hold on son, I never ever ever would say you don't have the guts to write for yourself, I know better, you have no problem speaking for yourself, as far as i'.m concerend that is.... i didn't know this was the underlying issue, I'm not involved in it son......... i also think you are the king of grammar hands down, i give kudos where they are due, i felt you helped her write the post , it sounded like you , but i didn't pick up that she too is a grammar pro, i don't know her...so it wasn't an insult to you at all actaully, and it was really a question, now I know she too is picky like you LOL ..come on son I have a fondness for you....My apologys if you thought otherwise, i can see now how you would conclude this based on my psot ,b ut it wans't meant in that tone....
Miss wells no insult was intended, in time you will get to know me and vice versa....

hold on son, I never ever ever would say you don't have the guts to write for yourself, I know better, you have no problem speaking for yourself, as far as i'.m concerend that is.... i didn't know this was the underlying issue, I'm not involved in it son......... i also think you are the king of grammar hands down, i give kudos where they are due, i felt you helped her write the post , it sounded like you , but i didn't pick up that she too is a grammar pro, i don't know her...so it wasn't an insult to you at all actaully, and it was really a question, now I know she too is picky like you LOL ..come on son I have a fondness for you....My apologys if you thought otherwise, i can see now how you would conclude this based on my psot ,b ut it wans't meant in that tone....
Miss wells no insult was intended, in time you will get to know me and vice versa....

Perhaps because Atheism is fundamental to logic. No god. Everyone is born Atheist, if Atheism is taken at it's essence to impart no god consciousness. One has to be taught to hold faith in what are religious constructs. Theism asks the rational mind to accommodate itself to the irrational.

Perhaps because Atheism is fundamental to logic. No god. Everyone is born Atheist, if Atheism is taken at it's essence to impart no god consciousness. One has to be taught to hold faith in what are religious constructs. Theism asks the rational mind to accommodate itself to the irrational.

Would you please explain how atheism is fundamental to logic.

"Word Salad". Reminds me of something Skeptic5 said.

Anyway, I think it speaks for itself, if one doesn't want to read a lot about what that means to an Atheist. Logically there is no thing super natural. Therefore, ascribing faith to something super natural as creator of all nature, is illogical. Faith precludes fact. Faith is irrational/ illogical, by definition. Faith in god asks the rational mind to take in all that it believes exists and attribute it's genesis to something that is not known to exist except in the hope that it does, so it is that which is believed to create all that exists.
Illogical.

"Word Salad". Reminds me of something Skeptic5 said.

Anyway, I think it speaks for itself, if one doesn't want to read a lot about what that means to an Atheist. Logically there is no thing super natural. Therefore, ascribing faith to something super natural as creator of all nature, is illogical. Faith precludes fact. Faith is irrational/ illogical, by definition. Faith in god asks the rational mind to take in all that it believes exists and attribute it's genesis to something that is not known to exist except in the hope that it does, so it is that which is believed to create all that exists.
Illogical.

That sounds a little like Dr Spock from Star Trek, except that concept included that all emotion was illogical. I guess my truly honest question would be... why not take that step too?

I see my faith as something emotional and intangible like love or even like envy is. Hm. Neither are really very logical they are emotional.

And ya, I stole that phrase from Skeptic5. No question. In my industry, we have a phrase that's similar, "writers goulash" or "word goulash"... "word salad" is flat catchy. Without a doubt I'll probably continue to use it at work. Skeptic may have started a trend.

The weak don't accept the above definition since they accept that a spiritual world of some kind exists. Although they maintain their disbelief in a deity or deities.

psssst, Mels... it's MR. Spock. Dr. Spock is the guy who wrote all those book that resulted in screwed up kids.

psssst, Mels... it's MR. Spock. Dr. Spock is the guy who wrote all those book that resulted in screwed up kids.

psssst, Mels... it's MR. Spock. Dr. Spock is the guy who wrote all those book that resulted in screwed up kids.

There's a rule in Skepticism: Until you have reason to believe any given thing exists, you must assume its nonexistence.
The rational mind understands the computer now sitting in front of you is a computer. One could call it Salami, and yet it has the tangible mass that is called, computer. religious constructs ask to believe in the intangible, irrational presumption that all that exists, is created by something called god.

But minds thought of god. They even admit they were inspired, but to be inspired is to have thoughts. That doesn't mean any thing thought of us. Calling inspired texts inspired by god is not proof it's god because someone says, god speaks. It means we can think a thing called god made what we know is us, and we know because we trust someone that says to trust them when they say god spoke.

. That doesn't mean it's really there, it means we have faith it is there because we trust one another to keep us believing it is. That's why faith precludes fact. Faith is illogical. super natural philosophies are not reasonable.

There's a rule in Skepticism: Until you have reason to believe any given thing exists, you must assume its nonexistence.

The rational mind understands the computer now sitting in front of you is a computer. One could call it Salami, and yet it has the tangible mass that is called, computer. religious constructs ask to believe in the intangible, irrational presumption that all that exists, is created by something called god.

how would you define screwed up son??? How would you define logic ? The thinking that makes sense based on seeing things from many different perspectives, having explored many many ideas good, bad, otherwise, sort of the ability to discern value from crap IMO how doses one decide based on one view???? This is following not thinking. this may occur at times in life I'm not saying one never just trusts or hopes, but something as serious as crucial as a construct that you are gonna beleive/brand and label yourself with lock stock an barrel i personall would put it under scrutiny and wouldn't be afraid to explore other ways either, i think all values nust be put to the test... if mine is hearty it'll be waiting....I want to be my best so I can be a benefit to all , i want to add to that i change ideas alot new things show up with new info and i let go of the once was easily and move forward..i belive this what GW may mean through my persepctive..................filtering through a persepctive that one beleives based on conjecture is illogical . If soemthing has merit is can be backed up in many ways not just on faith ...this is not a personal attack this is a discussion please do not take this personal...Just try to rap with us...

God forgive you...dont knock Star trek....Say IAMS am I screwed up?? Is PA?? Is anyone else that likes the trek screwed up??<---assuming thats what you mean..if not explain please...remember I am just assuming and I have asked for an explaination

Explain what on earth you mean by this I can go into a lot thinks that have screwed kids heads up...but I dont blame some tv show for crying out loud..or a book

Would you like it if i said the bible it being a book, has screwed up kids heads also?? not nice is it?? it tooooooooooo easy to blame a book eh??

Actually thats incorrect. The word for evil "rah" in the hebrew is used in many different ways in the bible. In he KJV, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil". The other 232 times it is translated as wicked, bad, hurt, harm, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, and trouble. But lets look at the context. "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7). This is refering to natural phenomena NOT creating evil itself.

you can read the whole article here and I use this as my source. http://www.carm.org/diff/Isa_45_7.htm

God forgive you...dont knock Star trek....Say IAMS am I screwed up?? Is PA?? Is anyone else that likes the trek screwed up??<---assuming thats what you mean..if not explain please...remember I am just assuming and I have asked for an explaination

Explain what on earth you mean by this I can go into a lot thinks that have screwed kids heads up...but I dont blame some tv show for crying out loud..or a book

Would you like it if i said the bible it being a book, has screwed up kids heads also?? not nice is it?? it tooooooooooo easy to blame a book eh??

God forgive you...dont knock Star trek....Say IAMS am I screwed up?? Is PA?? Is anyone else that likes the trek screwed up??<---assuming thats what you mean..if not explain please...remember I am just assuming and I have asked for an explaination

Explain what on earth you mean by this I can go into a lot thinks that have screwed kids heads up...but I dont blame some tv show for crying out loud..or a book

Would you like it if i said the bible it being a book, has screwed up kids heads also?? not nice is it?? it tooooooooooo easy to blame a book eh??

Dispite how you think it might be translated.....it still says your god/God has.......homicidal tendencies does it not?
Speaking of Hebrew language and it's translation.....who better to know what or how it was intended to denote than a verse out of the Jewish Tanakh then the very text that your Bible was copied from

Isaiah Chapter 45 Tanakh
7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am HaShem, that doeth all these things.
For extra credit reading: outreachjudaism.org

Dr Spock is this guy

http://www.drspock.com/welcome/0,1791,,00.html
Iamson was not bashing star trek. lol.

I'll let you in on something, Sheri, some of the things I say are just jokes... I could care less about Dr. Spock, I was just joking with Mels.

As for defining logic. My definition is no different from the accepted definition. It's the study of reasoning patterns. Basically, when you study logic you attempt to investigate and understand how arguments and statements are structured by use of inference and other formal systems of thought.

Hey, stop defending me... people are gonna start thinking you're just an extra account of mine

Hey, stop defending me... people are gonna start thinking you're just an extra account of mine

God forgive you...dont knock Star trek....Say IAMS am I screwed up?? Is PA?? Is anyone else that likes the trek screwed up??<---assuming thats what you mean..if not explain please...remember I am just assuming and I have asked for an explaination

Explain what on earth you mean by this I can go into a lot thinks that have screwed kids heads up...but I dont blame some tv show for crying out loud..or a book

Would you like it if i said the bible it being a book, has screwed up kids heads also?? not nice is it?? it tooooooooooo easy to blame a book eh??

so in line with Gw what do you dispute??

ATHEISM

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super� natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.�

See: Atheism

What is interesting to note is that there are also two types of atheists. Called Strong and Weak Atheists.

The weak don't accept the above definition since they accept that a spiritual world of some kind exists. Although they maintain their disbelief in a deity or deities.

An interesting little factoid: Christians were considered atheists by the Roman and pagan religions of the times because they expressed a belief in a single Deity, while denying the existence of others.

I was actually pointing out that she had not really proved that Logic requires Atheism

In the event anyone is interested in a serving of word salad: Is Atheism Logical? (1996 Article)

I was actually pointing out that she had not really proved that Logic requires Atheism

Perhaps because Atheism is fundamental to logic.

Interesting article.

One question though, does a fish who lives in the ocean know that it is being tempted by bait when it sees a fish hook?

Similarly, does a man who lives on this plane of space/time existence have a concept of what is going on in a different plane or dimensional existence?

The answer to these questions is no. So how can man make a decision on the existence of God if he is living in a sphere of existence that precludes him from having 1st hand experience of God?

An atheist defining themselve as something does not make all atheists that thing. Simply look at the definition, that is all that's important. Theism = belief in God A-theism = no belief in God.

It's that simple, atheists do not believe in God. There is no doctrine, there are no guidelines or rules, other than having no belief in God. There are no "strong atheists" or "weak atheists". There are atheists who believe in a spiritual world and who do not. Expanding on atheism with terms like those is simply over-classification. Atheism is not a religion, it is not organized, it is simply a status statement of no belief in God.

Interesting article.

One question though, does a fish who lives in the ocean know that it is being tempted by bait when it sees a fish hook?

Similarly, does a man who lives on this plane of space/time existence have a concept of what is going on in a different plane or dimensional existence?

The answer to these questions is no. So how can man make a decision on the existence of God if he is living in a sphere of existence that precludes him from having 1st hand experience of God?

BM,

Dr Spock is pediatrician who is also a well known author.

Mr Spock is the guy from Star Trek.

2 different people.

I think that is changing...

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism simply means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency.[51] This very broad definition is often justified by reference to the etymology (cf. privative a),[11][52] as well as to the consistent usage of the word by atheists.[53] However, others have dismissed the former justification as an etymological fallacy and the latter on the grounds that majority usage outweighs minority usage.[54]

Although this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; as far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God".[55] More recently, science fiction author George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view:

"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[56]

Smith coined the terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism to avoid confusing these two varieties of atheism. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheism—the form commonly held to be the only true form of atheism—is an absence of theistic belief due to conscious rejection.

Many similar dichotomies have since sprung up to subcategorize the broader definition of atheism. Strong, or positive, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism. A strong atheist consciously rejects theism, and may even argue that certain deities logically cannot exist, although strong atheists rarely claim to have certain knowledge that no deities exist.[57] Weak, or negative, atheism is either the absence of the belief that gods exist (in which case anyone who is not a theist is a weak atheist), or of both the belief that gods exist and the belief that they do not exist (in which case anyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist is a weak atheist).[13][58] While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have existed for some time. The terms negative atheism and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[59] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[60]

Contrary to the common view of theological agnosticism—the denial of knowledge or certainty of the existence of deities—as a "midway point" between theism and atheism, under this understanding of atheism, many agnostics may qualify as weak atheists (cf. agnostic atheism). However, others may be agnostic theists. Many agnostics and/or weak atheists are critical of strong atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal "faith".[61][62]
See: Atheism

Jorel I'll bite whats your experince of god ???? Now I said your experience ?

So how can man make a decision on the existence of God if he is living in a sphere of existence that precludes him from having 1st hand experience of God?

And if you had read that interesting article I think you would have found your question would have been answered for you.

That's exactly what faith is. How man makes a decision on the existence of god when he is living in a sphere of existence that precludes him from having a first hand experience of god.
Atheism recognizes the sphere of existence for what it is and doesn't suppose something defined by men, is the cause for it to exist. Supposition isn't proof that all that exists is from a source as defined by the supposition called god.

well said GW.... I gotta remember that word supposition...
Bm ha ha ha ha ha on pllaying bingo with god LOL...very cute....

But what I'm saying is.. atheism is simply atheism, no matter what the majority of atheists claim it is, it will always remain that the word and title itself means no belief in God. Extending upon that is pointless.. then you're just trying to create a religion out of a non-religious minority.

Dispite how you think it might be translated.....it still says your god/God has.......homicidal tendencies does it not?
Speaking of Hebrew language and it's translation.....who better to know what or how it was intended to denote than a verse out of the Jewish Tanakh then the very text that your Bible was copied from

Isaiah Chapter 45 Tanakh
7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am HaShem, that doeth all these things.
For extra credit reading: outreachjudaism.org

Don't you hate it when someone tries to fit you into a definition just because it's similar to what you believe?

Don't you hate it when someone tries to fit you into a definition just because it's similar to what you believe?

The word for evil "rah" in the hebrew is used in many different ways in the bible. In he KJV, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil". The other 232 times it is translated as wicked, bad, hurt, harm, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, and trouble. But lets look at the context

What this is saying Zandore is that the term evil has many different meanings to it. Its very logical for it to be in the hebrew text because it was intended for the hebrew text and I give you a plus for that most definitely!....but....Evil is translated in many different ways so therefore the word rah or evil, as you explained correctly, has to be aligned to the CONTEXT of what God is saying in his word. In this case he is describing calamity from natural disaster. Here I will post what the study information shows off that website I sent earlier.

From Carm.org

Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena.

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7).

Notice that the context of the verse is dealing with who God is, that it is God who speaks of natural phenomena (sun, light, dark), and it is God who is able to cause "well-being" as well as "calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters, and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures. For example,

"And the Lord said to him, "Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11).
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6).
From the above two verses we can see that the Lord is involved in calamity and problems in the earthly realm. Exodus 4:11 is speaking of human frailty and Amos 3:6 is speaking of woes in a city. It is not a moral evil that God brings, but calamity and distress upon people.
Of course, this raises other questions of why God would do such a thing, which I won't cover here. But, we can trust that whatever God does is just and is used for teaching, guiding, and disciplining His people.
Third, there are other verses that clearly show that God is pure and that He cannot approve of evil.

“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).
"Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13).
We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually, the verse is speaking calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster, of calamity.

Dispite how you think it might be translated.....it still says your god/God has.......homicidal tendencies does it not?

Insult is not a good way to win an argument Zandore and NO i dont believe God has homicidal tendencies. Homicid is MURDER. Killing is not always classified as murder. Now you may not be a fan of war as I am not (nor am i a friend with killing either)but I can honestly say that I am honored to have someone fighting for my country in this current war. Would you call a human that defends his country and people as a murderer?....I would hope not but as I said your beliefs may not be the same as mine but I hope your understanding where im coming from.....

Jorel I'll bite whats your experince of god ???? Now I said your experience ?

That he and the baby had aids is an undisputed fact. The medical records went back 2 years for him and 4 months for the baby.