Atheists believe....?

[commonsense]

Yes, you could say anything you like to me, but what I have said is supported by the word of God.

glorydaz...Since you said I can say anything I like to you....what is this word of God that supports what you say?

 

[commonsense]

Yes, you could say anything you like to me, but what I have said is supported by the word of God.

As you refer to the word of God, that brings into question the origin and veracity of scripture....Is it truly the inerrant word of God to man? Be prepared

 

[Lon]

Not trying to but in, just think of these as added support and thoughts:

Incorrect. I'm not promoting or defending my 'beliefs' at all. I'm responding to your OP where you claim atheists have an active disbelief in god. I'm saying many atheists have no more belief or disbelief in god than when considering the existence of leprechauns. It's not even considered.

Romans 1:19,20 declares you must know a God exists as 'common' sense. You can ignore it, but that's not the same thing, truth can be suppressed, but then my cohorts in thread are correct, it isn't passive, but active as such.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of pushy nutbar atheists out there just as there are many Christian nutbars. I mean read the posts on TOL for a day.

Similar to above, you are well-aware of Dawkin's God Delusion and likely read it.
Prosecutor: "You knew it was going on, but chose to ignore it! Despite the consequences it caused and the consequences of this court?"
Witness: "Yes."

 

[Lon]

Again, not butting in and this needs no redress but is commentary as you guys go along:

Jonahdog has an excellent point-"Interesting. Is that belief a belief in the Biblical god? Or is it fuzzy--a belief in "something"?"
I could say to you glorydaz....You do have an active disbelief in Allah, because you were created with the knowledge of Allah IN YOU. You did not believe..... etc etc or Vishnu or Zeus or Flying Spaghetti Monster

Yes, and am accountable for the disbelief, especially if I lived in a Muslim country. They are not nice to Christians. So yes, it may 'seem' passive, but I have, even more so these days, an active disbelief in the Muslim version, as do you. What is the difference? An 'active' disbelief requires something. Both scripture and being in a Christian dominated world surely requires an active disbelief. Not so the fsm or the leprechaun, but it is a cognizant disbelief. IOW, I acknowledge that I had to think about their existence in order to 'disbelieve.' That too is commonsense.

 

[Lon]

Also commentary, no need for rebuttal or response:

As you refer to the word of God, that brings into question the origin and veracity of scripture....Is it truly the inerrant word of God to man? Be prepared

Yes. I find all queries contra-wise of no report, and yep, prepared. Don't just deluge the ramblings of a thoughtless atheist website. Those kinds of platitudes aren't worth the dime their cyberspace is printed on. 2 Timothy 4:2 Start with Noah's Ark or something (I hope thats not the one).

(Sorry GD, didn't mean to bust in, you are well capable)

My point? (you can ignore all of this and call it thread support) There is no credible support for the fsm or leprechaun. None. Not true Muslim or Christianity. The atheist must/necessarily carry an active denial, especially the ones that purposely frequent TOL :doh:

 

[glorydaz]

glorydaz...Since you said I can say anything I like to you....what is this word of God that supports what you say?

I supported what I said with a verse from the Bible.

As you refer to the word of God, that brings into question the origin and veracity of scripture....Is it truly the inerrant word of God to man? Be prepared

It may bring into question the veracity of scripture for you, but I have no such problem understanding that God has given us the Bible, and every word is given by inspiration of Him.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

 

[commonsense]

Romans 1:19,20 declares you must know a God exists as 'common' sense. You can ignore it, but that's not the same thing, truth can be suppressed, but then my cohorts in thread are correct, it isn't passive, but active as such.

Lon- you're self-confessedly a pretty smart guy...I mean you never let up....you must understand that as a non-believer, your scriptures don't matter to me any more than if I quoted the Bhagavad Gita to you

 

[glorydaz]

Yes. I find all queries contra-wise of no report, and yep, prepared. Don't just deluge the ramblings of a thoughtless atheist website. Those kinds of platitudes aren't worth the dime their cyberspace is printed on. 2 Timothy 4:2 Start with Noah's Ark or something (I hope thats not the one).

(Sorry GD, didn't mean to bust in, you are well capable)

No problem....I'm slower than you are.

 

[glorydaz]

Lon- you're self-confessedly a pretty smart guy...I mean you never let up....you must understand that as a non-believer, your scriptures don't matter to me any more than if I quoted the Bhagavad Gita to you

Then why are you here? Are you trying to pretend that you have no interest in finding the truth? Perhaps you are protesting too much.....:think:

 

[commonsense]

test

 

[commonsense]

Then why are you here? Are you trying to pretend that you have no interest in finding the truth? Perhaps you are protesting too much.....:think:

Yeah you're right glorydaz... perceptive; only the dolts aren't interested in finding the truth

 

[Lon]

Romans 1:19,20 declares you must know a God exists as 'common' sense. You can ignore it, but that's not the same thing, truth can be suppressed, but then my cohorts in thread are correct, it isn't passive, but active as such.

Lon- you're self-confessedly a pretty smart guy...I mean you never let up....you must understand that as a non-believer

As I said, you can ignore my comments. I realize I'm butting in.

I don't let up, agree.

your scriptures don't matter to me any more than if I quoted the Bhagavad Gita to you

Not true for only one reason: God says that they cannot return void. Truth, for all of us, either hardens us or softens us. We accept it, or reject it or some combination(not a contradiction, but I might have to explain).

The precision of the universe may not demand your attention to details, but it does demand a logic, a truth. 2+2=4 does not demand your belief. You may suspend it, but it will necessarily be an active disbelief when you go to the store.

The beauty of the universe, likewise demands your (my) attention. You 'can' ignore the beauty of it. In fact, it is the rare person that stops and goes "Whoah! Look at that tree today!" Change to it is usually what causes attention. When you look at the sunset different than it has been you pay attention, but an atheist, after saying 'no God' actively will not thank anybody for it. He/she feels against the nature of precision, against the nature of beauty, that there is no 'meaning' to it. That's crazy. It is just as GD gave in the latter verses.

So, whether or not scripture 'means' something to you, is your choice. We 'can' suppress truth.

your scriptures don't matter to me any more than if I quoted the Bhagavad Gita to you

As humans, we appreciate what is 'true.' It is innate to whatever degree we can comprehend it. If your quote rings true, it would have significance regardless if I acknowledge it or not.

 

[commonsense]

Then why are you here? Are you trying to pretend that you have no interest in finding the truth? Perhaps you are protesting too much.....:think:

Who asked "What is truth?"

 

[Lon]

Who asked "What is truth?"

Peanut gallery comment: Well, it definitely shows your disbelief isn't passive, doesn't it? You didn't 'pass' TOL today.

 

[commonsense]

As I said, you can ignore my comments. I realize I'm butting in.
Not at all, I'm sure all participants appreciate your comments


Not true for only one reason: God says that they cannot return void. Truth, for all of us, either hardens us or softens us. We accept it, or reject it or some combination(not a contradiction, but I might have to explain).

Look Lon it has to be obvious to you that just because you accept this God says stuff, that doesn't make it true to modern thinking people. You need to come up with real arguments- not resort to bronze age goat-herd fables.

The precision of the universe may not demand your attention to details, but it does demand a logic, a truth. 2+2=4 does not demand your belief. You may suspend it, but it will necessarily be an active disbelief when you go to the store.

The beauty of the universe, likewise demands your (my) attention. You 'can' ignore the beauty of it. In fact, it is the rare person that stops and goes "Whoah! Look at that tree today!" Change to it is usually what causes attention. When you look at the sunset different than it has been you pay attention, but an atheist, after saying 'no God' actively will not thank anybody for it. He/she feels against the nature of precision, against the nature of beauty, that there is no 'meaning' to it. That's crazy. It is just as GD gave in the latter verses.

So, whether or not scripture 'means' something to you, is your choice. We 'can' suppress truth.


As humans, we appreciate what is 'true.' It is innate to whatever degree we can comprehend it. If your quote rings true, it would have significance regardless if I acknowledge it or not.

 

[commonsense]

d'oh

 

[Lon]

d'oh

Another peanut gallery comment: :idunno: Formatting problem or thread comment?

I think I can help, I'll edit after I pop it up:

As I said, you can ignore my comments. I realize I'm butting in.

Not at all, I'm sure all participants appreciate your comments

Not true for only one reason: God says that they cannot return void. Truth, for all of us, either hardens us or softens us. We accept it, or reject it or some combination(not a contradiction, but I might have to explain).

Look Lon it has to be obvious to you that just because you accept this God says stuff, that doesn't make it true to modern thinking people. You need to come up with real arguments- not resort to bronze age goat-herd fables.

Simply calling something goat-herd fables doesn't make them less valuable. We still have Aesop's Fables and value them. Fiction? Well, we still use the OT for archeology. Regardless of how incredulous you find it, you must necessarily find it partially credulous. You'll not say that with the BoM or other religious literature. Even I recognize the Quran has factual information. You cannot uncritically pass the Quran off as a work of fiction. It is not. I may not be true (taking an agnostic position momentarily) but it isn't fiction. We actually find it in the nonfiction section of a Library. Leprechauns? :nono: Fsm? Not really in the library which should reveal something to problematic atheistic connection.

The precision of the universe may not demand your attention to details, but it does demand a logic, a truth. 2+2=4 does not demand your belief. You may suspend it, but it will necessarily be an active disbelief when you go to the store.

The beauty of the universe, likewise demands your (my) attention. You 'can' ignore the beauty of it. In fact, it is the rare person that stops and goes "Whoah! Look at that tree today!" Change to it is usually what causes attention. When you look at the sunset different than it has been you pay attention, but an atheist, after saying 'no God' actively will not thank anybody for it. He/she feels against the nature of precision, against the nature of beauty, that there is no 'meaning' to it. That's crazy. It is just as GD gave in the latter verses.

So, whether or not scripture 'means' something to you, is your choice. We 'can' suppress truth.


As humans, we appreciate what is 'true.' It is innate to whatever degree we can comprehend it. If your quote rings true, it would have significance regardless if I acknowledge it or not.

 

[Crucible]

There are two different types of atheists:

a) one who is indifferent about the existence or nonexistence of God

b) one who has a visible and progressive stance against the notion of the existence of God

As far as 'agnosticism', it's best to not even try to separate the two. They are virtually synonymous. It's an intellectual sin to make lines where there are none- you'll never see an 'agnostic' any different than a 'skeptic' atheist, it is however a convenient word for those who wish to be deceitful in their actual standing.

 

[commonsense]

d'oh

Look....I swear I'm not dumber than the average dumb guy...just getting used to this software and I will....so help me

 

[patrick jane]

There are two different types of atheists:

a) one who is indifferent about the existence or nonexistence of God

b) one who has a visible and progressive stance against the notion of the existence of God

As far as 'agnosticism', it's best to not even try to separate the two. They are virtually synonymous. It's an intellectual sin to make lines where there are none.

Both types hope for no afterlife deep down inside. :devil: