What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?

MayCaesar

One interesting observation I should make is that all known religions condemn lying - it is always one of the primary vices - yet religious people consistently go to great lengths to lie about the arguments against their positions. Often they will claim that their critics say the exact opposite of what they actually say.

In a different conversation I mentioned that few religious people are genuine believers, that usually they convince themselves and others that they are believers, but they do not really mean it: it is just a coping mechanism for them, it is not something they believe on a fundamental level. It all is starting to come together, is it not?

It applies to other totalitarian systems of thought as well. What was the typical Russians' response to criticism of the USSR, or Putin's regime? "You are just a Russophobe; you hate Russians". Even if I said explicitly that I would love for every Russian to live in a free and prosperous country, they would then say that I just want Russians to be poor and miserable.

You cannot build a world view incompatible with reality without the baggage: having to deny said reality regularly. I do not think I have to explain what repercussions on one's life this has...

just_sayin said:

May, you are too stubborn to admit that you have frequently used science of the gaps arguments in a: the miracles debate, b: the abiogenesis debate, c: the evolutionary theory debate.  You even got mad in the miracles debate when all of Barbara Commiskey's doctors wrote that her healing from not being able to walk, being blind, and several of her internal organs not working after being prayed for.  You thought the top physician on her condition in the world, who was working at the Mayo Clinic, was irresponsible for bluntly saying it was a miracle and that there was scientific explanation for it.  Let's never pretend that you didn't do that.  When I confronted you on this point, you said that there is no God so any explanation must be scientifically explainable - that's a science of the gaps argument, my friend.  

I am sure I did. Not in this reality though.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

That you have to consistently lie about my arguments says everything anyone needs to know about religion: it is built on a quicksand of lies. Truth puts enough weight on the castle that it immediately sinks, so lying about what one's own eyes can see is the only way to avoid the immediate catastrophe.

May, you are too stubborn to admit that you have frequently used science of the gaps arguments in a: the miracles debate, b: the abiogenesis debate, c: the evolutionary theory debate.  You even got mad in the miracles debate when all of Barbara Commiskey's doctors wrote that her healing from not being able to walk, being blind, and several of her internal organs not working after being prayed for.  You thought the top physician on her condition in the world, who was working at the Mayo Clinic, was irresponsible for bluntly saying it was a miracle and that there was scientific explanation for it.  Let's never pretend that you didn't do that.  When I confronted you on this point, you said that there is no God so any explanation must be scientifically explainable - that's a science of the gaps argument, my friend.  

You are too stubborn to admit a religion you must repeatedly lie to uphold isn't worth having. Science plus we don't know plus one day we might, isn't faith, it's trust that given enough time we MIGHT get the answers through the scientific process.. We don't know plus god did it plus god of the gaps assertion is blind faith in fairytales.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

One interesting observation I should make is that all known religions condemn lying - it is always one of the primary vices - yet religious people consistently go to great lengths to lie about the arguments against their positions. Often they will claim that their critics say the exact opposite of what they actually say.

In a different conversation I mentioned that few religious people are genuine believers, that usually they convince themselves and others that they are believers, but they do not really mean it: it is just a coping mechanism for them, it is not something they believe on a fundamental level. It all is starting to come together, is it not?

It applies to other totalitarian systems of thought as well. What was the typical Russians' response to criticism of the USSR, or Putin's regime? "You are just a Russophobe; you hate Russians". Even if I said explicitly that I would love for every Russian to live in a free and prosperous country, they would then say that I just want Russians to be poor and miserable.

You cannot build a world view incompatible with reality without the baggage: having to deny said reality regularly. I do not think I have to explain what repercussions on one's life this has...

just_sayin said:

May, you are too stubborn to admit that you have frequently used science of the gaps arguments in a: the miracles debate, b: the abiogenesis debate, c: the evolutionary theory debate.  You even got mad in the miracles debate when all of Barbara Commiskey's doctors wrote that her healing from not being able to walk, being blind, and several of her internal organs not working after being prayed for.  You thought the top physician on her condition in the world, who was working at the Mayo Clinic, was irresponsible for bluntly saying it was a miracle and that there was scientific explanation for it.  Let's never pretend that you didn't do that.  When I confronted you on this point, you said that there is no God so any explanation must be scientifically explainable - that's a science of the gaps argument, my friend.  

I am sure I did. Not in this reality though.

Crazy stuff may has said:

How can I be offended by a fact? I very calmly explained that when the doctor declares something a "miracle", he speaks not as a doctor, but as a commoner, for in medical sciences term "miracle" does not exist. The doctor claimed that medical science cannot at present explain the recovery - however, the claim does not imply the stronger claim that medical science is principally incapable of explaining it. To prove that something cannot in principle be explained scientifically, an entirely different level of argumentation is needed; in fact, I suspect that it might be impossible to prove such a claim, making it a-priori invalid.
You keep calling this argument a "science of the gaps" argument, but you never explain in what way exactly it is wrong. Okay, let us call it a "science of the gaps" argument. Calling it that is not a criticism. Do you have a criticism? If so, I would love to hear it.

As to your question, I do not think such a proof is possible. "Miracle" seems to be a bit of a self-contradictory term, for if something has been proven to be a miracle, then it has been proven to be a fact of reality, caused by laws of reality, therefore not being a miracle. More precisely, perhaps, you should ask, "How would anyone prove that an event was caused by divine intervention?" That is a better question, and I have already proposed one scenario in which it would be difficult to find any explanation other than that - which, for all practical purposes, might be considered a proof.

May, you have repeatedly claimed the leading specialist in that specific medical field could not claim something as a miracle, even though he was eminently qualified to determine what was beyond what could be expected.  Remember he had sent her home to die within the week?  You don't believe in miracles - and have stated that all such examples must be ultimately explainable by science.  While you have, at ad nauseum, claimed you have been taken out of context, the truth is that I have been accurate in my claim.  You have repeatedly appealed to a 'science of the gaps' kind of rationale.  You even at one point embraced it (see above) and claimed that it was not a criticism.    

Think I made it up?  See your comments in https://debateisland.com/discussion/9255/does-praying-work/p3 through https://debateisland.com/discussion/9255/does-praying-work/p5 .  I'm not claiming you haven't denied you were making a science of the gaps argument.  I'm pointing out to you that you have consistently implied a miracle can't exist and that science must ultimately be the solution, because it is the only solution.   

MayCaesar

I recommend that you feed my comments to ChatGPT so it can explain them to you.

ChewingTinFoil

Argument Topic: Hmm part 2

@just_sayin 1. “I agree” it’s settled.

2. All of your astronomical and cosmological arguments wouldn’t matter because nothing can limit god. Also you comparing my argument against Mona Lisa is incorrect because there is a limit to Leonardo da Vinci's  paintings. For god he can make an infinite amount of better universes. Also, before you say “Well then every universe would be trash compared the infinite amount of others.” Doesn’t make them finely tuned now does it?  3. The origin of DNA still remains a mystery.The DNA is a molecule, But the theory is that minerals are integral to the chemical evolution that formed dna. On to my argument, I was explaining how this excellent coder killed many creatures with his coding. Example. The Pyrenean ibex. The lack of genetic diversity made it difficult for the species to adapt to diseases, inbreeding depression, etc. Leading to its extinction around 2000 or so.

4. I have yet to be received any type of evidence of regaining eyesight or limbs from this “miracle”.

just_sayin

ChewingTinFoil said:

@just_sayin 1. “I agree” it’s settled.

2. All of your astronomical and cosmological arguments wouldn’t matter because nothing can limit god. Also you comparing my argument against Mona Lisa is incorrect because there is a limit to Leonardo da Vinci's  paintings. For god he can make an infinite amount of better universes. Also, before you say “Well then every universe would be trash compared the infinite amount of others.” Doesn’t make them finely tuned now does it?  3. The origin of DNA still remains a mystery.The DNA is a molecule, But the theory is that minerals are integral to the chemical evolution that formed dna. On to my argument, I was explaining how this excellent coder killed many creatures with his coding. Example. The Pyrenean ibex. The lack of genetic diversity made it difficult for the species to adapt to diseases, inbreeding depression, etc. Leading to its extinction around 2000 or so.

4. I have yet to be received any type of evidence of regaining eyesight or limb reattachment from this “miracle”.

You said you agreed to point 1.  I pointed out that if something appears to be complex, like code, then it needs a coder, an intelligence to make it.  You said you agreed.  

The issue of being finely tuned is not based on if the universe could support human life, just that the universe wouldn't either collapse instantly due to its own weight or atoms fail to be able to be formed because gravity is too low.  There is nothing within the fundamental forces that says they have to have the values that they do.  That's why even atheistic or agnostic scientists agree the universe appears finely tuned for life.  It is much more likely that our universe would not be inhabitable.  There are only a very view values which will allow a universe like ours to form, and the odds of those values happening randomly are astronomical as Penrose and Hawking observed.

Some people will appeal to the anthropic principle and say that 'the only universe we could observe would be one where we could live', but that does not explain how we got so lucky.  Imagine if you are about to be executed by firing squad and one hundred men aim loaded guns at you and fire and they all miss.  You might reason "I'm alive so they all had to miss", but that would not explain what happened to cause them all to miss you.  In the same way, it is much more likely that some intelligence tuned the universe to the right parameters than that it happened accidently.

Arguing that God could have made it better or more efficient, seems to miss the fact that it is finely tuned as it is.  These arguments about a better universe impose some standard that can't really be defended as an objective one - it is subjective.  For instance, someone may argue that God waisted so much stuff - this implies God is limited and can't afford to waist anything.  In actuality, the size of our universe goes against many theories of the origins of the universe such as it coming from a virtual particle or two branes touching.  In those scenarios, it is massively more likely we should be observing a much smaller universe, no larger than our own solar system - due to the likelihood of how energy discharges.

No evidence for miracles?????  

Look here:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171231/#Comment_171231

Here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166928/#Comment_166928

here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/174115/#Comment_174115

here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/167362/#Comment_167362

Here's a few to get you started.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.

This is the crux of the issue that trips off believers: the question of whether something happened is completely separate from the question of, if it were to happen, what its causes would be. For instance, I could ask if the peak of mount Everest is above or below 7.5 km above the sea level (I honestly do not know without looking it up) - but knowing which it is tells me almost nothing about how it came to be so.

Now, I just looked it up: it is actually the staggering 8.85 km. What would I do if I was a scientist interested in this stuff, say, a geologist? Well, I would perform analysis of samples of the mountain's materials at different heights and in different locations and try to reconstruct the history of its formation according to the best theories known to me. The hypothesis on its history would be firmly grounded in hard data and its rigorous analysis.

A believer would employ a fundamentally different approach. Suppose I was a believer in the Mighty Ice Unicorn, and in my holy text of choice ("Ice Unicorn's Adventures") there was a cryptic passage about the Unicorn one day hitting the ground with its hoof and causing an earthquake of unimaginable proportions leading to formation of mountains of highly variable heights.

Then I would look at that unimaginably tall peak and say, "This is clearly a handiwork... sorry, a hoof-work of the Mighty Ice Unicorn. All hail our Equidaic master!" What is the difference from the previous case? Instead of performing logical analysis driving the conclusion, I instead assumed the conclusion and backwards-rationalized it through pretense of an analysis.

The difference is that a scientist formulates a hypothesis and sees if a) it matches the evidence and b) its negation contradicts the evidence - while a believer already has a conclusion in mind and looks for any information that can be interpreted as supporting that conclusion. The latter is exactly what the scientific method is tasked to combat: individual preferences and biases.

This is also why there have been thousands of religions, but only one science. A Muslim and a Christian will never agree on much because each has different preferences and biases and simply interprets all information as proving them right. But a Chinese and an American scientists will agree on virtually everything since they are dealing with the same underlying reality and see the same outcomes of the same experiments. If a Chinese scientist believes that the free fall acceleration on Earth is 8 m/s^2, then he can conduct a very simple experiment and be proven wrong - and unless he deliberately lies about the outcome (in which case he is a lousy scientist), he must correct his belief. But if a Muslim believes that upon death he will arrive at the afterlife and have 72 virgins (or however many) waiting for him, then nothing a Christian can say or do will convince him otherwise: it is the afterlife, so the data is unavailable.

Science deals with reality, while religion deals with fantasy. This is just a fact, and, in fact, honest religious people not only admit it, but see it as the strength of religion: it liberates humans from the constraints of this narrow physical world. It is the dishonest ones that try to see religion as a serious competitor to science. It clearly is not, and anyone who disagrees is free to show me a single technological invention that contradicts science, but aligns with religion. Any cars designed as a consequence of prayer to Allah the Merciful? Planes having miracle-driven engines? Anyone?

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Well I know that, you know that, pity most believers won't even comprehend that. But it does help to say and hear it once in awhile!

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I think they comprehend that in other areas of their life, in those in which getting things wrong has immediate negative consequences. No one crosses the road by holding onto fantasy: every adult, and even probably a kid, understands that this is no time to mess around. 

The more abstract and removed from immediate reality things become though, the more room for fantasy there appears to be. I can believe that the Moon is a large piece of Swizz cheese without immediately dying or getting hurt. The problem with this belief is more metaphysical: the reasoning I have to employ to hold this belief will poison my thinking in other areas of life, and eventually something is likely to give.

Ayn Rand used to say that people do not take philosophy seriously enough, thinking it some kind of game, of the stuff people do in their spare time. Yet philosophy matters a lot, and if we look at a place like Saudi Arabia or North Korea, we will see clearly why. Believing in prophets flying to the sky on a horse seriously leads to terrible life choices, and those aggregated across time and population lead to terrible societies.

---

I will also add that all the criticism I make of religious people also applies to me. In general, I am most interested in errors in other people's thinking or actions because I realize that they come from the source that I also must have, and identifying them in others allows me to do some debugging in myself. I am sure I am guilty of all the same mistakes I point out in others, they just manifest in different ways.

RickeyHoltsclaw

The Atheist is absent evidence that a Creator does not exist; therefore, Atheism does not exist...it's a ruse for cowards, sexual perverts, Communists, Progressives.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.

The definition of a miracle is an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.  If a miracle exists - then God exists and has shown Himself. 

Lack of evidence???  The miracles I've mentioned all have eye witnesses, doctor's attestation, and medical records.  Some have video evidence, news reports, peer reviewed case record accounts, and  certified under oath in a court eye witness accounts.  But you know that.  Its not that there is no evidence, just that your atheistic faith won't allow you to admit that there is evidence.  Your special pleading doesn't change reality though.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.

The definition of a miracle is an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.  If a miracle exists - then God exists and has shown Himself. 

Lack of evidence???  The miracles I've mentioned all have eye witnesses, doctor's attestation, and medical records.  Some have video evidence, news reports, peer reviewed case record accounts, and  certified under oath in a court eye witness accounts.  But you know that.  Its not that there is no evidence, just that your atheistic faith won't allow you to admit that there is evidence.  Your special pleading doesn't change reality though.

No god dna? Just your faith and misrepresentations of some peoples words and so called eyewitnesses that don't know either so god must of done it eh? Even the person whom the 'miracle' don't understand so it must of been a specific god. Oh and of course you read minds so if a doctor says 'its a miracle' it can't be expression of surprise but it has to be confirmation of Thor, oh wait not that one, your god, right? What special pleading have I invoked? You won't answer cause you know it's you, pleading your case that a guy with two legs had to have one amputated cause a dark ages cult's transcripts say one grew back, original scars and all, and a hole in the ground is empty, must be so. "Eyewitnesses" LOL talk about special pleading.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Got any direct evidence linking your god to any of your failed claims? No? All hearsay? Nothing tangible that say yes my god did it? Lack of evidence speaks volumes. When you get god dna and direct links to god and the universe then you can talk science in your fantasy realm. Until then, lack of evidence speaks volumes to the fact there is none to support your gods existence. Plenty that supports scientific theory as to our universe however.

This is the crux of the issue that trips off believers: the question of whether something happened is completely separate from the question of, if it were to happen, what its causes would be. For instance, I could ask if the peak of mount Everest is above or below 7.5 km above the sea level (I honestly do not know without looking it up) - but knowing which it is tells me almost nothing about how it came to be so.

Now, I just looked it up: it is actually the staggering 8.85 km. What would I do if I was a scientist interested in this stuff, say, a geologist? Well, I would perform analysis of samples of the mountain's materials at different heights and in different locations and try to reconstruct the history of its formation according to the best theories known to me. The hypothesis on its history would be firmly grounded in hard data and its rigorous analysis.

A believer would employ a fundamentally different approach. Suppose I was a believer in the Mighty Ice Unicorn, and in my holy text of choice ("Ice Unicorn's Adventures") there was a cryptic passage about the Unicorn one day hitting the ground with its hoof and causing an earthquake of unimaginable proportions leading to formation of mountains of highly variable heights.

Then I would look at that unimaginably tall peak and say, "This is clearly a handiwork... sorry, a hoof-work of the Mighty Ice Unicorn. All hail our Equidaic master!" What is the difference from the previous case? Instead of performing logical analysis driving the conclusion, I instead assumed the conclusion and backwards-rationalized it through pretense of an analysis.

The difference is that a scientist formulates a hypothesis and sees if a) it matches the evidence and b) its negation contradicts the evidence - while a believer already has a conclusion in mind and looks for any information that can be interpreted as supporting that conclusion. The latter is exactly what the scientific method is tasked to combat: individual preferences and biases.

This is also why there have been thousands of religions, but only one science. A Muslim and a Christian will never agree on much because each has different preferences and biases and simply interprets all information as proving them right. But a Chinese and an American scientists will agree on virtually everything since they are dealing with the same underlying reality and see the same outcomes of the same experiments. If a Chinese scientist believes that the free fall acceleration on Earth is 8 m/s^2, then he can conduct a very simple experiment and be proven wrong - and unless he deliberately lies about the outcome (in which case he is a lousy scientist), he must correct his belief. But if a Muslim believes that upon death he will arrive at the afterlife and have 72 virgins (or however many) waiting for him, then nothing a Christian can say or do will convince him otherwise: it is the afterlife, so the data is unavailable.

Science deals with reality, while religion deals with fantasy. This is just a fact, and, in fact, honest religious people not only admit it, but see it as the strength of religion: it liberates humans from the constraints of this narrow physical world. It is the dishonest ones that try to see religion as a serious competitor to science. It clearly is not, and anyone who disagrees is free to show me a single technological invention that contradicts science, but aligns with religion. Any cars designed as a consequence of prayer to Allah the Merciful? Planes having miracle-driven engines? Anyone?

May you were asked to provide scientific explanations for the miracle at Calanda and Barbara Commiskey's miracle - you didn't provide that.  Its hard to say someone is not interested in the scientific explanation when they keep asking you to provide it.  Now, the 4 doctor's who amputated the man's leg and were with him in the hospital afterwards, and the 2 doctors, who verified the leg was back 2 years later, testified under oath to these points.  In fact 24 persons testified under oath and more were available, but the record keeper for the king, limited the number of witnesses who were examined under oath. 

Still waiting on you to stop singing the 'science of the gaps' song, and provide the scientific explanation.  Oh - the evil second referee excuse has already been used.  Instead of looking for some science explanation, as you claim (that was funny), you have engaged in wild speculation that does not work with the facts we know.  Again, you are the science denier, May.  Your atheistic faith is willing to ignore established facts.  While I have no problem admitting that the incident was not a miracle if the evidence proved such.  If the event was shown to not be a miracle, it would not destroy my faith.   Its your faith that can't accept the science, not mine.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Still waiting on you to stop singing the 'science of the gaps' song, and provide the scientific explanation.

I think you might need to wait for a while, depending on what substance you have consumed. Substances causing auditory distortions usually have long-lasting effects, so...

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar @Factfinder @21CenturyIConoclast Atheists have no evidence that a Creator does not exist; therefore, the Atheist is a deceiver and exists in self-deception.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Joeseph ; Your words will appear again at your Judgement.... (Revelation 20:11-15)...nothing will be hidden.

Your words will appear again at your Judgement.... (Revelation 20:11-15)...nothing will be hidden.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; I will not stand with you in the judgement of sinners...as my sin has been atoned for by Jesus and I agree with the Father that Jesus is the only Path to life. You, in your atheism, on the other hand....

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Joeseph ; We're done...you're on mute...have a nice life.

Another lie just like the bible, you're full of them. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; No lie...I muted your arrogance and blasphemy for a time...

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; No lie...I muted your arrogance and blasphemy for a time...

Cause I expose your arrogance and blasphemy and you envy my intellect. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Atheists don't possess true "intellect." They're the epitome of the "fool."

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Atheists don't possess true "intellect." They're the epitome of the "fool."

Christians are the epitome of the fool willingly. They despise intellect and prefer self willed ignorant bigotry. They have no place in our country.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;  Christians simply internalize the evidence from the World that engulfs them daily and come to the logical conclusion that all we see is obviously the resultant of design mandating an omnipotent Designer and the Christian comes to the logical conclusion that this omnipotent Designer would not leave us here void knowledge of His reality and His purposes and the Christian subsequently initiates a search for what most accurately defines and explains our Creator's plan and purposes and the Christian then comes to the logical conclusion that the Canon of Scripture is the ONLY source of divine literature explaining the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our presence in Time and physics. The Christian initiates a thorough study of the Canon and discovers Jesus as the fulfillment of all the Canon articulates and the Christian then agrees with the Father that Jesus is Messiah and the life the Christian is then radically changed and the things of Elohim then become of supreme interest and new life with new priorities through the Holy Spirit.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;  Christians simply internalize the evidence from the World that engulfs them daily and come to the logical conclusion that all we see is obviously the resultant of design mandating an omnipotent Designer and the Christian comes to the logical conclusion that this omnipotent Designer would not leave us here void knowledge of His reality and His purposes and the Christian subsequently initiates a search for what most accurately defines and explains our Creator's plan and purposes and the Christian then comes to the logical conclusion that the Canon of Scripture is the ONLY source of divine literature explaining the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our presence in Time and physics. The Christian initiates a thorough study of the Canon and discovers Jesus as the fulfillment of all the Canon articulates and the Christian then agrees with the Father that Jesus is Messiah and the life the Christian is then radically changed and the things of Elohim then become of supreme interest and new life with new priorities through the Holy Spirit.

I know and understand. If you were content with that there would be no need to ridicule and self righteously judge fellow Americans who have every right to be here as 'scum' just because they do not believe as you do. Why do you feel this need to insult those who don't believe? 

You said once you come to forums like this because you are curious as to how atheists minds work. Well you'll never know because at the least bit of resistance to any biblical verses think should convince someone of something you lose composure, get defensive and lash out. 

If you really want to know why an atheist thinks the way they do, just listen and know it has nothing to do with you. It might just surprise you that theists aren't the only ones who looked at creation and felt there must be a creator at one point in their lives. Do you ever just have a discussion to learn as opposed to preaching?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; I am very "content" in my Lord and His love...I despise the vile and arrogant atheist seeking to destroy the Nation I love and the Nation in which my posterity seeks life and sustainability. You have no right to enjoy the beauty of American when you hate all that America represents and its founding in Christianity and morality. Atheists don't "think"...they're sensual creatures subject to the sway of the flesh and their immorality.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; I am very "content" in my Lord and His love...I despise the vile and arrogant atheist seeking to destroy the Nation I love and the Nation in which my posterity seeks life and sustainability. You have no right to enjoy the beauty of American when you hate all that America represents and its founding in Christianity and morality. Atheists don't "think"...they're sensual creatures subject to the sway of the flesh and their immorality.

You may be deluded enough to think so, but then again you hear voices in your head telling you to be stoopid and you are so it must be a combination of both. What would you theist cowards do if it were not for the atheist Americans who built and sustain this country while preserving our American values? If you hate us then get out of our country.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; I hear no "voices" in my head but I intuitively know the Spirit's will who indwells me because I know Jesus and the Spirit is gifted me as Guarantor of New Covenant relationship....you can't understand this because you are absent life and truth and hope.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; I hear no "voices" in my head but I intuitively know the Spirit's will who indwells me because I know Jesus and the Spirit is gifted me as Guarantor of New Covenant relationship....you can't understand this because you are absent life and truth and hope.

I hear no "voices" in my head but I intuitively know the Spirit's will who indwells me because... 

Oxymoron. You just used a different way to say you hear voices in your head. So this 'spirit', it still hasn't told you anything we don't know? No information only you're privy to like how did it create the human genome?

MayCaesar

"Intuitively know" is quite a sentence. Sounds like an obese person saying, "I am following a healthy diet: it is called 'intuitive eating'!"

ChewingTinFoil

Argument Topic: Hmmm part 3

@just_sayin

the settlement was actually to my point 1 in hmm part 2. Not yours. I apologize if you were mistaken. 

No matter what any scientists say we are unaware of what’s on planets outside our solar system and who are we to say what’s lucky and what isn't there is probably better planets than ours and worse planets than ours. There are many stars just imagine how many planets would be orbiting around them. https://youtu.be/8Are9dDbW24?si=Hi0gTScNh01x_-Tg 
We’ve seen the galaxy from cameras sent into space.

If you really think there has to be intelligent life to make this planet just remember the many planets there are in this universe. It’s like telling 5 billion people to choose 1 of 10 billion blocks without knowing what the other 4.9B picked. It would be insanely rare for someone to choose the same block as another. To say it wasn’t a coincidence is like saying that being born wasn’t a coincidence out of the many sperms that we’re racing with you. If you think that’s a coincidence as well then nothing everything is meant to be done intentionally.

Your example of the firing squad is implying that it happened once. If they were to miss who knows how many tries it would be for that to happen? There can be thousands if it has to be there will still be a time for a bullet to miss. Now let’s compare this example to the planets. If they kill you no planet if they miss you survive. Does it mean you survive every time? No. 


I don’t find false claims as evidence. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ;  You're dead spiritually May...you have no clue as to how the Holy Spirit communes and communicates with those who belong to Jesus....you've made yourself and irrelevant wart on the butt of society in your delusion of nihilism via atheism...you have NOT a clue.