• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Atheism is a superstition."

PDoug said:
I'd have to say that materialism cannot be true, because anyone who has legitimate faith, displays fundamental goodness - which indicates that the person has within him, unassailable perfection. Now if a person has perfection, and the material universe is imperfect, that aspect of the person must come from beyond our material universe - indicating, as I stated before, there must be something beyond matter.

Regarding atheism, it is definitely a belief system, as many of its tenets cannot be proven, and in fact, many of its tenets have been disproven - but its subscribers still believe in the system. To show the irrationality of atheism, its subscribers, while mired in imperfection, try to determine the truth about things, when their imperfect minds can only produce imperfect thoughts and solutions, which can be anything but the truth. The only shot atheists and everyone else has at knowing the truth, is by attaining perfection; and only beings fitting the description of God can supply it to them. Therefore mankind’s only rational choice, is to roll the dice and have faith, and see if it does in fact produce the perfection it claims. If a person does this, and sees that faith does indeed produce perfection, then he will realize that it is the only possible option there is, to escape the imperfection of this world, and to know the truth.
Click to expand...



Christopher Hitchens said:
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...


With that out of the way, has there ever been a study examining the similarities between the ramblings of faith heads and crack heads?
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
Name one.
Click to expand...


Atheists claim there is no God, yet provide no proof that this is so. Yet all around us, we see the pattern of things requiring intelligence to establish and maintain them, and that more intelligence is required to establish more complex things. (We see this among humans, animals, plants, and invisible microorganisms.) So instead of atheists saying that it is likely the above observable pattern extends to all things everywhere (requiring a being matching the description of God establishing and maintaining our complex universe); atheists suggest that the pattern somehow does not extend everywhere, yet offer no proof that their contention is true.

Also atheists’ suggestion that the truth can be arrived merely through rational discourse, overlook the fact that pure rational discourse can only take place by beings who are themselves pure - because everything a being produces, is laced with his own qualities. This of course means that imperfect man can never arrive at the perfect truth.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
What caused god?
Click to expand...


The Father is the First Cause. He Himself was never caused. Rather, He is the starting point of all things. (So say credible texts - which can be relied on, because they are credible. Also their claims are consistent with observable phenomena.)
 
Last edited:
PDoug said:
atheists suggest that the pattern somehow does not extend everywhere, yet offer no proof that their contention is true.
Click to expand...
PDoug said:
The Father is the First Cause. He Himself was never caused. Rather, He is the starting point of all things. (So say credible texts - which can be relied on, because they are credible, and their claims are consistent with observable phenomena.)
Click to expand...

Hilarious.
 
gph said:
With that out of the way, has there ever been a study examining the similarities between the ramblings of faith heads and crack heads?
Click to expand...


Since when is reason and logic not evidence? If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, is it unreasonable to state that A is greater than C?
 
PDoug said:
Since when is reason and logic not evidence? If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, is it unreasonable to state that A is greater than C?
Click to expand...
Yes. So far A is a baseless assertion.
 
Nihilianth said:
The lack of evidence for something, doesn't mean it IS evidence that something is not real.

You cannot say "the lack of evidence that you killed someone, is evidence that you didn't kill someone." That is redundant. It just simply means there is a lack of evidence. It neither means that you did, nor does it mean you didn't kill someone.

Western countries have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." That doesn't mean a person is not, in fact, a murderer. It doesn't mean someone "can't" be accused of murder. If that were the case, there would never be any charges of murder brought against anyone. It wold mean there would be no investigation, at the very least.

Now, the difference is, you can actually prove whether someone is a murderer or not, for we live and die by the very laws of nature. Since God created the Universe and the laws of nature, He sort of "lives outside" of those laws. Therefore, there is no possible way to prove or disprove anything. I just happen to believe in God, and you happen to not believe in Him.
Click to expand...

Um...yes they might be a murderer, but we don't accept the claim that they are without evidence. You can claim that they are, and accuse them, but I don't have accept the claim and even justifibly ignore the claim if you have absolutely no evidence at all. I fail to see how this helps your argument.
 
PDoug said:
The Father is the First Cause. He Himself was never caused. Rather, He is the starting point of all things. (So say credible texts - which can be relied on, because they are credible. Also their claims are consistent with observable phenomena.)
Click to expand...

Excellent. Therefore you agree that there exists a set of things that can be uncaused. Since "god" is an unknown entity which you have posited exists without evidence, we can instead remove god and replace him/her/it in the set of things that are uncaused by "the universe" and be done with it.

Deal ?
 
Belz... said:
Excellent. Therefore you agree that there exists a set of things that can be uncaused. Since "god" is an unknown entity which you have posited exists without evidence, we can instead remove god and replace him/her/it in the set of things that are uncaused by "the universe" and be done with it.

Deal ?
Click to expand...


The evidence of God's existence, is that those who have legitimate faith, produce a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness, which can only be produced by beings consistent with the description of God. Now if these beings (God) exist and are good, it means that they are also truthful - since truthfulness is a quality of goodness. Therefore God's claim that the Father is the First Cause, and is the only causeless being, can be taken as true - because God speaks the truth, and no lie exists within Him / Them.

The above is how you are able to distinguish godly claims from others, who do not exhibit incorruptible goodness, where their very natures call into question, the veracity of their claims.
 
PDoug said:
Atheists claim there is no God, yet provide no proof that this is so. Yet all around us, we see the pattern of things requiring intelligence to establish and maintain them,
Click to expand...

The main mistaken assumption you're making is erroneously assuming that these things require an intelligence behind them for them to exist. Bottom line is: They don't.
Educate yourself on science before making caricature assumptions about the origin of things.
 
PDoug said:
The evidence of God's existence, is that those who have legitimate faith, produce a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness, which can only be produced by beings consistent with the description of God. Now if these beings (God) exist and are good, it means that they are also truthful - since truthfulness is a quality of goodness. Therefore God's claim that the Father is the First Cause, and is the only causeless being, can be taken as true - because God speaks the truth, and no lie exists within Him / Them.

The above is how you are able to distinguish godly claims from others, who do not exhibit incorruptible goodness, where their very natures call into question, the veracity of their claims.
Click to expand...

Are you one of those people?
 
PDoug said:
The evidence of God's existence, is that those who have legitimate faith, produce a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness, which can only be produced by beings consistent with the description of God. Now if these beings (God) exist and are good, it means that they are also truthful - since truthfulness is a quality of goodness. Therefore God's claim that the Father is the First Cause, and is the only causeless being, can be taken as true - because God speaks the truth, and no lie exists within Him / Them.

The above is how you are able to distinguish godly claims from others, who do not exhibit incorruptible goodness, where their very natures call into question, the veracity of their claims.
Click to expand...

Name one.
 
PDoug said:
The evidence of God's existence, is that those who have legitimate faith, produce a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness
Click to expand...

I see no evidence of this. How do you determine what is a legitimate faith or not, if not by the acts you already decided are due to such a faith ?

If you cannot qualify your statement, then I take it you concede my previous point.

Now if these beings (God) exist and are good
Click to expand...

Not according to the old testament.

Therefore God's claim that the Father is the First Cause, and is the only causeless being, can be taken as true - because God speaks the truth, and no lie exists within Him / Them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this does not follow. You seem to be building your premises from your conclusions.

The above is how you are able to distinguish godly claims from others, who do not exhibit incorruptible goodness, where their very natures call into question, the veracity of their claims.
Click to expand...

I take that to mean that buddhism is more true than christianity.
 
Last edited:
PDoug said:
I'd have to say that materialism cannot be true, because anyone who has legitimate faith, displays fundamental goodness - which indicates that the person has within him, unassailable perfection. Now if a person has perfection, and the material universe is imperfect, that aspect of the person must come from beyond our material universe - indicating, as I stated before, there must be something beyond matter.

Regarding atheism, it is definitely a belief system, as many of its tenets cannot be proven, and in fact, many of its tenets have been disproven - but its subscribers still believe in the system. To show the irrationality of atheism, its subscribers, while mired in imperfection, try to determine the truth about things, when their imperfect minds can only produce imperfect thoughts and solutions, which can be anything but the truth. The only shot atheists and everyone else has at knowing the truth, is by attaining perfection; and only beings fitting the description of God can supply it to them. Therefore mankind’s only rational choice, is to roll the dice and have faith, and see if it does in fact produce the perfection it claims. If a person does this, and sees that faith does indeed produce perfection, then he will realize that it is the only possible option there is, to escape the imperfection of this world, and to know the truth.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I am an atheist and I only have one tenet. Show me irrefutable proof of a god and I will believe. That's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom