FF, Atheism is unquestionably a loser.

[cataracts]

Hi 101,
Good question!
It was design.

Have you noticed how FF doesn't answer the questions given to him. Not only that, but he has learned to use the questions that are given to atheists and uses them against theists.
For example: Just because an atheists says "lack of evidence on his part doesn't make him incorrect and you correct." This is an argument used against atheists. They attack anything and everything especially when they sense their foe has no proof. Then the atheists will exclaim that they are correct because the theist has no proof so therefore the theist must be wrong."

One of the most popular atheists of all times was the Frenchman Sautre. He had all kind of arguments against God. He wrote books on atheism and was a leader in the atheists ranks. However, he made one peculiar error in all of his writings, which, by the way, all atheists make. That is they all make the same mistake, including our friend FF. The error that they all make is that they never write, say, exclaim or communicate in any way a rational justification to become atheists. Sautre explains that atheism is a radical decision but don't ask him why he chose it. He won't have an answer.
The reason this point is always skipped by the atheists is that atheism is a choice (a decision) that is not based on reason or logic or anything else. Once an atheist makes his decision to become an atheist then he feels it is OK to attack God and religions. Keep in mind it is the atheists choice to become an atheist. That choice is always made before any logical proofs or reasoning has come to the forefront.

I have noticed that FF always ignores what he cannot answer. I thought that my analogy of the wind kicking up the scrap in a junkyard and then making a cherry apple red Corvette was a truly good example of how the atheist must stretch his imagination to prove what little he can prove. My example was totally ignored by FF. He wants to forget about that analogy because it tears his atheism to shreads. If he was honest he would try to reason and logically come up with a solution to this problem. But he just ignores it.

Because they have not thought deeply about their position, most atheists do not realize that if they are consistent, they must be nihilist. They must deny and damn everything. Nothing can make sense. The nihilist does not deny mere facts. For him it is the totality that is suspect.
The whole world and everything in it is suspect. Reality as a whole and especially his own life seem to him to be unstable, fragile, fleeting, empty, pointless, worthless, or 'null'. Nihilism is atheism pushed to its logical conclusion." Nothing makes sense if there is no one to make it make sense"...

Both theism and atheism are free choices. In each of our free choices we are making our eternal being. Our actions pass but their results do not. We shall forever be what we have made ourselves in each passing moment of this life. We are on probabion and it will end in death on our way to eternity.

Cataracts

[FightingFalcon]

Any Atheist who reads Cataracts' post will die laughing. You are really making a fool of yourself Cataracts and I doubt that you have ever talked to an Atheist in your life.

[cataracts]

You win FF. I'll end my participation on this post.
C.

[AmericanPride]

cataracts,

Let me explain why your original argument fails. It assumes (rightly or wrongly, it assumes) that sin exists and that sin causes "error"; it furthermore implies the existence of God, which an atheist rejects. The argument would therefore have to be centered upon the point of contention between the two ideas (the existence of God), with secondary issues (such as sin) on the side. The merits of each argument must stand on their own and with mutually accepted facts and reasoning. However, using the beliefs of your system of ideas to undermine an entirely different framework of thought creates a course of circular logic.

[cataracts]

americanpride2 said:

cataracts,

Let me explain why your original argument fails. It assumes (rightly or wrongly, it assumes) that sin exists and that sin causes "error"; it furthermore implies the existence of God, which an atheist rejects. The argument would therefore have to be centered upon the point of contention between the two ideas (the existence of God), with secondary issues (such as sin) on the side. The merits of each argument must stand on their own and with mutually accepted facts and reasoning. However, using the beliefs of your system of ideas to undermine an entirely different framework of thought creates a course of circular logic.

American Pride,
Your post is an excellent example of circular logic.
C.

I know that I said I would end participation in this post. I'll try to do it this time.

[AmericanPride]

If my argument is such, you ought to explain in order to make clear its failure.

[cataracts]

American Pride,
I have debated hours on end with atheists. They are without reason or logic. They do their best to turn the tables on their opponent. If their opponent cannot give a good enough answer to the atheists ridiculous charges, the opponent is then told he is incorrect.
For your own information: Atheism is a choice based in the will. The atheist has no valid reasons for being an atheist. He is an atheist because he wants to be an atheist. After his claim of atheism, he then feels he is an intellectual and can then question anything and anyone at will. Please note there are no valid reasons for becoming an athist.
I know that I have broken my desire to not comment any more on this post. The reason for that is "to debate an atheist is a totally fruitless venture. I may just as well talk to the wall.

Cataracts

[AmericanPride]

Where-ever have I said that I am an atheist?

[cataracts]

americanpride2 said:

cataracts,

Let me explain why your original argument fails. It assumes (rightly or wrongly, it assumes) that sin exists and that sin causes "error"; it furthermore implies the existence of God, which an atheist rejects. The argument would therefore have to be centered upon the point of contention between the two ideas (the existence of God), with secondary issues (such as sin) on the side. The merits of each argument must stand on their own and with mutually accepted facts and reasoning. However, using the beliefs of your system of ideas to undermine an entirely different framework of thought creates a course of circular logic.

American Pride,
Well arn't you or are you? Make up your mind.
There is no argument that an atheist can make because he has no arguments. All an atheist does is argue, without any arguments. Your post sounds like a lot of atheist propaganda. You have spoken in a circle, therefore, in this instance, on this post, you are an atheist.

May I also add one more time, the atheist has never lived that deduced, from logic and reason, that God does not exist. Every atheist that has ever darkened the ground beneath his feet first chose to not believe in God, then went on to attack every nuance of man's belief in God. The argument isn't over whether God exists or not, the argument is over how much crap can an atheist blow out of his mouth.

So, what are you? Are you, American Pride, an atheist or are you a theist?
Just give me a straight answer. Please don't be wordy. Just a simple straight answer.

Cataracts

[FightingFalcon]

May I also add one more time, the atheist has never lived that deduced, from logic and reason, that God does not exist.

There is no evidence for the proof of god - logic would therefore tell me that he does not exist. Just as purple unicorns don't exist. How is that argument not using logic?

Every atheist that has ever darkened the ground beneath his feet

At least we don't burn people at the stake or start wars of religion that kills 1/3 of the entire population of Germany in one war alone. Nice job on that one.

Just give me a straight answer. Please don't be wordy. Just a simple straight answer.

AP - this poor Theist here can't take logical and reasonable answers. Please talk to him in a simple manner because it's the only thing that he can understand. What do you expect from someone who's mind is so intellectually backward as to actually believing in fairy tales?

[AmericanPride]

cataracts,

I fail to see how questioning your reasoning is equal to denying God. Perhaps you should explain that to me. And then to God.

But it can already be seen that you have no explaination and so I will not continue this any longer.

[cataracts]

Typical atheist nonsense!

[tagardner]

Let me take this in a different direction. When it comes to religion there are only four (4) positions or states that one can have towards it. Of the four, only on is on its face absurd and possibly insane. These four states are:

Theist Someone who believes there is a God religiously. Generally, this also involves having some set of rules or guidelines by which they can appease, worship, believe in, etc., that God.

Agnostic Someone who could believe there is a God but has reservations. The agnostic may attend a church or otherwise make efforts towards belief in God but, does not have full faith of a theist.

Secularist Someone who is indifferent to the question of religion and God. "Don't know, don't care" sums up the secularist. For them religion is an irrelevant curiousity.

Atheist Someone who has a religious belief that there is no god or possibility of god. This position is absurd, and possibly insane. It denies the possibility that God exists. This is akin to ancient claims the Earth was the center of the universe, or a claim that life cannot possibly exist on another planet somewhere in the universe. Many scientists and otherwise intelligent people can believe in the Big Band theory of the beginnings of the universe or, that faster-than-light motion might be possible but yet, cannot accept the possibility of God.

Morality and social conformity are seperate issues from the above. But, history does show that there is some relational coorelation between the religious beliefs someone holds and their morality and ability to conform to social norms.

[FightingFalcon]

Actually, you're completely wrong on your definitions. Agnostics do not come anywhere close to having the faith of a Theist. They are open to the idea of a god but believe that not enough information is available to make an opinion one way or the other.

The type of Atheist that you describe is very rare. Indeed, I've never come across one. Most Atheists (including myself) acknowledge that god can never be disproved (just as Zeus can never be disproved) but that the evidence points to the fact that a deity's presence is unlikely.

"But, history does show that there is some relational coorelation between the religious beliefs someone holds and their morality and ability to conform to social norms."

It sure does. Atheists are, historically, pacifists who can be found in all walks of life and all strata of society. Theists, meanwhile, have dominated Western society for the past 2000 years and have caused untold deaths and human suffering.

[dustdevil28]

tagardner said:

Let me take this in a different direction. When it comes to religion there are only four (4) positions or states that one can have towards it. Of the four, only on is on its face absurd and possibly insane. These four states are:

Theist Someone who believes there is a God religiously. Generally, this also involves having some set of rules or guidelines by which they can appease, worship, believe in, etc., that God.

Agnostic Someone who could believe there is a God but has reservations. The agnostic may attend a church or otherwise make efforts towards belief in God but, does not have full faith of a theist.

Secularist Someone who is indifferent to the question of religion and God. "Don't know, don't care" sums up the secularist. For them religion is an irrelevant curiousity.

Atheist Someone who has a religious belief that there is no god or possibility of god. This position is absurd, and possibly insane. It denies the possibility that God exists. This is akin to ancient claims the Earth was the center of the universe, or a claim that life cannot possibly exist on another planet somewhere in the universe. Many scientists and otherwise intelligent people can believe in the Big Band theory of the beginnings of the universe or, that faster-than-light motion might be possible but yet, cannot accept the possibility of God.

Morality and social conformity are seperate issues from the above. But, history does show that there is some relational coorelation between the religious beliefs someone holds and their morality and ability to conform to social norms.

Your last definition reads as though it was written by a theist.

Although they do not beleive in God, it seems that most come to that conclusion because they can find no evidence of his existance and find an explination for most of the devine attributes that are given him by there followers.

If that is what they want to beleive in, let them do it so long as they don't keep you from your own relgious faith.