Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If theism refers to a belief in a god, then atheism should refer to the belief that there is no god. That's not necessarily the same as the belief that a god is evil, as some religions have that.
If theism refers to a belief in a god, then atheism should refer to the belief that there is no god. That's not necessarily the same as the belief that a god is evil, as some religions have that.
No the opposite of believing in a God is not believing in a God. That is in the definition of an atheist.
A respected well-loved Christian family of 5 were murdered at their ranch by escaped murderer, Gonzalo Lopez. Three brothers, 18, 16 and 11, their cousin 11 and their grandfather. The youngest brother, Hudson had just been baptized a week earlier.
Someone want to tell me again how much more valuable you are to your heavenly father than the birds in the air?
It must be a language issue. I don't have to show that a Creator (God) EXISTS. The fact that we exist is evidence of that.
There is no language issue, I understand your question begging word game. There must be an ultimate truth responsible for everything whether a god exists or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The only issue is what our Creator's attributes are.
Exactly my point. You need to provide the extra evidence for the extra attributes you are assigning to our reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Science only explains HOW what exists function, NOT how or why it EXISTS. The ESSENTIAL attribute of God is that He is our CREATOR, period.
1) He?
2) Simply repeating your claim does not refute the logic you avoided in post 5976.
3) That we have an ultimate cause is true whether a god exists or not, hence your question begging.
The rest of your post is just you usual excuses and evasion of the logic.
Obviously, that's your opinion, to which you're entitled. But I don't think "the Divine" or "God" is necessary to explain what science does. I prefer to see it as Alan Guth sees it: "science is.... an ongoing detective story, in which scientists passionately search for clues in the hope of unraveling the mysteries of the universe."
Correct, and so far the conclusions have always been naturalism, with no intelligent intent.
This is why I am an atheist, the evidence is that no intelligent intent is required to explain why we are here.
Naturally the theists can argue we do not know everything, but they are also in the same boat. If we do not know, we do not know, so we must use what we do know until new evidence is available.
Simply asserting a god did it does not fill that gap, especially when this god hypothesis also does not explain anything, and raises more questions than it answers.
No, the burden is on the one making the positive claim. You are claiming there is something called the supernatural, so it is on you to present valid evidence for it.
No, I have no beer in my fridge is a negative claim, and I can prove this negative by simply opening the fridge door.
For the supernatural, it is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence because the supernatural is an extraordinary claim.
The best idea is to compare the options X and not X, and see which option the evidence supports better.
You're missing the point, Mink. It many be just your naïvety getting in the way of the reality of the situation. I don't say all women--many women aren't as naive as you. But there is a covert effort among many in Christianity to portray Jesus as this hunky, sexy guy that a young girl not fully mature in her sexual feelings can fail to distinguish between what is "brotherly" love" and what is "incestuous" brotherly love. Check out the images in the link below.
"There's a covert effort among many in Christianity..." Oh, really? You latch onto one web page that portrays Jesus (in your opinion) as this "hunky, sexy guy", in one calendar and you claim that "many" in Christianity are doing this? Sorry thrill. I'm not naive enough to believe that.
Quote:
Gives a whole new meaning to "The Body of Christ", doesn't it? Trust me these pics of a shirtless buff muscular Jesus are in a lot of places.
I'd say they may be in some places. Not "a lot". Had you not posted the link, *I* probably never would have seen it.
Quote:
There's no mistaking what these images are designed to do: to attract young people, especially young girls to get interested in Jesus as the kind of loving, caring superhero he-man they could never find in real life. Jesus is becoming a surrogate lover for women who believe they have no hope of every finding one in real life.
That's a wild stretch, thrill. One that's unsubstantiated.
Quote:
The lyrics are not the decent loving type; they are covertly hyper-sexualized:
Fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again (Is it really love Amy Grant wants Jesus to fill her with, or something else) I open my heart and soul for you to enter me (is it really her heart and soul Amy is opening to Jesus to enter--or something else) And fill me with Your love again
Psychologists would have no problem recognizing what these lyrics are suggesting.
You're doing the same thing with Amy Grant's lyrics that you often do with Bible verses: You're taking the lyrics you posted out of context with the rest of the song:
"But there are so many
Who don't know the reason
Their lives are wasting away
Just souls without purpose
They wonder in darkness
Without a thought for the day
Well, I'm no Savior
I'm just a window
Through which Your sweet love light can shine
So clean out the corners of my darkened pane
And fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
I open my heart and soul for you to enter me
And fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
I open my heart and soul for you to enter me
And fill me with Your love again
I open my heart and soul for you to enter me
And fill me with Your love again"
-------------------------------------------------------
Taken in proper context, the lyrics are not even close to being "covertly hypersexualized".
Yes, I guess you've said that before. I'd say it's a very nonstandard definition of "God," in the U.S. at least, where God is more typically thought of as some supernatural entity.
Kind of. Most people hear the word and they think of the big-religion's version of it. But once a person clarifies what they they mean the discussion should be centered around what they mean.
I don't agree with mystic's and gld use of the word god either. But their belief is centered around using the same observations as we see in science textbooks. For the most part that is. At least enough for me to say ok, I call it god, but the process for believing isn't that far off.
I think we should be focused on how people believe and not what they believe. To a degree that is. If we have a reasonable method to believe, it has a better chance to self correct over time. I don't Bad religion should be the base the arbiter for deterring what a person believes.
No the opposite of believing in a God is not believing in a God. That is in the definition of an atheist.
There is no such thing as "not believing"...you either DO Believe, or you DON'T Believe
"Not Believing" is like "trying to think of nothing"...it's illogical.
Even if you are trying to think of nothing...you are thinking.
Many have taken the phrase "Believe in X" (have faith/confidence/trust in X), when referring to God, as being about God existing...not having confidence/trust in God.
They do this to intentionally muddy the waters...so they don't actually have to take a stand on what they believe relative to the existence of a God.
Also...it then aligns with the assessment of existence of childish "imaginary" things (e.g. "I don't believe in Leprechauns or the Tooth-fairy")...and is a way to insult those that believe God exists, by lumping God in with puerile make-believe.
Anything else one would say they "don't believe in"...would indicate a lack of confidence or trust, not whether it/they exist.
One you have considered or contemplated anything, you necessarily have a belief about it.
One either believes God exists...believes God doesn't exist...believes they are unable to make a determination.. or has never considered the matter.
There are no other positions.
One you have considered and/or contemplated whether a God exists...there is no such thing as "not believing" about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
