Atheist Arguments

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

😂

 

 

It's not that funny.  Just twisted.

 

 

 

[mark 45]

 why is it so difficult to understand "lack of belief"vs "disbelief?

or is it just to keep an argument going?

 

 

[RevBogovac]

15 minutes ago, mark 45 said:

 why is it so difficult to understand "lack of belief"vs "disbelief?

or is it just to keep an argument going?

 

 

I would think that to anyone who takes any book literal any view that strays from that book is "difficult to understand"...  🤷‍♂️

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, mark 45 said:

 why is it so difficult to understand "lack of belief"vs "disbelief?

or is it just to keep an argument going?

 

 

Look at dan's posting history vs atheists and in conjunction with fellow believers.  His comprehension level is magically different, he gives believers the benefit of the doubt, and tries...TRIES noticably not to insult them.  Atheists have repeatedly pointed out the insult that his comprehension just cannot grasp, he will disagree with things he himself has said if we say it, and he continually plies the SAME insult...

 

Yep.  That's the definition of bias.

[cuchulain]

13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I certainly understand the difference in a person who says, "I don't believe God exist" and a person who states, "God does not exist". But I just think the difference is negligible. One doesn't believe God is real and the other has determined God is not real. Just seems like an insignificant distinction since neither thinks God is real. I suppose you could say that the Atheist who claims "God does not exist" is a liar, since they have no evidence to support a definitive claim like that. And without proof, every Atheist must have some reservations about what they don't believe. But regardless, whether an Atheist thinks there's evidence that proves God is unreal or an Atheist doesn't believe God is real because there's no proof of Him, they are both in the same camp by not accepting the existence of God. Its like saying "I don't think the car will start" or "The car won't start", both statements demonstrate a lack of faith or no faith in the car starting.  Then there's that rare anomaly, a person like myself who believes in God and also claims that God exist, so its possible for someone to be convinced that what they believe is true (fact & proof). But simply stated, Atheist & Agnostics don't believe, while Theist & Polytheist do. 

 

 

You dont believe in zeus even though you can't disprove he exists...  Your logic is clearly flawed.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I certainly understand the difference in a person who says, "I don't believe God exist" and a person who states, "God does not exist". But I just think the difference is negligible. One doesn't believe God is real and the other has determined God is not real. Just seems like an insignificant distinction since neither thinks God is real. I suppose you could say that the Atheist who claims "God does not exist" is a liar, since they have no evidence to support a definitive claim like that. And without proof, every Atheist must have some reservations about what they don't believe. But regardless, whether an Atheist thinks there's evidence that proves God is unreal or an Atheist doesn't believe God is real because there's no proof of Him, they are both in the same camp by not accepting the existence of God. Its like saying "I don't think the car will start" or "The car won't start", both statements demonstrate a lack of faith or no faith in the car starting.  Then there's that rare anomaly, a person like myself who believes in God and also claims that God exist, so its possible for someone to be convinced that what they believe is true (fact & proof). But simply stated, Atheist & Agnostics don't believe, while Theist & Polytheist do. 

 

 

 

I've had a few days to think about this.

 

I must have reservations about what I don't believe?  Why, must I have reservations about what I don't believe?  That's just silly.  Do your ears hear what your mouth is saying?

 

 

 

I also don't believe in Unicorns.  If someone can produce a Unicorn, I am prepared to reevaluate.  In the meantime, I don't care.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 5/3/2019 at 9:31 AM, mark 45 said:

why is it so difficult to understand "lack of belief"vs "disbelief?

 

I don't know? These guys just can't seem to grasp it ..  Disbelief is the refusal to accept that something is true, while the lack or absence of belief is doubting its true, but that's debatable.

 

22 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You dont believe in zeus even though you can't disprove he exists...  Your logic is clearly flawed.

 

For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not.

If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical.

 

20 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I must have reservations about what I don't believe?  Why, must I have reservations about what I don't believe?

 

Because you can't possibly know, you must have reservations about your choice. Your reservations are rooted in the fact that your open-minded enough to reconsider your choice if sufficient evidence is presented to alter what you think and change your mind, as you stipulated "I am prepared to reevaluate". In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

[Key]

58 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't know? These guys just can't seem to grasp it ..  Disbelief is the refusal to accept that something is true, while the lack or absence of belief is doubting its true, but that's debatable.

 

 

For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not.

If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical.

 

 

Because you can't possibly know, you must have reservations about your choice. Your reservations are rooted in the fact that your open-minded enough to reconsider your choice if sufficient evidence is presented to alter what you think and change your mind, as you stipulated "I am prepared to reevaluate". In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

Seems to me, this is what they have been telling you many times already.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't know? These guys just can't seem to grasp it ..  Disbelief is the refusal to accept that something is true, while the lack or absence of belief is doubting its true, but that's debatable.

 

 

For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not.

If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical.

 

 

Because you can't possibly know, you must have reservations about your choice. Your reservations are rooted in the fact that your open-minded enough to reconsider your choice if sufficient evidence is presented to alter what you think and change your mind, as you stipulated "I am prepared to reevaluate". In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

 

 

For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not.

If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical.

 

Congratulations.  All we have to do now is substitute the God of the Bible for Zeus -- and you will finally understand how I feel about God.  There is no good reason to accept Zeus or your God.  For me, they are the same.

 

In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying.

 

 

I do not believe in The Mighty Thor of Norse mythology.  There is no evidence for his existence, and I need evidence to take a god seriously.  Until such evidence for Thor becomes available, I don't care.  If Thor should manifest before me -- show me his Hammer -- and demonstrate his powers over thunder and lightning, I am fully prepared to reconsider.  Possibly, even to worship. 

 

In like manner, if Jesus chooses to manifest before me -- strut his stuff and display his power -- I am fully prepared to reconsider.  Possibly worship.  In the meantime, there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the reality of Jesus -- and I don't care.

 

It doesn't bother me at all, that you choose to believe without evidence.  It's your life and your business.  If you want me to believe, that's different.  If you want me to believe -- then show me something.  Show me something plausible.  Something more than the same old tedious arguments.  If the evidence is compelling -- I will reconsider.  Possibly, even worship.

 

Until then --     

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Seems to me, this is what they have been telling you many times already.

 

 

I can't speak for Cuchulain.  That is exactly, what I have been saying.

 

 

     

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

Dan said it precisely...but now that we have also agreed to what he said he will go back to refuting it... even though he said it first.

[mark 45]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't know? These guys just can't seem to grasp it ..  Disbelief is the refusal to accept that something is true, while the lack or absence of belief is doubting its true, but that's debatable.

dan,dan,dan,it's not "these guys"that can't seem to grasp it(whatever "it"is).i have a lack of belief in deities period.disbelief has nothing to do with it.like has been said many times,i'll change my position when the evidence shows the facts.and no dan,i do not mean the bible.

Edited May 4, 2019 by mark 45

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mark 45 said:

dan,dan,dan,it's not "these guys"that can't seem to grasp it(whatever "it"is).i have a lack of belief in deities period.disbelief has nothing to do with it.like has been said many times,i'll change my position when the evidence shows the facts.and no dan,i do not mean the bible.

 

You are asking Dan, to make a distinction between non-belief and dis-belief.  

 

Good luck with that.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Dan said it precisely...but now that we have also agreed to what he said he will go back to refuting it... even though he said it first.

 

This is exactly what Dan said.  There is no backing down from this.

 

"If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical."

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, Key said:

Seems to me, this is what they have been telling you many times already.

 

Well then, I guess we are finally in agreement on something

 

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is no good reason to accept Zeus or your God.  For me, they are the same.

 

Not the same, Jesus didn't have a hammer .. Although, he will return with a rod of iron in his right hand, but I fear that's not a demonstration of power you'll enjoy.

 

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

if Jesus chooses to manifest before me -- strut his stuff and display his power -- I am fully prepared to reconsider.

 

He already manifested himself in flesh & blood, and he demonstrated divine power. Your demand for an individual repeat performance is ridiculous, he was crucified once for everyone and that's enough. 

 

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Dan said it precisely

 

Thank you, God knows I try

 

12 hours ago, mark 45 said:

i have a lack of belief in deities period.disbelief has nothing to do with it. like has been said many times, i'll change my position when the evidence shows the facts.and no dan, i do not mean the bible.

 

I guess I still don't grasp the subtle difference between disbelief and the absence of belief, probably because the bible pretty much categorizes them as the same thing. If you lack or don't have belief, then you disbelieve, there's no middle ground, you either believe or you don't.  Rejecting the bible as evidence is like rejecting 2+2=4 from an arithmetic book. Demanding tangible proof makes belief immaterial & irrelevant, so saying I'll believe when its proven is an oxymoron.

 

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

This is exactly what Dan said.  There is no backing down from this.

 

"If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical."

 

 

Why would I back down from what I wrote? Could there be a remote chance that I was wrong? Nah

If the truth can't be demonstrated, Jesus demonstrated the truth, he was the truth if the truth has no supporting evidence,  many witnesses, recorded testimonies, prophesies, etc and if the truth is unverifiable, how about starting with an empty grave for verification  then rejecting its solidity is logical.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Well then, I guess we are finally in agreement on something

 

 

Not the same, Jesus didn't have a hammer .. Although, he will return with a rod of iron in his right hand, but I fear that's not a demonstration of power you'll enjoy.

 

 

He already manifested himself in flesh & blood, and he demonstrated divine power. Your demand for an individual repeat performance is ridiculous, he was crucified once for everyone and that's enough. 

 

 

Thank you, God knows I try

 

 

I guess I still don't grasp the subtle difference between disbelief and the absence of belief, probably because the bible pretty much categorizes them as the same thing. If you lack or don't have belief, then you disbelieve, there's no middle ground, you either believe or you don't.  Rejecting the bible as evidence is like rejecting 2+2=4 from an arithmetic book. Demanding tangible proof makes belief immaterial & irrelevant, so saying I'll believe when its proven is an oxymoron.

 

 

Why would I back down from what I wrote? Could there be a remote chance that I was wrong? Nah

If the truth can't be demonstrated, Jesus demonstrated the truth, he was the truth if the truth has no supporting evidence,  many witnesses, recorded testimonies, prophesies, etc and if the truth is unverifiable, how about starting with an empty grave for verification  then rejecting its solidity is logical.

 

 

You don't care what words mean.  Small wonder, that the concept of evidence continues to elude you.

 

Math does not depend on a book.  Math is self evident.  Correct math can be proven.  Incorrect math can be disproven.  No book is required.  Clearly, you think that all true things, come from a book.  Your lack of independent reasoning, betrays you.

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

46 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

You don't care what words mean.  Small wonder, that the concept of evidence continues to elude you.

 

Math does not depend on a book.  Math is self evident.  Correct math can be proven.  Incorrect math can be disproven.  No book is required.  Clearly, you think that all true things, come from a book.  Your lack of independent reasoning, betrays you.

 

 

There are different types of evidence. The only difference is that if you were a juror and listened to a half dozen witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter) all testifying to the same thing, you would not be satisfied, because you can't believe anything you don't see.

 

The truth is self-evident too, it just takes a bit more than a calculator to absorb it.. Independent reasoning doesn't answer everything, and its no guarantee that your correct. Let me ask you a simple question that independent reasoning should easily answer; You look out your window and see a tree, so the fact is, tree's exist, no evidence necessary in what's clearly visible. But where did the tree come from (originate)? The bible answers that simple question,  but hows your independent reasoning holding up? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

There are different types of evidence. The only difference is that if you were a juror and listened to a half dozen witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter) all testifying to the same thing, you would not be satisfied, because you can't believe anything you don't see.

 

The truth is self-evident too, it just takes a bit more than a calculator to absorb it.. Independent reasoning doesn't answer everything, and its no guarantee that your correct. Let me ask you a simple question that independent reasoning should easily answer; You look out your window and see a tree, so the fact is, tree's exist, no evidence necessary in what's clearly visible. But where did the tree come from (originate)? The bible answers that simple question,  but hows your independent reasoning holding up? 

 

 

The Bible as evidence?  In particular, the Creation myth?  Alright.  Let us consider.

 

The Creation was a six day process.  Trees and plants show up on the third day.

 

On the fourth day, The Sun was created.

 

The Earth existed for three days without the Sun?     

 

Trees existed for one day, without the Sun?     

 

But it's worse.  On the fourth day, "He made the stars also."  "He made the stars also?"  An afterthought?  Billions of galaxies.  Billions of stars in each galaxy.  The entire Cosmos.  On the fourth day of a six day process.  The Earth was a six day process.  The rest of Creation?  "He made the stars also."  Little twinkly things -- that were stuck in the "Firmament" to "decorate" the night sky.  The "Firmament" is the glass dome over the Earth.  Like a snow globe.  The thing with windows that lets the rain through.     

 

Shall we jump ahead to the story of Noah's flood?     

 

The Tower of Babel?     

 

The Exodus?     

 

We can jump ahead to the Gospels.

 

Jesus has two genealogies with no overlap.  A pointless exercise, since Joseph was not his biological father.     

 

Jesus had many, many followers.  They had to pay Judas to point out Jesus, for an arrest.     

 

Remember the woman caught in adultery?  The Jewish establishment had no problem ordering an execution.  Until they got to Jesus.  Then they needed the Romans.     

 

At the time of the Crucifixion, the tombs opened and zombies walked among the living.  No historian thought it was worth mentioning.  Just a normal day in Jerusalem.     

 

Seriously?  The Bible as evidence?     

 

Oh, look!  Trees!  God must be real!          

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

Yep. Back to refuting the logic...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Yep. Back to refuting the logic...

 

 

 

All words to Dan.  Logic,  Evidence,  Non-belief,  Atheism......  It's hard to argue anything, with someone, who can't grasp the meaning of basic words.  Who clearly disdains the meaning of words.  Who disdains external reality, in favor of faith.

 

Seriously.  He thinks the Creation story is literal history.  He thinks it's proof.  He thinks it's answers.

 

Well, the horse is still twitching.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl