Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[TubbyTubby]

Nope. Not playing this game. I'm sure you know the story. You posted the graphic. You answer.

I don't play games. I'm not familiar with the story of Thomas (as incredible as that may seem to you) so I'm just saying that you could probably answer your own question better than I could. I could read up on the story of Thomas myself of course and try to work out what his position was but it's easier to ask the experts.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Or explainj how it came into existance because I dont care what you start with you go back far enough and you are left with this question

Exactly bill, who created your god?

 

[psalms 91]

Better yet who started it all? This is part of why I believe in God, it had to start somewhere and God always was

 

[Stravinsk]

Conversation has veered a little off topic and become a variant of the ridiculous analogy of which came first - chicken or egg.

The Universe has spiritual and material laws. This alone is enough to convince me it is not an act of randomness or chance. I have always believed, based on this, that there is a Creator who has set these things in motion or that they are a reflection of that Creator. Before I ever called myself Christian. When I did call myself one. And after I stopped calling myself one.

 

[Lamb]

I don't play games. I'm not familiar with the story of Thomas (as incredible as that may seem to you) so I'm just saying that you could probably answer your own question better than I could. I could read up on the story of Thomas myself of course and try to work out what his position was but it's easier to ask the experts.

I believe the reference is to one of Jesus' disciples who has been labeled "Doubting Thomas" because after Jesus was resurrected and returned, Thomas would not believe it until he could see it for himself.

 

[psalms 91]

Conversation has veered a little off topic and become a variant of the ridiculous analogy of which came first - chicken or egg.

The Universe has spiritual and material laws. This alone is enough to convince me it is not an act of randomness or chance. I have always believed, based on this, that there is a Creator who has set these things in motion or that they are a reflection of that Creator. Before I ever called myself Christian. When I did call myself one. And after I stopped calling myself one.

Yes there is something and I choose to believe it is God

 

[Alithis]

I have quite a few Atheist friends and they constantly pick on Christians but I rarely see them bash any other religion. Is this true of most Atheists?

i have interacted with many so called atheists online.but have met few . of most people we encounter when sharing the gospel i have found them to be the most directly rude beligerant mocking and outright demonicly influenced of any sect of society .

of all interaction with humans they are one form of person i would never aspire to be.

 

[TubbyTubby]

i have interacted with many so called atheists online.but have met few . of most people we encounter when sharing the gospel i have found them to be the most directly rude beligerant mocking and outright demonicly influenced of any sect of society .

of all interaction with humans they are one form of person i would never aspire to be.

Thanks for the compliments.

 

[MoreCoffee]

OK. I can go with that. If I can see something and touch it then I'd be fairly happy with its existence.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing? You didn't answer that questions except perhaps to indicate that you do not know.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Why does anything exist rather than nothing? You didn't answer that questions except perhaps to indicate that you do not know.

You're right, I don't know. Maybe there is no reason for anything to exist, it just does. You're limiting the possible explanations by assuming there must be a reason in the first place.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You're right, I don't know. Maybe there is no reason for anything to exist, it just does. You're limiting the possible explanations by assuming there must be a reason in the first place.

Yes, I am limiting the possible explanations to those which are reasonable rather than irrational. That is the point of asking the question. Several public atheists have observed how important reason is and how unimpressed they are with irrationality. Richard Dawkins makes these matters a central point in his critique of religion generally and Christianity in particular. That you are so quick to allude to possible explanations that do not assume that there must be a reason for why anything exists rather than nothing appears to be conceding the field to the religious who explain existence by reference to God causing all created things to exist.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Yes, I am limiting the possible explanations to those which are reasonable rather than irrational. That is the point of asking the question. Several public atheists have observed how important reason is and how unimpressed they are with irrationality. Richard Dawkins makes these matters a central point in his critique of religion generally and Christianity in particular. That you are so quick to allude to possible explanations that do not assume that there must be a reason for why anything exists rather than nothing appears to be conceding the field to the religious who explain existence by reference to God causing all created things to exist.

Limiting possible explanations for something existing (the universe) is irrational when neither of us knows. My saying that that there doesn't have to be intelligent design behind the cause is hardly irrational.

Your logic in reaching a conclusion that I concede that a god created everything is ......illogical.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Limiting possible explanations for something existing (the universe) is irrational when neither of us knows. My saying that that there doesn't have to be intelligent design behind the cause is hardly irrational.

Your logic in reaching a conclusion that I concede that a god created everything is ......illogical.

But I did not say that there has to be intelligent design, I fear you read that into my remarks. What I did say is that looking for a reason for existence as opposed to nothing existing is rational while affirming that things simply exist and having little or no desire to know why anything exists is the sort of irrationality that Richard Dawkins appears to think is common in religious thinking.

 

[TubbyTubby]

But I did not say that there has to be intelligent design, I fear you read that into my remarks. What I did say is that looking for a reason for existence as opposed to nothing existing is rational while affirming that things simply exist and having little or no desire to know why anything exists is the sort of irrationality that Richard Dawkins appears to think is common in religious thinking.

Oh OK. So there can be a reason why everything exists without an intelligent force behind creation?

You seem to be comparing 'reason for existence' against 'nothing existing' which is irrational, it's not even the same argument.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh OK. So there can be a reason why everything exists without an intelligent force behind creation?

You seem to be comparing 'reason for existence' against 'nothing existing' which is irrational, it's not even the same argument.

I can see that you are not in a frame of mind that will produce an answer to my question. That is okay. I did not expect that you would be able to formulate a rational answer. Ultimately atheism must end in an irrational morass of "I do not knows" and with an unlikely hope of eventually knowing by some as yet unknown means of knowing. This unlikely hope is an article of faith as palpable as any that one can find in religion.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing?

For an atheist the answer is "I do not know" and there is no significant path to an answer offered from within the confines of atheism.

For a Christian the answer is "It pleased almighty and eternal God to create the world and everything in it".

The Christian's answer is ultimately a matter of faith and Christians know it, acknowledge it, praise God for it.

 

[psalms 91]

Even saying I dont know requires a faith in non existance eprsonally I see God all around me in the complexity of creation

 

[TubbyTubby]

If I don't see any evidence for something, what's wrong with "I don't know"? Seems a pretty rational answer to me.

You seem determined to bring every position including atheism down to 'faith' when it has no such requirement. I suspect, because you know the tenuous hold that faith has on understanding anything about reality (ie belief in something without evidence) you want to bring me to the same level.

Doesn't work that way, I need evidence, you don't. Science works through evidence, religion makes assertions and bold claims about reality that it has no way of knowing.

I'm happy to say I don't know the answer until discoveries are made to help describe that answer. I would never take an assertion on faith alone.

 

[psalms 91]

If I don't see any evidence for something, what's wrong with "I don't know"? Seems a pretty rational answer to me.

You seem determined to bring every position including atheism down to 'faith' when it has no such requirement. I suspect, because you know the tenuous hold that faith has on understanding anything about reality (ie belief in something without evidence) you want to bring me to the same level.

Doesn't work that way, I need evidence, you don't. Science works through evidence, religion makes assertions and bold claims about reality that it has no way of knowing.

I'm happy to say I don't know the answer until discoveries are made to help describe that answer. I would never take an assertion on faith alone.

What evidence? To the best of my knowledge all they have is theories, no evidence at all. Just as I can say that my theory is God and the evidence is all around us.

 

[TubbyTubby]

A theory is not what you think it means then. Observation of evidence is always the starting point for science.

A theory is not an assertion or a guess as in your example above.

 

[psalms 91]

if it was sound and founded on evidence then it would be a fact, changing the definition doesnt work with me, a theory is a theory