say that you know for a [b]FACT that your beliefs are right. It just seems a little hyppocritical to me. [/B]
I didn't offer it to you "personally" or "exclusively."
In fact, I didn't even invent the test.
Look, for the last time: you asked me how do I know that Jesus or God really exist?. I gave you my answer. You don't have to accept it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't offer it to you "personally" or "exclusively."
But the fact remains that you took the time to copy the link, come to KMC Forums, take the time to create a new thread, paste the link, and type whatever opening statements you had. You did, as a matter of fact, offer the test to me. People are going to take the test and post their comments in your thread, and you read them, and post more of your opinions. So, I don't see why you're in a stage of denial.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Look, for the last time: you asked me [B]how do I know that Jesus or God really exist?. I gave you my answer. You don't have to accept it. [/B]
Fine. Cool. I accept your answer. You believe that God made the universe, and that Jesus died on a cross for makind's sins. But you know what? One of my best friends happens to be Hindu, and I asked him why he believes in his pantheon of god like Shiva, Kali, Vishnu, Ganesha, and all the others (I can never remember them all). He told me his answer, and I accepted it. But he never told me that my beliefs are misguided and/or wrong, and that his beliefs are right because he KNOWS that he's right. It's called respect.
Originally posted by ImpedimentWhy are you harping on this? Denial? Dude I think you should just get over it, really.
But the fact remains that you took the time to copy the link, come to KMC Forums, take the time to create a new thread, paste the link, and type whatever opening statements you had. You did, as a matter of fact, offer the test to me. People are going to take the test and post their comments in your thread, and you read them, and post more of your opinions. So, I don't see why you're in a stage of denial.
You still haven't offered up a rebuttal. You seem to be dodging answering my post. Or am I being a crosspatch? Whatever that is........
If my posts bother you, then just go to my profile and select "Add Impediment to your Ignore List" and you won't have to listen to me. I'm not being hostile towards you. You're being vague and dodgy.
Originally posted by Impediment
You still haven't offered up a rebuttal. You seem to be dodging answering my post. Or am I being a crosspatch? Whatever that is........If my posts bother you, then just go to my profile and select "Add Impediment to your Ignore List" and you won't have to listen to me. I'm not being hostile towards you. You're being vague and dodgy.
A rebuttal about what? I have already answered your question about why I believe that Jesus exists.
???
Originally posted by Impediment
You are contradicting yourself in every way here, JIA.Why don't you go take the test in the thread I made in the OTF and offer your "words of truth" to the members there and preach to them?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Care to explain?
Originally posted by Impediment
In the cosmic sense, we (Earth and the human race) are nil. In cosmic terms, we are a subatomic particle in a grain of sand on an infinite beach. You offer me a "test of awakening and revelation" that tells me that my beliefs are wrong, while you get up on your high horse and preach to me about a guy who got nailed to two pieces of wood over 2,000 years ago. To me, that's "the pot calling the kettle black". My beliefs may be wrong, maybe there is a possibility of a higher being or beings. But don't sit there all "Holier than thou" and tell me that you [b]KNOW for a fact that God/Jesus exists while you try to debunk my beliefs. My atheism comes from a lack of evidence. The absence of evidence of a god is my backbone of arguement. Where's is yours? In your mind? In your heart? In your soul? That warm and fuzzy feeling you get while you speak in tongues at church? I can get that same feeling for about $20. If you believe in the Christian god, fine. I have no problem with an individual who has beliefs. Who the hell am I to tell you that you're an idiot or that you're wrong? But how dare you do that to me? Just like Shakyamunison said: You are being a hippocrite. There is so much about the universe and the world we live in that we (mankind) doesn't know yet. Maybe you're the one who's wrong, JIA. [/B]
You asked me to explain, and I did just that. You don't have anything to say about my post? No lengthy reply thats full of quotes and scriptures? If you dont want to continue going on with me about this or want to change the subject, then just say, "Leave me alone.", or just quit replying to me.
Originally posted by Impediment
You asked me to explain, and I did just that. You don't have anything to say about my post? No lengthy reply thats full of quotes and scriptures? If you dont want to continue going on with me about this or want to change the subject, then just say, "Leave me alone.", or just quit replying to me.
Your post (although quite lengthy) did not warrant a wordy response from me.
Re: Atheism Test
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]atheism
One entry found for atheism.Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity[/B]
That is one NARROW definition right there (and one stupid test to boot).
Here is a much better one:
Atheism - is simply the absence of a belief, belief in a god, a higher power, a supreme being, etc. It is a state of mind in which the supernatural plays no part. For that reason atheism has no agenda, pursues no goals, and practices no principles. Although the atheist may deny the validity of any one or all of the theistic arguments, he or she does not deny the existence of a god. The existence of such a being remains unproved.
Let it be understood that the atheist does not close the door on the possibility that a god exists. Realizing that the failure of theistic arguments does not absolutely prove that there is no god, and that supposing as much would make one guilty of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, the atheist remains open to further evidence. Until such proof is forthcoming, however, the atheist remains justified in rejecting theism as a valid concept.
What would it take to convince an atheist that a god exists? This is a fair question. First, an atheist would accept the data of sense perception, known as empirical evidence, provided these data were objectively substantiated and could be experienced by another individual under similar circumstances. Second, an atheist would accept compelling argumentation that is logical and consistent, does not contradict either itself or our current knowledge of the universe, and, where appropriate, can withstand the cutting edge of Occam's Razor..
Well, this is the old weak atheism/strong atheism divide (weak very much NOT being pejorative, an important note)
A weak atheist does not think there is a God. He or she does not think there is any evidence for a God and so does not see any reason to think one exists.
A strong atheist (the cause championed by Douglas Adams) actively thinks that there is no God. He or she actively proposes the idea that the evidence before us rules out such a possibility. Or possibly the disbelief is an article of faith, in which case it is more of a philosophical view.
It is very, very important to note that atheism is not a faith or belief in of itself, any more than theism is. It is an attribute. Christianity is a belief that is theist, as is Islam. Examples of atheist beliefs would be Humanism or Nihilism.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, this is the old weak atheism/strong atheism divide (weak very much NOT being pejorative, an important note)A weak atheist does not think there is a God. He or she does not think there is any evidence for a God and so does not see any reason to think one exists.
A strong atheist (the cause championed by Douglas Adams) actively thinks that there is no God. He or she actively proposes the idea that the evidence before us rules out such a possibility. Or possibly the disbelief is an article of faith, in which case it is more of a philosophical view.
It is very, very important to note that atheism is not a faith or belief in of itself, any more than theism is. It is an attribute. Christianity is a belief that is theist, as is Islam. Examples of atheist beliefs would be Humanism or Nihilism.
Ushgarak, how would you like to receive eternal life?
Originally posted by Templares
All atheists are weak atheists. Almost all atheists are strong atheists in regards to some gods (depending on who you choose: Jesus, Thor, Osiris etc.).
I don't believe that is true.
Strong and weak atheists would disagree on whethet the evidence says there is no God or not. Weak atheists would say that there is not enough evidence to conclusively disprove it, but that doesn't matter because the burden of evidence is to prove, of course, and it being unproven- indeed, apparently without any rational foundation at all- it is foolish to think it is so. Strong atheists would say that the evidence against is conclusive; that it is not even a matter of being unproven, it is instead actively impossible. They are slightly contradictory viewpoints so a person cannot really be both.
Originally posted by Ushgarak👆
I don't believe that is true.Strong and weak atheists would disagree on whethet the evidence says there is no God or not. Weak atheists would say that there is not enough evidence to conclusively disprove it, but that doesn't matter because the burden of evidence is to prove, of course, and it being unproven- indeed, apparently without any rational foundation at all- it is foolish to think it is so. Strong atheists would say that the evidence against is conclusive; that it is not even a matter of being improven, it is instead actively impossible. They are slightly contradictory viewpoints so a person cannot really be both.