Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

Well, define it.

One would assume that if one talks about something, then one knows what s/he talks about.

That is why every discussion, polemic, or thought should begin with definitions of terminology, else its bound to end up in situation where everyone talks about something else.

Its impossible for us to prove that God nor free will exists.

Jojo: Level and type of proof depends on the claim. The claim that Jim has £20 in his pocket is on a different level from the claim there is a supernatural all powerful entity who cares about my sex life.

Zdenek: My claim is that the theistic god, which i define as any omnimax god (such as the christian and muslim gods), is impossible. I make no claims about the existance of the deistic god (an initiator which doesnt have inclination to act) other than I see no reason why one is necessary. I think this defines 'god' fairly well, I am happier to discuss the theistic than the deistic god.

Furthermore, I will define free will as a property of conciousness, which is an emergent phenomenum of the processes of the brain. Free will is an expression of the experience of self. I know I exist. I make choices based on prediction of consequences of actions I may take. The action of making the choice is free will.

Yes, a matter of definitions, and in such case anything is possible indeed.

Mr Powers, you said "What I dont understand about suffering is this: If god is all loving, why would he allow us to suffer at all? Apparantly because we brought it on ourselves by exercising free will. But what kind of a god punishes so completely for such a minor and arbitrary crime? " It was not so much what they did, but WHY they did it that was wrong. According to the biblical account God is NOT punishing. He is just allowing humans for the time being to reap the consequences of their own decisions, which is absolutely different from him causing it, or punishing humans.

God had the power to destroy the three rebels Satan, Adam, and Eve. God was unquestionably stronger than they were. But Satan did not question God's power. Instead, he questioned God's right to rule. The issue affected all creatures having free will. They needed to see that the gift of free will must be used properly within the bounds of physical, moral, and spi

Evidence, and proof, are two different things.

I don't think one can prove that God exists--it's a red herring, you can't prove that anything exists. You can't prove that a chair sitting right in front of you exists. You can give evidence, but if someone doesn't want to accept the evidence they can argue it every step of the way. Descartes, Berkley, Hume, gave good arguments for this.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Cause and Effect. For example, prove that black holes exist! You cant see them, you cant measure them, for if anything gets close enuf to measure them, it cannot come back, black holes are unobservable and unmeasurable.<!-/Quote-!>

An erroneous statement, and the analogy is also erroneous by extrapolation of the fact. Black holes have in fact been directly observed. Though it is an intriguing conclusion that you draw, and it links back in to the recurring theme of God being a personal creature.

What you have basically said is that you see a God because you want to see a God.

As for dark matter, that remains a convenient theory. Much like God it simply fits one particular interpretation of the nature of the universe, and it will not be considered "fact" until direct observation has been made.

Proving the existance of a creator God becomes someth

Serpant: If god created the universe, it created the 'consequences of their own decisions'. God apparantly set a test in which humanity was doomed to fail. It seems to me that this god character is an egomanical master who wants unswerving obedience what ever the cost.

You then make a claim which I have heard before, but never seriously. That god can see the future but chooses not to. Are you serious in this claim? Does something which chooses not to see into the future count as omniscient? I dont think so. Why would it be necessary to put mankind through the suffering if you can just choose to see into the future and settle the arguement? Isnt that the action of a sadist?

You havent answered the purpose of the soul question, quite. Besides, at what point in our development from more primative ancestors did Humans begin to be inbued with souls? Was it after we left the trees or before we developed complex language or when we creat

Ok... one comment and this thread can float right back to the bottom:

NOBODY on Earth will argue with me that DNA is programming.

Programming demands a programmer.

(unless of course we believe a tornado can go through a junk yard and assemble a completely built, ready to fly, fully fueled Boeing 777 complete with pilot. it's like saying Simcountry came together on it's own)

I think you all already know I believe that the evidence says that things tend towards disorder, not order.

Can you be a atheist yet still believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord?

Edit:

Sorry. just woken up. I don't think what I have written makes any sense. For it is up to me what I believe. Ignore me

Reminds me of a passage from a poem

Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth
didst make,
And who with Eden didst devise the
Snake:
For all the Sin wherewith the Face
of man
Is blacken'd, Mans Forgiveness give
---and take!

Farmer Bob, that poem you quoted.
Was that by Rudyard Kipling?

truely he is one of the best

Frontier Arithmetic: Now that poem should have been required reading for Mr Bush before he committed troops to Iraq & Afghanistan