I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say
that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally
that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
Bertrand Russell

A common error in thinking when one is chasing a point of view rather than engaging in logic. When one is assessing philosophically the rationale for the existence of a creator, it is important not to reflect on the nature of a particular faith. When one does this, they could be building a straw man by substitution. It may be that the logic that led Socrates to formulate the prime mover argument is valid no matter who God is. It does not follow that because one fait...

I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say
that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally
that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
Bertrand Russell

A common error in thinking when one is chasing a point of view rather than engaging in logic. When one is assessing philosophically the rationale for the existence of a creator, it is important not to reflect on the nature of a particular faith. When one does this, they could be building a straw man by substitution. It may be that the logic that led Socrates to formulate the prime mover argument is valid no matter who God is. It does not follow that because one faith (Greek Mythology) is silly that the argument for the prime mover is silly. However, it is certainly silly to suggest that the prime mover is illogical because the prime mover requires a prime mover. Everything that exists, exists because of a prime mover or because of a prime movement. It is impossible to suppose an infinite past existed, because the time in an infinite past could never be traversed to reach the current moment.

It does not follow that because one faith (Greek Mythology) is silly that the argument for the prime mover is silly

But it does follow that if the claims behind a "Prime Mover" mirror those behind originations other faiths then the "Prime Mover" ideal is just as unlikely and based on human need rather than any requirement of reality and nature.

The argument you present is nothing more than a more complicated view of the Watch Maker argument. And that argument fails on its own circular logic that if the universe is so complex as to need a creator then the creator must be even more complex requiring his own creator ad naseum.

when I say that I cannot prove that there is...

read more»

It does not follow that because one faith (Greek Mythology) is silly that the argument for the prime mover is silly

But it does follow that if the claims behind a "Prime Mover" mirror those behind originations other faiths then the "Prime Mover" ideal is just as unlikely and based on human need rather than any requirement of reality and nature.

The argument you present is nothing more than a more complicated view of the Watch Maker argument. And that argument fails on its own circular logic that if the universe is so complex as to need a creator then the creator must be even more complex requiring his own creator ad naseum.

when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God

True. One cannot empirically say that there is no god/s or creator/s because we do not have the evidence to prove or disprove that notion. However, when god/s and creator/s are invoked and descriptions and characteristics are told of them as well as historical events and examples are given then one can make judgments on the veracity of THAT god based on the information given and the accuracy of the information.

It is in this manner that we can unequivocally claim that gods such as Apollo, Shiva, Thor, Isis, Allah, Jesus Christ and Jehovah are nothing more than human constructs.

But it does follow that if the claims behind a "Prime Mover" mirror
those behind originations other faiths then the "Prime Mover" ideal is
just as unlikely and based on human need rather than any requirement of
reality and nature.

There are no claims "behind" a prime mover argument. The prime mover is philosophically valid argument that leads one to investigate the rationale of the existence of God. That is all it is, nothing more, nothing less. No faith is built upon a prime mover argument. Prime mover arguments support the rationale for a belief that there is a God. If you had the slightest hint of intellect you would have understood my comment. Also, if you had the slight...

But it does follow that if the claims behind a "Prime Mover" mirror
those behind originations other faiths then the "Prime Mover" ideal is
just as unlikely and based on human need rather than any requirement of
reality and nature.

There are no claims "behind" a prime mover argument. The prime mover is philosophically valid argument that leads one to investigate the rationale of the existence of God. That is all it is, nothing more, nothing less. No faith is built upon a prime mover argument. Prime mover arguments support the rationale for a belief that there is a God. If you had the slightest hint of intellect you would have understood my comment. Also, if you had the slightest hint of intellect you would understand that the concept you state, "prime mover ideal" is an absurdity.

The argument you present is nothing more than a more complicated view of the Watch Maker argument.

Hey, idiot, first- I did not make an argument. I made a comment. Second, if you are going to cast my comment as it reflects a classic argument, then it would probably best fit an argument against infinite regression. Your comment clearly indicates you have no concept of either argument.

It is in this manner that we can unequivocally claim that gods such as
Apollo, Shiva, Thor, Isis, Allah, Jesus Christ and Jehovah are nothing
more than human constructs.

And here you are committing the fallacy I mentioned above. First you reflect on the existence of God. If your rationale leads you to conclude God exists, then you eliminate the possible reflections that represent the possibility of God. One concept does not dissolve the other.

The typical willhelm blowhard response. You are too stupid to recognize that you refute your own statements. The claim IS first cause. It postulates that because we exist their had to be a beginning. What you fail to grasp is that accepting a first cause for existence then you must accept a first cause that initiated THAT first cause and so on.

You sidestep the fact that the very notion of a first cause itself requires a cause for the cause. Your little mind simply ends that problem by saying that the initial cause is eternal. If you can wrap your tiny pea brain around that notion then why can you not simply accept that existence itself is eternal.

The short answer is because you just wan...

The typical willhelm blowhard response. You are too stupid to recognize that you refute your own statements. The claim IS first cause. It postulates that because we exist their had to be a beginning. What you fail to grasp is that accepting a first cause for existence then you must accept a first cause that initiated THAT first cause and so on.

You sidestep the fact that the very notion of a first cause itself requires a cause for the cause. Your little mind simply ends that problem by saying that the initial cause is eternal. If you can wrap your tiny pea brain around that notion then why can you not simply accept that existence itself is eternal.

The short answer is because you just want to justify your belief in god so choose to be intellectually dishonest and create a special pleading of exemption.

Your attempts at being intellectual, philosophical and rational about the claims and arguments of a first cause only reveal your inability to see beyond your own ideological limitations.

But keep trying. Some day you might actually maintain a series of logical steps in thinking that doesn't result in your going in circles.

eternity as the causality of first cause.

Well, I do not know about all other faiths specifically on this issue, but the Bible supports a God who is outside of time. Not bound by time in any way and without component. Thus, is the prime mover and first cause. When we speak about "first cause", we are not speaking about something that began to exist.
Not everything that exists has a cause. For example, shapes, the laws of logic, mathematics. None of these things began to exist. They are eternal. The answer is really simple if you just learn to ask the right question without making a categorical fallacy of blaming the uncaused cause in a prime mover argument of not having a cau...

eternity as the causality of first cause.

Well, I do not know about all other faiths specifically on this issue, but the Bible supports a God who is outside of time. Not bound by time in any way and without component. Thus, is the prime mover and first cause. When we speak about "first cause", we are not speaking about something that began to exist.
Not everything that exists has a cause. For example, shapes, the laws of logic, mathematics. None of these things began to exist. They are eternal. The answer is really simple if you just learn to ask the right question without making a categorical fallacy of blaming the uncaused cause in a prime mover argument of not having a cause. The right question is, What caused the self-existent, uncaused cause, who is by definition unmade and noncontingent, to exist? To ask any other question in light of the validity of the first cause argument is absurd. And that is the only question one can ask in regard to the first cause argument. The onloy other option is to play cynic. However, if you like, you can speculate about physics, the nature of time, and our perceptions of it, which will only continue down absurdity black holes.
You may be smarter than I give you credit for, but you are not smarter than Socrates or Plato when it comes to reason and you certainly have no response to the volumes upon volumes of rational faith in Christ, the one and only God.

but the Bible supports a God who is outside of time.

Right. Why don't you show me the scripture that describes god as the creator of time who sits outside of time.
[qute]Not bound by time in any way and without component. Do you even have a modicum of an idea of existence is without time? Not even god can exist without time. Without time god cannot even form a thought for there can be no beginning to the thought or an end to the thought. Without time there is no measurement. There can be no length or width because you cannot have a '2' without first having a '1' and without time there can be no 'first'. There is no action, decision, consideration, or plan.

So to say...

but the Bible supports a God who is outside of time.

Right. Why don't you show me the scripture that describes god as the creator of time who sits outside of time.
[qute]Not bound by time in any way and without component. Do you even have a modicum of an idea of existence is without time? Not even god can exist without time. Without time god cannot even form a thought for there can be no beginning to the thought or an end to the thought. Without time there is no measurement. There can be no length or width because you cannot have a '2' without first having a '1' and without time there can be no 'first'. There is no action, decision, consideration, or plan.

So to say inane things like "before time" and "god is outside of time" is nothing more than mental masturbation on concepts and abstract thoughts. It's a dodge to a question that foils religion. Yet one more special case it uses to argue a point it has lost.

it doesn't matter if you don't believe in God. God believes in you.

Another inane statement people say with the intent of feeling like they actually said something important. The REAL question is are YOU believing in the right god? The existence of god cannot be argued because the concept of god puts it beyond examination. No one can say he does or does not exist. However, the various concepts and human constructs of god can be challenged. Once people put definition, characteristic, and written works of god into the mix then there does become something to test and examine and we DO have the capacity to draw accurate conclusions on the validity and possibility of a god existing by those descriptions.

The idea of the bible god fails by the very characteristics he's described by and by the very written works that record him. The argument of first cause is just one more thing in a long list that fails upon inspection or reflection.

Face it, oortcloud. You are a mighty ignorant person.

Not bound by time in any way and without component. Do you even have a
modicum of an idea of existence is without time? Not even god can exist
without time. Without time god cannot even form a thought for there can
be no beginning to the thought or an end to the thought. Without time
there is no measurement. There can be no length or width because you
cannot have a '2' without first having a '1' and without time there can
be no 'first'. There is no action, decision, consideration, or plan.

Physicist, Lee Smolin wrote: "I have been studying the question of what time is for
much of my adult life. But I must admit
... tha...

Face it, oortcloud. You are a mighty ignorant person.

Not bound by time in any way and without component. Do you even have a
modicum of an idea of existence is without time? Not even god can exist
without time. Without time god cannot even form a thought for there can
be no beginning to the thought or an end to the thought. Without time
there is no measurement. There can be no length or width because you
cannot have a '2' without first having a '1' and without time there can
be no 'first'. There is no action, decision, consideration, or plan.

Physicist, Lee Smolin wrote: "I have been studying the question of what time is for
much of my adult life. But I must admit
... that I am no closer to an answer now than I was then. Indeed, even after all this study, I do not
think we can answer even the simple question: 'What sort of thing is time?"

Yet, you have it all figured out, don't you?

It naturally follows that a prime mover, who caused all things to exist, including temporal reality, would be a mover who is outside the temporal confinements of our limited perceptions. To bind a first cause to time would be the same mistake as binding the first cause to a cause. Therefore, if there were a first cause, that first cause would exist extra-temporally. Circles and squares are outside time. They are not subject to time. They exist conceptually before and outside of time. The same with logic.

Also, if we suppose God is omniscient, then God certainly cannot be subject to time because omniscience requires a being who knows every true proposition. A good question to ask is, If God is timeless, then how can God exist in time?

God is by nature omnipotent, meaning power without limit. Time would impose a limit on God's power.

Another issue pertaining to a God within the bounds of time, would be a God subject to chance. Events are not successive to God.

As for verses: temporal nature would imply change subject to the succession of time.
Mal 3:6 - I the

Yet, you have it all figured out, don't you?

No, but I have the courage and will to seek. You've both found an answer that you like, despite the problems with it, and maintain to it regardless. Who should be pitied more?

If God is timeless, then how can God exist in time?

Good question. Too bad you don't really ask it.

Also, if we suppose God is omniscient, then God certainly cannot be subject to time because omniscience requires a being who knows every true proposition.

To accept this means you free every person of responsibility. Free will does not exist within omniscience.

I the Lord do not change.

And yet he does change from th...

Yet, you have it all figured out, don't you?

No, but I have the courage and will to seek. You've both found an answer that you like, despite the problems with it, and maintain to it regardless. Who should be pitied more?

If God is timeless, then how can God exist in time?

Good question. Too bad you don't really ask it.

Also, if we suppose God is omniscient, then God certainly cannot be subject to time because omniscience requires a being who knows every true proposition.

To accept this means you free every person of responsibility. Free will does not exist within omniscience.

I the Lord do not change.

And yet he does change from the bloodthirsty god of the old testament to the supposed peaceful god of the New. Ironic that believers claim Jesus is god yet treat him as a separate entity.

It only speaks of the shallowness of you.

Or the inability of yourself to think beyond what you've been conditioned to believe.

No, God did not change from the Old Testament to the New Testament; people's perception of Him changed.

This might be a classic example of what's known as battered wife syndrome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew3x4L-2b2s

Article: What is Battered Woman's Syndrome?

excerpts:

According to Dr. Lenore E. Walker, the nation's most prominent expert on battered women...

The cycle has three distinct phases. First is the tension-building phase, followed by the explosion or acute battering incident, culminating in a calm, loving respite - often referred to as the ...

No, God did not change from the Old Testament to the New Testament; people's perception of Him changed.

This might be a classic example of what's known as battered wife syndrome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew3x4L-2b2s

Article: What is Battered Woman's Syndrome?

excerpts:

According to Dr. Lenore E. Walker, the nation's most prominent expert on battered women...

The cycle has three distinct phases. First is the tension-building phase, followed by the explosion or acute battering incident, culminating in a calm, loving respite - often referred to as the honeymoon phase.

It is also important to understand why battered women stay in abusive relationships.

Among those reasons: women are still positively reinforced during the honeymoon phase; women tend to be the peacekeepers in relationships - the ones responsible for making the marriage work;...;

...it is more dangerous to leave than to stay; prior threats by batterer to kill self, or children; or to abscond with children; lost self-esteem; and no psychological energy to leave - resulting in a learned helplessness or psychological paralysis."

-----

Notice the last paragraph starts with "..it is more dangerous to leave than to stay..."

Sound familiar about a certain religious promise (hint: hell, apostate, honor killing, etc..)?

And notice honeymoon phase... god loves you so much!

New testament god, old testament god. He loves you, but if you leave him he will punish you very bad, so you convince yourself that you love him (but secretly you're afraid to leave for fear of horrible punishment).

Interesting theory, AcesLucky, but the concept of changing perception is much more likely. There is no threats, implied or otherwise, in the Gospels of the New Testament. Such things only occur in the later books by the Apostle Paul, who had been diagnosed by current-day doctors as having a number of intolerances, such as mysogeny, and anger problems. Paul, however, was a better prophet than a minister in the end; and was not the Son of God, like Jesus was. Thus, we should consider that only the words of Jesus were actually straight from God, and all other statements were, at the very least, filtered through the preferences and intolerances of those who relayed them.

And God never said He l...

Interesting theory, AcesLucky, but the concept of changing perception is much more likely. There is no threats, implied or otherwise, in the Gospels of the New Testament. Such things only occur in the later books by the Apostle Paul, who had been diagnosed by current-day doctors as having a number of intolerances, such as mysogeny, and anger problems. Paul, however, was a better prophet than a minister in the end; and was not the Son of God, like Jesus was. Thus, we should consider that only the words of Jesus were actually straight from God, and all other statements were, at the very least, filtered through the preferences and intolerances of those who relayed them.

And God never said He liked the smell of burnt offerings, Oort. People assumed that He did, because that's what their old gods liked. The Old Testament, and a good part of the New Testament is based on people's assumptions; an imperfect perception of God. The one and only thing we can say for absolute sure is that God is Love; and anything that does not come from a place of Love is not of God.

God never said He liked the smell of burnt offerings

Odd... I guess I must be reading a different bible :

Genesis 4: 3-5

3. And it cometh to pass at the end of days that Cain bringeth from the fruit of the ground a present to Jehovah;
4. and Abel, he hath brought, he also, from the female firstlings of his flock, even from their fat ones; and Jehovah looketh unto Abel and unto his present,
5. and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen.

Seems to me that Cain didn't give the right offering. God doesn't like burnt veggies, just burnt meat.

Genesis 8:19-20

20. And Noah buildeth a...

God never said He liked the smell of burnt offerings

Odd... I guess I must be reading a different bible :

Genesis 4: 3-5

3. And it cometh to pass at the end of days that Cain bringeth from the fruit of the ground a present to Jehovah;
4. and Abel, he hath brought, he also, from the female firstlings of his flock, even from their fat ones; and Jehovah looketh unto Abel and unto his present,
5. and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen.[/list]

Seems to me that Cain didn't give the right offering. God doesn't like burnt veggies, just burnt meat.

Genesis 8:19-20
[list]20. And Noah buildeth an altar to Jehovah, and taketh of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and causeth burnt-offerings to ascend on the altar;
21. and Jehovah smelleth the sweet fragrance, and Jehovah saith unto His heart, `I continue not to disesteem any more the ground because of man, though the imagination of the heart of man [is] evil from his youth; and I continue not to smite any more all living, as I have done;[/list]

God so loved "sweet fragrance" of burnt meat that he no longer wants to destroy mankind.

Or the story of Abraham, called upon to sacrifice his son to god (Genesis 22:10-13). Thankfully god decides to let Abraham in on his cosmic joke and instead has Abraham fry up a ram that god had ready nearby.

He even gives instructions on how to do it just right!

Exodus 20:24-26
[list] 24`An altar of earth thou dost make for Me, and thou hast sacrificed on it thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings, thy flock and thy herd; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered I come in unto thee, and have blessed thee.
25`And if an altar of stones thou dost make to Me, thou dost not build them of hewn work; when thy tool thou hast waved over it, then thou dost pollute it;
26neither dost thou go up by steps on Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not revealed upon it.

For a more in depth bit of instruction on how to sacrifice properly one could look up Exodus 29:11-38.

Then lest us not forget that God loves sacrifice so much that he sacrificed himself to himself in order to appease himself for the sin that he himself created.

AcesLucky, but the concept of changing perception is much more likely

Or much more easily defended.

I said it once and I'll say it again - If god provided his written word for puny humans to learn and understand god from then why are there so many religions that cannot accept and agree on interpretation? If someone truly wants to find god and has a passion to become a servant unto the lord, then why, oh why, are so ...

For a more in depth bit of instruction on how to sacrifice properly one could look up Exodus 29:11-38.

Then lest us not forget that God loves sacrifice so much that he sacrificed himself to himself in order to appease himself for the sin that he himself created.

AcesLucky, but the concept of changing perception is much more likely

Or much more easily defended.

I said it once and I'll say it again - If god provided his written word for puny humans to learn and understand god from then why are there so many religions that cannot accept and agree on interpretation? If someone truly wants to find god and has a passion to become a servant unto the lord, then why, oh why, are so many people needed to provide "proper" interpretations? Why cannot these 'true believers' all find the same message?

Heck, why is there a need for proper interpretation at all? Shouldn't the holy words of god become unavoidably apparent to any reader that would crack the book and look within it for guidance?

You can't even find 2 members of the same church that agree on every aspect of the bible. Seems to me that god, knowing he is real and how bad damnation would be, would leave something a little more convincing than blind chance that you hit upon the right religion in your lifetime to be saved.

It seems you can't read, Oort, because I clearly said that the entirety of the Old Testament is just the early Israelites perception of what God wanted, based on what they knew about their pagan gods beforehand. News Flash: God did not write the bible. Men wrote the bible; many men, over the span of thousands of years. It was inspired by God, but it is not the sum-total of all knowledge about God. Rather, the bible is a story of evolution; how the beliefs of a wild, barbaric people gradually, over centuries, came to understand a loving and peaceful God. The reasons that religions can't agree on any given interpretation is because that is exactly what religions are about. They're not a...

It seems you can't read, Oort, because I clearly said that the entirety of the Old Testament is just the early Israelites perception of what God wanted, based on what they knew about their pagan gods beforehand. News Flash: God did not write the bible. Men wrote the bible; many men, over the span of thousands of years. It was inspired by God, but it is not the sum-total of all knowledge about God. Rather, the bible is a story of evolution; how the beliefs of a wild, barbaric people gradually, over centuries, came to understand a loving and peaceful God. The reasons that religions can't agree on any given interpretation is because that is exactly what religions are about. They're not about God or love; they're about human nature; fighting over something trivial and unimportant. The bible is an insight into the nature of God. It is hardly perfect, because it was written by imperfect humans. And yet, in God's subtle way, his message is still within the text, amid the other things created out of human weakness and foibles. That is why the Holy Spirit is here to show us God's word within the context.

I heard a rather fascinating and amusing thing on the bus today. Someone who apparently considered himself to be some sort of minister was yelling into his cell phone about how ridiculous someone else was, because they were claiming to be a prophet of God. He said the guy couldn't be a prophet, because he couldn't say who he was a part of; what denomination he was. I got a good laugh, because true prophets transcend such ridiculous things such as religions and denominations. Those things are Satan's greatest coup; turning the study and love of God into something derisive, argumentative and hateful. There is no right religion, because the very fact that they are religions makes them wrong. Christianity is a philosophy; a lifestyle, not a social club. So, yes, OortCloud. You are very, very, very mistaken. Time to think outside the Temple.

God did not write the bible. Men wrote the bible; many men, over the span of thousands of years.

The bible is an insight into the nature of God. It is hardly perfect, because it was written by imperfect humans.

we should consider that only the words of Jesus were actually straight
from God, and all other statements were, at the very least, filtered
through the preferences and intolerances of those who relayed them.

This leads to a couple of questions.
Are the words attributed to Jesus really spoken by him?
Why should I believe that the writers of the bible have accurately recorded Jesus' words?
Might the preferences and intolerances mentioned...

God did not write the bible. Men wrote the bible; many men, over the span of thousands of years.

The bible is an insight into the nature of God. It is hardly perfect, because it was written by imperfect humans.

we should consider that only the words of Jesus were actually straight
from God, and all other statements were, at the very least, filtered
through the preferences and intolerances of those who relayed them.

This leads to a couple of questions.
Are the words attributed to Jesus really spoken by him?
Why should I believe that the writers of the bible have accurately recorded Jesus' words?
Might the preferences and intolerances mentioned above effect the way in which Jesus' words were reported?

Sorry dark, you can't have it both ways. You can't sit there and speak to me in any kind of tone or position that suggests you know god from a fart in the ground if the only way you can defend the problems of Christian religion is to say "men got it wrong".

If you truly want to go with that argument then there is absolutely nothing saying that you yourself are not full of fluff. It's a pretty shady position to make the claim you know what you are talking about when you yourself claim that the source of you knowledge is error ridden.

Starting to see the logical problem here yet?

Why should I believe that the writers of the bible have accurately recorded Jesus' words?

Aye, a...

Sorry dark, you can't have it both ways. You can't sit there and speak to me in any kind of tone or position that suggests you know god from a fart in the ground if the only way you can defend the problems of Christian religion is to say "men got it wrong".

If you truly want to go with that argument then there is absolutely nothing saying that you yourself are not full of fluff. It's a pretty shady position to make the claim you know what you are talking about when you yourself claim that the source of you knowledge is error ridden.

Starting to see the logical problem here yet?

Why should I believe that the writers of the bible have accurately recorded Jesus' words?

Aye, and if you question that, why should we believe anything that anyone says when they try and teach the bible or interpret it?

It's all about foundation. I've always discussed the shakiness of the religious foundation, but to hear a believer actually come out and admit it and just ignore it to keep believing ... that's funny.

Tommy2Balmy said:

This leads to a couple of questions.
Are the words attributed to Jesus really spoken by him?
Why should I believe that the writers of the bible have accurately recorded Jesus' words?
Might the preferences and intolerances mentioned above effect the way in which Jesus' words were reported?

Perfectly valid points. That's why it's a good thing there are 4 accounts of Jesus's ministry. That way, we can see where the true story exists by seeing where they agree, and taking areas where they disagree with a grain of salt.

And, no, Oort. Actually, I can say that men got it wrong, because mankind always gets it wrong. That's why there are more ways to learn God's will th...

Tommy2Balmy said:

This leads to a couple of questions.
Are the words attributed to Jesus really spoken by him?
Why should I believe that the writers of the bible have accurately recorded Jesus' words?
Might the preferences and intolerances mentioned above effect the way in which Jesus' words were reported?

Perfectly valid points. That's why it's a good thing there are 4 accounts of Jesus's ministry. That way, we can see where the true story exists by seeing where they agree, and taking areas where they disagree with a grain of salt.

And, no, Oort. Actually, I can say that men got it wrong, because mankind always gets it wrong. That's why there are more ways to learn God's will than just through the bible. Prayer and Meditation are as important as reading the bible (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

It's obvious that you don't understand the first thing about faith. Religion is not Faith. Faith is not Religion. A person can have only one of them, or both, or neither; although someone with both is subject to being drawn away from Faith by Religion. But what you fail to realize is that belief in God is more than just believing a story in an anthology of books. The bible is a guide to forming a personal relationship with God. Once you experience the Touch of God, there is never again any doubt that there are powers and principalities beyond the mere physical world. Of course, if you don't bother to have Faith enough to reach that step, then, of course, you'll never be rewarded.

In truth, Atheists are really just too lazy to maintain Faith in God, so they turn to the easier prospect of "Faith in No God". Still, it's all just Faith.

You are a willhelm clone! LOL. So threatened by the thought that some people are not so stupid and gullible to believe your religious trash that you try and label them as believers as well!

Claiming atheism is religion is like saying bald is a hair color. Anyway, I'm not going to get in yet another long discussion of why atheism is not a religion with yet another clueless moron. You guys just make this shit up, redefining words and passages, to fit your skewed sense of reality.

As for your "4 accounts of Jesus" not a single one of them is a first hand account and they are all written DECADES after the supposed story of christ. If you look at each story in chronological order you also find...

You are a willhelm clone! LOL. So threatened by the thought that some people are not so stupid and gullible to believe your religious trash that you try and label them as believers as well!

Claiming atheism is religion is like saying bald is a hair color. Anyway, I'm not going to get in yet another long discussion of why atheism is not a religion with yet another clueless moron. You guys just make this shit up, redefining words and passages, to fit your skewed sense of reality.

As for your "4 accounts of Jesus" not a single one of them is a first hand account and they are all written DECADES after the supposed story of christ. If you look at each story in chronological order you also find that the exaggerations of Jesus's "miracles" grow with each retelling - much like any story making the rounds. People like to embellish.

Now, if you have any age upon you, try thinking back yourself over a period of 30 or 40 years. Anyone that claims they can recall events in the detail that the bible tries to describe is full of shit.

And on the historic side of Jesus, there are many historians of the time who recorded events going on in very high detail - yet nothing but the barest mention of any Jesus - certainly no writings of miracles and events that your 4 writers allude to.

So we have inconsistency in bible writing. We have blatantly obvious logical problems and rational mistakes made by the writers, we have no first hand accounts, we have no corroboration of history, and we have no consistently interpreted message - and certainly no signs or guidance from god on which is the right message .... starting to smell the bullshit yet?

Ironically, if you examine other religions that have come and gone by the hand of man you kinda see the same pattern.

In truth, theists are too afraid to face life without a god, so they make it up - grasping onto anything that they can use to validate their belief and ignoring anything that contradicts it.

Atheists are really just too lazy to maintain Faith in God, so they turn to the easier prospect of "Faith in No God".

This seems to indicate that you believe all atheists had faith in God at one point and because of their laziness in maintaining it have gone to an easier way.

Yet earlier you claimed that-

Once you experience the Touch of God, there is never again any doubt
that there are powers and principalities beyond the mere physical world.

Are you saying that despite their faith in God that these "lazy" ex-God believing atheists never experienced the "Touch of God?"

And if I replace the word "God" with "voodoo" (just one example) would that not be just...

Atheists are really just too lazy to maintain Faith in God, so they turn to the easier prospect of "Faith in No God".

This seems to indicate that you believe all atheists had faith in God at one point and because of their laziness in maintaining it have gone to an easier way.

Yet earlier you claimed that-

Once you experience the Touch of God, there is never again any doubt
that there are powers and principalities beyond the mere physical world.

Are you saying that despite their faith in God that these "lazy" ex-God believing atheists never experienced the "Touch of God?"

And if I replace the word "God" with "voodoo" (just one example) would that not be just as accurate a statement to those who believe in and have experienced the "touch" of Voodoo?

Does that make voodoo real to me as a non-believer?

Atheism is not about faith. Faith is about being taught something and then accepting it without evidence. Atheism is the default position. We are ALL born atheists. There is nothing to have faith in, no knowledge, no evidence, no fancy stories, it just is. You start needing faith right at the moment someone starts indoctrinating you and that no proof is needed, only faith.

One can make a choice or be taught to move from the default position - but it is at that time faith comes into effect. If one cannot present the evidence of that claim or story then no faith is needed. You do not require faith to have no faith. This is willhelm's logic. He presents the irrationality of his logic quite err...

Atheism is not about faith. Faith is about being taught something and then accepting it without evidence. Atheism is the default position. We are ALL born atheists. There is nothing to have faith in, no knowledge, no evidence, no fancy stories, it just is. You start needing faith right at the moment someone starts indoctrinating you and that no proof is needed, only faith.

One can make a choice or be taught to move from the default position - but it is at that time faith comes into effect. If one cannot present the evidence of that claim or story then no faith is needed. You do not require faith to have no faith. This is willhelm's logic. He presents the irrationality of his logic quite erroneously when he tries to argue first cause as a logical point of beginning, but then denies the possibility of a infinite regression while at the same time arguing for the possibility of infinite existence. At best first cause can be argued as one possibility of genesis, right there along with the possibility of reality sitting on the back of elephants on the back of tortoises. But most definitely one cannot argue it empirically and then dismiss the problems with it simply because it doesn't fit with what one wants to believe.

It is intellectual dishonesty - setting up partitions within the mind to accept one thing while vehemently denying that same thing when it doesn't support their claim. It's the willhelm scream - used over and over but being nothing more than a facade for special effect.

There's the typical Atheist denial that they have faith. They like to delude themselves, but the belief that there is no God is a faith. The belief that there is no supernatural overbeing is still a belief system, and thus, still a Faith. You can deny it until you're blue in the face, but Atheist remains a Faith. And, like any Faith, religions often spring from it, bringing people like you; the Evangelists of Atheism, trying to sell people on Atheism. And like any religious evangelist, you have no definite proof that there is no God; just faith, based on the writings of other people. See? A religion by any other name.

And Oort, you're not reading, I admitted there was n...

There's the typical Atheist denial that they have faith. They like to delude themselves, but the belief that there is no God is a faith. The belief that there is no supernatural overbeing is still a belief system, and thus, still a Faith. You can deny it until you're blue in the face, but Atheist remains a Faith. And, like any Faith, religions often spring from it, bringing people like you; the Evangelists of Atheism, trying to sell people on Atheism. And like any religious evangelist, you have no definite proof that there is no God; just faith, based on the writings of other people. See? A religion by any other name.

And Oort, you're not reading, I admitted there was no first-hand account of Jesus, but there are second-hand tellings, and while not as useful as a firsthand account, they are still far from useless.

While there is no historical account of someone named Jesus (boy, those Jews did a great job of trying to erase his existence due to their hatred of him), but it is believed by many that Jesus was an affectionate or assumed name, taken when Jesus started his ministry. There is evidence of an Abu ben Joseph who meets pretty well all the criteria of being Jesus.

Man, you Atheists are as bad as any other extremist, taking things with blind literalism, and not bothering to apply any common sense or reason to the situation. It's cute, almost.

Yes, Atheists are too lazy to maintain a belief in God. Every last one of us believed in an unfathomable greater power in our lives at one point in our lives, even if it was only when we were small children. It gets harder to hold onto that simple and clean-cut belief as we get older, and the things of the world pollute our thinking. That is why Jesus said children were so precious with their pure and beautiful faith.

Atheists are all either lazy or in denial, because I have yet to meet a single one who will make the effort to actually try to be Christian, and make a real connection with God, and then remain an Atheist again. It's fear that motivates them; fear that they will find out they ...

Yes, Atheists are too lazy to maintain a belief in God. Every last one of us believed in an unfathomable greater power in our lives at one point in our lives, even if it was only when we were small children. It gets harder to hold onto that simple and clean-cut belief as we get older, and the things of the world pollute our thinking. That is why Jesus said children were so precious with their pure and beautiful faith.

Atheists are all either lazy or in denial, because I have yet to meet a single one who will make the effort to actually try to be Christian, and make a real connection with God, and then remain an Atheist again. It's fear that motivates them; fear that they will find out they were wrong, and that they will have to abandon their Faith for a new way of life.

As for the fraudulent claim that people of Faith are afraid, I have a pathological lack of fear of death, upon which all other fears are based, and I'm still a Christian. That blows the "fear" theory out of the water. Time to dive into your atheist tomes and find something new to defend your religion with. Then I'll shoot that down, too

Then I'll shoot that down, too

Are you kidding me? LOL. How old are you?

They like to delude themselves

Oh for christ's sake. Atheism is a LACK of belief. You are an atheist to other religions. You don't have "faith" they are false, you know they are false by the evidence they present. You don't wake up having faith the gods of Hinduism are false any more than you wake up having faith that Barney isn't really a dinosaur.

As the default, atheism is a non faith position. I have no reason to have faith in or not of god. The claims that religion makes to alter one from non belief to belief fail.

trying to sell people on Atheism

I don't sell people o...

Then I'll shoot that down, too

Are you kidding me? LOL. How old are you?

They like to delude themselves

Oh for christ's sake. Atheism is a LACK of belief. You are an atheist to other religions. You don't have "faith" they are false, you know they are false by the evidence they present. You don't wake up having faith the gods of Hinduism are false any more than you wake up having faith that Barney isn't really a dinosaur.

As the default, atheism is a non faith position. I have no reason to have faith in or not of god. The claims that religion makes to alter one from non belief to belief fail.

trying to sell people on Atheism

I don't sell people on atheism. I point out and explain why people such as you are so full of shit. Your claims fail, your religion is inconsistent and contradictory, and your evidence depends on a willingness to believe despite the contrary proof and evidence against it. Your "faith".

Life is life. If someone claims peanuts are intelligent and use a banana as proof you go on with life knowing that such a person is a loon and you don't have faith that life continues without intelligent peanuts. It's not a matter of faith to disbelieve. It's a matter of simply recognizing there is no reason to entertain the claims because the claims fail.

you have no definite proof that there is no God

True, no proof of a god, but when you apply characteristics and "evidences" that one can verify and logically consider then you can disprove a specific "god". Your bible god is a fantasy by the very works it promotes as proof.

There is evidence of an Abu ben Joseph who meets pretty well all the criteria of being Jesus.

There is also a written history of Mithra, Horus, Crishna, Osiris, Semele, Asclepius, Dionysus, Empedocles, Pythagoras, or Gentaut that all have parallels to the story of Jesus. These occur BEFORE the story of Jesus was every created. Perhaps men borrowing from other pagans?

It gets harder to hold onto that simple and clean-cut belief as we get older,

And when do you think you will grow old enough to give up your fantasy of an unfathomable greater power?

, because I have yet to meet a single one who will make the effort to actually try to be Christian

The majority of atheists were believers. Most lost their faith when they decided to strengthen their religious argument and got tired of having their ass handed to them by people who pointed out the glaring faults of their belief. Then during that research it dawned on them that the reason they get their ass handed to them is because they are arguing from a position of denial and lies ...

It gets harder to hold onto that simple and clean-cut belief as we get older,

And when do you think you will grow old enough to give up your fantasy of an unfathomable greater power?

, because I have yet to meet a single one who will make the effort to actually try to be Christian

The majority of atheists were believers. Most lost their faith when they decided to strengthen their religious argument and got tired of having their ass handed to them by people who pointed out the glaring faults of their belief. Then during that research it dawned on them that the reason they get their ass handed to them is because they are arguing from a position of denial and lies rather than from one of rationality, logic, evidence, truth, and common sense.

Please don't try and make the asinine claim that people who leave religion were not true believers. That really only shows who is the one in denial. I suggest, if you have the courage, you trot on over to the ExChristian and start reading a few testimonies of those that lived with religion and firmly believed before they deconverted (most as a direct result of researching real history and giving a critical eye to the bible.)

I have a pathological lack of fear of death

Because you've deluded yourself into thinking you have a special club waiting for you after you die. Take away the idea of god or an afterlife and you turn into a simpering baby afraid of the dark. It is a fear to face life on your own terms. You need to think you have a sky daddy overlooking you and that everything that happens to you happens for a purpose.

Let me clue you in. Shit happens. Good things and bad things alike happen to everyone. Doesn't matter what or who you believe in - and certainly makes no difference to people who dismiss religious beliefs as fantasy.

A lack of belief is not a belief. It really is that simple.

Try this experiment (it does require a certain level of intellectual honesty so I won't be suprised if you fail the experiment). Take a sheet of paper and draw a line down it to create 2 columns. On the left side write "Evidence for the creation story," and on the top of the right side, write "Evidence for natural origins."

Now start filling them in. If you are honest you won't have a single thing in the left hand column and if you have even a modicum of education you'll have filled the right side, possibly needing more pages the higher your education level is.

To believe the creation story REQUIRES faith because there is absolu...

A lack of belief is not a belief. It really is that simple.

Try this experiment (it does require a certain level of intellectual honesty so I won't be suprised if you fail the experiment). Take a sheet of paper and draw a line down it to create 2 columns. On the left side write "Evidence for the creation story," and on the top of the right side, write "Evidence for natural origins."

Now start filling them in. If you are honest you won't have a single thing in the left hand column and if you have even a modicum of education you'll have filled the right side, possibly needing more pages the higher your education level is.

To believe the creation story REQUIRES faith because there is absolutely nothing to support it. If there were any proof or evidence to support it then it destroys the entire notion of faith. It makes faith irrelevant.

The atheist does not accept a claim based on faith. It requires proof, or in the very least, its the default position one has which remains the same when a newly introduced claim fails.

As for your claim that everyone experiences god twice, that is yet more bullshit on your part where I'm sure you can reach clear up to your wrist in your own behind to retrieve it. Theists tend to have some very good abilities at twisting, bending, or stretching in order to reach a truth that they are interested in.

I'm not sure I'm going to bother with this any further. You've demonstrated yourself as quite the ass clown with your arguments that mirror those flawed ones of willhelm's. One almost wonders how many accounts willhelm might be working under.

There is no point to continue because your garbage ideas have been laid quite openly and plainly above and have been revealed for the logical fallacies they are.

You're a funny one to suggest others have logical failures when you've made the largest logical fallacy of them all. You can deny it all you want; you still have Faith; in fact, I would go as far as to say that you're religious, because you are definitely an evangelist for your faith; dedicated to trying to change other people's minds to believe what you believe. It is Faith to believe that science has all the answers. Even as we speak, science is expanding human perceptions on a daily basis, proving that science itself was insufficient to perceive everything there is out there in the universe. And science will continue to do that until the End of Days, because humankind will never know all ...

You're a funny one to suggest others have logical failures when you've made the largest logical fallacy of them all. You can deny it all you want; you still have Faith; in fact, I would go as far as to say that you're religious, because you are definitely an evangelist for your faith; dedicated to trying to change other people's minds to believe what you believe. It is Faith to believe that science has all the answers. Even as we speak, science is expanding human perceptions on a daily basis, proving that science itself was insufficient to perceive everything there is out there in the universe. And science will continue to do that until the End of Days, because humankind will never know all there is to know in the universe using science alone. There will always be things that are beyond human perception, even with science. Plus, the fact that 90% of scientific "knowledge" is actually Theory, not proven fact.

If you think you don't have Faith, you are just fooling yourself; obviously because you don't really understand what Faith is. Faith is belief in things that you personally cannot directly prove. Can you, personally prove that the earth goes around the sun? No. You can refer to the research of other people, writings in books, and things you have personally observed, but you cannot literally prove that the earth goes around the sun. You have Faith that it does; faith in the reliability and honesty of the people who have done the experiments.

Deny it all you want, but Atheism is a Faith, and you are quite possibly a religious fanatic.