Everything you said following this was based upon either deliberately or accidentally ignoring that which has been highlighted.
Here's one for you :
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
Not sure what you are getting at.
Disbelieving something is simply a stronger way to say it that to say believing it is not.
For example, in law, if there is a void judgement, one would not say, "the judgment is void." To say, "the judgment is void" is to at least suggest that there was a judgment. If it is said like, "the void judgment," there is denial that the judgment even existed.
Call it what you will, or attempt to believe or disbelieve what you will, the fact is that there is scientific proof that God exists. Someday, this proof may be overturned. There are reasonable theories that are almost doing it right now by becoming proof. Until they come out of the theory stage, God exists.
In the face of proof, disbelieving is a religion... especially if it is expressed with evermore firmly understood and repeated dogma.
As a layman, I'm pretty well informed, and have not seen this so-called proof. I've seen a lot of bunk science from "young earth creationists". So, gimme links. As always, I'm willing to consider other points of view.
Right in this thread at:
snip
Proof for God lies in the combining of 3 things:
1. Action and reaction (cause and effect), Newton's 3rd Law;
2. The fact of a complex universe, including all things therein;
3. Standard, simple entropy, which doesn't include all the latest theoretical stuff about entropy.
snip
However, what I was getting at, very specifically, is that you used the modern definition of atheist (which I accept) to make an argument and refute it. That argument was predicated on NOT ACKNOWLEDGING that part of that definition is a simple disbelief, not a dogmatic "there is no god". I work from the "the proofs are insufficient for such a bold claim" ideation. One cannot disprove a negative.
Thank you for extending the explanation of your dogma regarding your religion of non-religion.
I will state, AGAIN, that if there IS an all powerful deity, it doesn't care to be worshipped. This, too, is based on logic. If there is an all powerful deity, and it wishes to be worshipped, there could only possibly be ONE religion. Because if the deity is all powerful, it can EASILY make it's wishes known, and if it wishes to be worshipped, it would do so. The fact that there in existence literally thousands of ideations of "gods" proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they are all false.
Now you who don't want to believe that there is an all powerful Deity are trying to dictate what such a Deity would be like? How silly!
Even if God were not all powerful, He is so far beyond anything that we can imagine, that there is no way to limit Him by our tiny logic. I mean, do you have the understanding of how He rolled out the heavens? Do you have any clue whatsoever about how He made cause and effect to operate for thousands of years so that it produces the intelligence of people today? Come on! Give yourself a break!
This of course does not directly address the question of whether or not there are gods. Because if there are, they are hiding their existence, and have structured the universe in such a way that it CAN BE understood based solely on observed phenomena, and those observed phenomena generally have a less fantastical explanation than "god did it".
Rather, it is people like you who are attempting to hide the existence of God.
Look, again, at the proof for God listed above, and if it isn't quite enough proof for you, it is such strong evidence that it outweighs all the evidence that God doesn't exist, a million+ times over.
The understanding of the physical universe at the times of the writings of the various "holy books" was, to put it politely, dismal. That they got a few things right with almost no rigor is nothing short of amazing, but it does not make the overall paradigm work. Most of it does not. For instance, most "learned" men at the time of the writings of the New Testament still believed the earth to be held up by four pillars on the back of a turtle, and that the stars were holes in something called the "firmament". Better understanding via observation and testing (the beginnings of what has been formalized as the scientific method) proved beyond any doubt that this widely held ideation was just plain wrong. With every advance in scientific knowledge, the "god did it" argument got pushed further into the background until there was only a small amount of gaps. Which the religious seize on like a drowning man will grab a stick.
However, in light of the fact that today many people want to believe that a supremely evident God doesn't exist, people have only gotten worse regarding how dismal they are in their understanding of the universe.
disbelief is NOT a system of belief. Skepticism, however, is. I am a skeptic. On damn near everything. I hold to Mark Twain's observation that Faith is the belief in what you know ain't so.
Disbelief is simply the other side of believing that there is not. They are essentially the same at their root and core.
When it comes to Christianity, it is so self contradictory within it's own books, leaving alone the sects, that it cannot possibly be inspired by an all powerful deity.
Quite the contrary. The Bible is not at all contradictory.
Unless, of course, that deity is completely mad. I suppose that's possible, but hardly cause for admiration or worship. You cannot, for instance, simultaneously condemn and command murder. Yet the bible does so, and that's peripheral. The PRIMARY DOCTRINE of christianity is that it's perfectly legit to kill an innocent man to "atone" for the crimes of the guilty. Try that one in a courtroom some day.
The Bible does not command murder. The Bible is a record. At times within that record, it will be found that the government (ancient Israel) was commanded, by God, to execute peoples and nations for doing evil. That is one of the jobs of governments. They exist to at times execute those who deserve to die, just to keep the peace.
Further, within the Christian scriptures it says that churches and places of worship are vain, as god cannot be seen or heard in such places. Rather, and this one isn't a paraphrase, "The Kingdom of God is within you". Yet a very pious group of men who made that connection were hunted down, forced into a mountain retreat, besiged, and killed at Montsegur in 1284 by other very pious men. Both sides were utterly convinced that they were right. This is the sort of crap that strong religious belief breeds. Divisions that need not exist, and in many cases throughout history have led to bloodshed on a massive scale.
Christian people are people. Just because they are Christian, doesn't mean that they are suddenly perfect. It means that they are blessed with the knowledge of salvation to everlasting life... even though we (the Christians) must go through death in this life to gain eternal life in the resurrection.
If you look at the known history of the world, you will find many non-Christian peoples and nations that were far worse than Christians. Consider Genghis Khan, for example. And think of Stalin who wasn't a Christian, and he killed at least 30 million, and maybe 3 times that number.
God is not the author of wickedness or evil. People are, by following the devil, Satan.
That Islam is now convulsing in the same way is not surprising. Organized religion, regardless of it's pantheon, is based upon control of the masses. It will fight for that control at ANY cost, conceding only when not doing so would utterly destroy the organization. Christianity reached that point about 150 years ago. If the timeline remains similar, that means Islam has about 550 years before they stop believing it ok to kill for the faith. Given modern communication, I suspect it won't take that long.
The difference is, there are no Christian directives from God for violence. The directives in the New Testament (from whence Christianity flows) are literally peace for all people. Yet the Islamic directives for violence in the Islamic writings are many. Islam is of its false god, Satan. Christianity is of God over all.
You are badly mistaken. However, if you will change your understanding to the truth, God is willing to forgive even you for your struggling against Him.
