Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#141 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 19 January 2010 - 08:10 PM

Following the line of logic you've demonstrated in thread thus far, you must now back up your assertion that no unicorn has:
1- Claimed to be God
2- Interacted with man
3- Evidenced that claim by performing eye witnessed miracles

Do you have evidence to back up these claims? And no equivocating, remember!

View Post



Well there is plenty of mythological evidence for unicorns, but I don't believe in any of them have claimed to be a god...although the invisible pink unicorn is worshiped by some, but I don't think that counts :lol:

Oh and unicorns are mentioned in the bible
Jon 39:9-12
and
Numbers 24:8

At least the Kings James version mentions them.

#142 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 January 2010 - 08:43 PM

Well there is plenty of mythological evidence for unicorns, but I don't believe in any of them have claimed to be a god...although the invisible pink unicorn is worshiped by some, but I don't think that counts :lol:

Oh and unicorns are mentioned in the bible
Jon 39:9-12
and
Numbers 24:8

At least the Kings James version mentions them.

View Post


Ha I was about to mention that, but you beat me to it! I wonder... the only unicorn I know of... is an arctic whale.

#143 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 19 January 2010 - 09:11 PM

Since no atheist has seriously attempted to answer the OP questions, according to the “no equivocation wiggle room” stance, I am posing the following line of questioning (again, the same rules apply).

View Post


You don't seem to want to accept any answer. Which makes me wonder what kind of answer you are looking for.

So do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from Bradlaugh’s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism? Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist? Shouldn’t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

View Post


The burden of proof on the existence of gods has always been on the theist, since it is the theist that is proposing that a god exists.

#144 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:34 AM

You don't seem to want to accept any answer. 
Which makes me wonder what kind of answer you are looking for.

View Post

Actually, your posturing is incorrect Jason. And the answers, when kept within the context of the OP’s questions so-as-to keep equivocating, flip-flopping, and side-tracking out of the mix, should be quite revealing. But even more revealing has been the lack of cogent answers.

If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

We have existence right now… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to):
1- Interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.
2- Interacting with the world both physically and intellectually.

We’ve had existence in the past… We can prove “said existence” inductively, by (but not limited to):
1- Reading the historical documentation left to us from the authors of said antiquities (i.e. recorded data) interacting with each other both physically and intellectually.
2- Researching the archeological evidences left to us from the lives of those who lived in antiquity.
3- Reconciling the evidences of historical documentation and archeological evidences to test and validate each.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?
<edited by Ron 01/01/2010> any repetitive equivocations, and/or repetitive equivocating statements will be removed to keep the fluff down, and hopefully, meaningful conversation flowing.

View Post



The burden of proof on the existence of gods has always been on the theist, since it is the theist that is proposing that a god exists.

View Post


That, as was stated previously, is incorrect Jason. The burden of proof is on “anyone” making a claim… Either way! And, the refusal to accept responsibility to back up one’s claims is intellectually dishonest. The one who claims “there is no God” has every bit the need to backup their assertions as the ones who clam “there is a God”.

Now, let us get back to the OP... Shall we?

#145 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:42 AM

Well there is plenty of mythological evidence for unicorns, but I don't believe in any of them have claimed to be a god...although the invisible pink unicorn is worshiped by some, but I don't think that counts ;)

View Post


That is true, and true Javabean. :lol:



Oh and unicorns are mentioned in the bible
Jon 39:9-12
and
Numbers 24:8

At least the Kings James version mentions them.

View Post


Actually the correct translation would be a “Reem”

n.
[Heb.]
(Zoöl.) The Hebrew name of a horned wild animal, probably the Urus.

#146 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:47 AM

Actually, your posturing is incorrect Jason. And the answers, when kept within the context of the OP’s questions so-as-to keep equivocating, flip-flopping, and side-tracking out of the mix, should be quite revealing. But even more revealing has been the lack of cogent answers.

View Post


Which brings me back to the question, What would you accept as an answer to the OP? Give us an example.

That, as was stated previously, is incorrect Jason. The burden of proof is on “anyone” making a claim… Either way! And, the refusal to accept responsibility to back up one’s claims is intellectually dishonest. The one who claims “there is no God” has every bit the need to backup their assertions as the ones who clam “there is a God”.

View Post


Are you, or are you not, claiming that God exists?

#147 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:24 AM

Which brings me back to the question, What would you accept as an answer to the OP?  Give us an example.

View Post


I’m waiting on an answer the gives a solid foundation to the atheist’s proof of our origins.

1- We know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence.

2- Because we are here, we know we came from someone or somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing or no one.

I’ll accept any cogent, logical and/or empirical evidences that answer:

1-From where did we come (what are our Origins)?

2-What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

So far, all we have heard is a priori (and unsupported) opinions and faith statements by atheists. Which are all fine, but; they don’t even come close to answering the OP.

If I opened a thread that asked for atheists unsupported opinions on our origins, I could then take the vast majority of the atheists posts form here and past them there, and that would be that.

Are you, or are you not, claiming that God exists?

View Post


Is that a part of the OP question then Jason? Are you, or are you not, attempting to sidetrack from the issue due to a lack of a cogent answer?

If we want to talk about the existence of God, open a thread for that question, and quit you attempt at side tracking this one due to your lack of an answer.

#148 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 20 January 2010 - 08:25 AM

Ha I was about to mention that, but you beat me to it!  I wonder... the only unicorn I know of... is an arctic whale.

View Post



:lol: see even an Atheist knows a little about the Bible!

#149 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 20 January 2010 - 08:28 AM

That is true, and true Javabean.  :lol:

Thank you, thank you very much! ;)


Actually the correct translation would be a “Reem”

n.
[Heb.]
(Zoöl.) The Hebrew name of a horned wild animal, probably the Urus.

View Post


Which brings me to my last off topic post in your thread*, why the mistranslation in the KJV? other versions replace Unicorn with Ox?

*really I mean it this time :D

#150 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 10:23 AM

Which brings me to my last off topic post in your thread*, why the mistranslation in the KJV?  other versions replace Unicorn with Ox?

*really I mean it this time :lol:

View Post


There are many differing (or diverse) opinions on that subject Javabean, which is why I don't rely on a singular translation, but prefer to cross-reference and take the time to translate on my own to reconcile any difficulties. I find that this works best for me.

#151 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 January 2010 - 10:53 AM

:( see even an Atheist knows a little about the Bible!

View Post


Yes Javabean. And, my prayer is that you learn even more about the Bible, regardless of your current conclusions. :)

Plus, learning is important, and remaining static in one’s knowledge is the same as losing knowledge. ;)

#152 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:50 AM

Yes Javabean. And, my prayer is that you learn even more about the Bible, regardless of your current conclusions.  :)

Plus, learning is important, and remaining static in one’s knowledge is the same as losing knowledge. ;)

View Post



Thank you Ron! I enjoy learning very much. And I like having my current knowledge challenged everyday! :D

I think I would make a good professional student :lol: But something tells me that they aren't paid all that well. <_<

#153 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 January 2010 - 05:46 AM

I think I would make a good professional student ;)  But something tells me that they aren't paid all that well. B)

View Post


That's why I work a full-time job whilst I continue my education :)

#154 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 24 January 2010 - 07:52 AM

That's why I work a full-time job whilst I continue my education  ;)

View Post



Ah makes perfect sense B)

#155 pauliexcluded

pauliexcluded

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Arkansas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 09:49 AM

Then why do you totally refute this statement in your third sentence? Further, by making such a statement, you are admitting that atheism has no foundation. So, in essence, you are saying “I don’t know”, and any other comments are equivocation.
This is neither an answer, nor is it a cogent statement. It’s an unsupported statement attempting to support another statement (that, itself, refutes one of your later statements) that it-self has no evidentiary support. And, both statements it is attempting to tie together are equivocations as per #’s 3, 4 and 5
This is an equivocation as per #4 and #5, in which case you should fall back on the first sentence in #3.
This is an equivocation as per #4, in which case you should fall back on the first sentence in #3.
This is not only an equivocation as per #2 and #5, but per the Forum rules as well (See Macro-evolution)
This is not an answer because it doesn’t address the question. It has nothing to do with foundations, but more to do with the present. This can also be considered equivocation as per #2.

View Post


So...what you are saying here is that you want to ask his opinion, and the opinion of others on this forum, however you do not want them to actually respond with their opinions. This is absurd in the highest degree and IS CERTAINLY EQUIVOCATION AND TIME WASTING!!! Why do people so often accuse others of exactly what they are so blatantly guilty of! It truly is breathtaking!

#156 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 January 2010 - 11:56 AM

So...what you are saying here is that you want to ask his opinion, and the opinion of others on this forum, however you do not want them to actually respond with their opinions.  This is absurd in the highest degree and IS CERTAINLY EQUIVOCATION AND TIME WASTING!!!  Why do people so often accuse others of exactly what they are so blatantly guilty of!  It truly is breathtaking!

View Post


You obviously didn't read the OP, otherwise you wouldn't be making such fallacious assertions. I might suggest you go back and try once more.

#157 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:03 AM

It seems that weak (or negative) atheism (as evidenced in this OP, and other places) is basing the preponderance of their evidence for no “God”, in nothing at all. Why attempt to answer a hard question, when you can pretend the question has no merit?

What is even more disconcerting here is the fact that the OP wasn’t about “God”; it was concerning “our origins according to the atheistic world-view”. But, as we look at the base of it, the atheists have come at the question of “Origins” in the same way they come at the question of God.

In other words, when the atheist says “Atheism makes no claims about life before birth or after death”, it’s basically the same as saying their description of “all belief systems which lack a belief in God, without claiming to meet the burden of proof that God does not exist”. This is basically necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit (the necessity of proof lies with he who complains).

In his comments on the atheistic self-justification in the so-called "atheistic language game". Hans Kung states "that is not self-justified…We must not---cannot---arbitrarily "define" out of existence vast ranges of reality simply because they do not meet our predetermined definition. It is not good enough to say that I have no idea of God therefore I am denying nothing about "his" actual existence. You must examine all of reality and answer or explain why millions have had what they thought was an adequate idea or concept of God, from great philosophers to the 'common folk.'"

At least “Strong” atheism and “Militant” atheism attempts to have an argument. They don’t pretend the argument has no merit, like the child who doesn’t like spinach in his experience, pretends spinach doesn’t exist.

So, will answers to the OP be seriously mounted anytime soon?

#158 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 January 2010 - 02:47 PM

At least “Strong” atheism and “Militant” atheism attempts to have an argument. They don’t pretend the argument has no merit, like the child who doesn’t like spinach in his experience, pretends spinach doesn’t exist.

View Post


That's equivocation Ron. It is quite reasonable to not believe in something for which no evidence exists. Spinach can be shown to exist.

#159 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 January 2010 - 09:54 PM

That's equivocation Ron.  It is quite reasonable to not believe in something for which no evidence exists. Spinach can be shown to exist.

View Post


There is plenty of evidence for God, but you specifically refuse to accept the evidence due to your Atheistic/extremely liberal thought processes.

#160 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 January 2010 - 11:00 PM

There is plenty of evidence for God, but you specifically refuse to accept the evidence due to your Atheistic/extremely liberal thought processes.

View Post


Show me an experiment that I can do to show that your God exists and you might have a leg to stand on Scott.


What have extremely liberal thought processes got to do with anything? Do you think I'm a Liberal? Or that I think too liberally?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users