Atheism is incompatible with science

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

We know Walker isn't preaching any God that most would call God, he is quite atypical. Will is more conventional, yes, he has doubts. Do I have doubts, yep, I don't have anything but doubts, I know nothing of God, but I do understand why the idea arises. To fill a blank in our perception of reality. I don't think any speculation about it can be useful. I don't know what fills that blank, but I am certain it cannot be understood by the rational mind. And I am not blaming whatever is there, for starving African children.

I can guarantee that Walker will say he has zero doubt about anything!

Everyone has doubt, if they don't they are a fool in my opinion. 

All speculation is good, it opens doors and avenues of thought that otherwise would not have been brought to the fore.

I have to admit that anyone proclaiming that God's doesn't exist on the back of 'science' or 'evidence' knows nothing about either and the exact same should be said for those who proclaim that God's exist.

Edited March 29, 2019 by danydandan

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

So you're not going to answer any of my questions? That's typical of your pompous attitude. Assert your position and disregard opposing ideas.

You're going to fall back on the tactic of asking what would constitute evidence of a god?

I don't know what would constitute "enough" evidence of a god, but none of the proposed evidence so far has convinced me.

Possibly a personal visit with god. 

A being that could sufficiently answer each and every question, with clarity and supporting evidence, about existence and the universe.

I asked you at least half a dozen questions that you simply ignored and moved on from. If you don't wish to have an actual dialog, I don't see myself wasting any more time on you.

You appear to be prepared to "interrogate" God ? Are you off your rocker ? " A being that could sufficiently answer each and every question, with clarity and supporting evidence, about existence and the universe." You are an egotistical lunatic, but don't worry, you aren't the only one here with this attitude. That I have learnt !

[onlookerofmayhem]

12 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You appear to be prepared to "interrogate" God ? Are you off your rocker ? " A being that could sufficiently answer each and every question, with clarity and supporting evidence, about existence and the universe." You are an egotistical lunatic, but don't worry, you aren't the only one here with this attitude. That I have learnt !

Of course I'm prepared to "interrogate" any being that claimed to be god. I would consider it more of a clarification or a lesson. Wouldn't God be able to easily and sufficiently answer any question I have? Wouldn't it be his responsibility as my creator to provide answers to my inquiries? 

Now I'm an "egotistical lunatic" for having aspirations to be able to pose questions to god if I encountered it? I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. 

He already knows what and why I've done in my life. I don't see him interrogating me on my motivations. I think I'd be entitled to an explanation of the nuances of his creation. 

On that note, I'm done with you. All you've done is ignore my questions and attempt to insult me. Although that's a futile attempt because you don't know me.

I've tried to be considerate, answer your questions and continue the dialog. You don't seem interested in reciprocity.

 

[Will Due]

 

For the record @danydandan and @Habitat, do I have doubts?

Of course I do! 

I have doubts that I fail to do what is true. But as time goes on, these doubts are becoming less and less, because of who is guiding me. 

 

I'll let him speak to you, what he speaks to me:

 

Having started out on the way of life everlasting, having accepted the assignment and received your orders to advance, do not fear the dangers of human forgetfulness and mortal inconstancy, do not be troubled with doubts of failure or by perplexing confusion, do not falter and question your status and standing, for in every dark hour, at every crossroad in the forward struggle, the Spirit of Truth will always speak, saying, “This is the way.”

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I think about those who point out how some Athiests and some Agnostics I guess, that say, ‘I’ll believe when the evidence knocks on my door’ type of answer or statement, and at the least feel confusion to them saying this. 

I have often felt, while observing this and doing it myself, that it’s not a unprovoked statement that just happens to be said, but a provoked reaction to those who approach them. So, I think, it’s reflected that Atheists want to believe and have conditions. In which, I think it’s actually Atheists trying to stop those who approach them from even wasting their time. I often wonder, how is this turned around and they’re observed to be wishing to believe (with conditions)? Especially, when I see it as those with responses to those who want them to believe. 

My feeling in this summed up feeling, Atheists don’t really wish it, but Theists wishing it for them. 

I have yet to see most those who don’t believe, actually just starting a debate or just saying they actually want to believe showing others how. It’s usually observed by me, them cutting off those who even have the audacity to try to push someone else who thinks they know better about someone else, then that someone else. I wonder, why can’t these Theists see that? 

As a particular unique Theist myself, I feel we all have a pretty good understanding of ourselves and what we believe and understand, even if some overdose it on somethings. Until a time that language and vocabularies of languages change to have believers see and show proof of their beliefs, one is just believing for their own reason, and others have reasons why they don’t. 

So, in other words, it’s not a wish to really believe. It’s to stop others thinking they have a right to impose a belief when there’s no chance in showing its more than a belief. 

Of course, this is all based on how I see it and feeling  as to why some seem to not understand the full meaning as to why others say what they say. 

If this makes sense. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

For the record @danydandan and @Habitat, do I have doubts?

Of course I do! 

I have doubts that I fail to do what is true. But as time goes on, these doubts are becoming less and less, because of who is guiding me. 

 

I'll let him speak to you, what he speaks to me:

 

Having started out on the way of life everlasting, having accepted the assignment and received your orders to advance, do not fear the dangers of human forgetfulness and mortal inconstancy, do not be troubled with doubts of failure or by perplexing confusion, do not falter and question your status and standing, for in every dark hour, at every crossroad in the forward struggle, the Spirit of Truth will always speak, saying, “This is the way.”

 

 

Would you believe that the spirits of Queen Elizabeth the first, Carrie Fisher, and Robin Williams, speak through me? 

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Would you believe that the spirits of Queen Elizabeth the first, Carrie Fisher, and Robin Williams, speak through me? 

 

Are you asking because you have doubts about who speaks through you?

 

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Will Due

[Stubbly_Dooright]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

10 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Would you believe that the spirits of Queen Elizabeth the first, Carrie Fisher, and Robin Williams, speak through me? 

 

Are you asking because you have doubts about who speaks through you?

No, I’m asking because I have doubts of who you claim speaks to you for you to use them to speak it here. 

[danydandan]

22 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

For the record @danydandan and @Habitat, do I have doubts?

Of course I do! 

I have doubts that I fail to do what is true. But as time goes on, these doubts are becoming less and less, because of who is guiding me. 

 

I'll let him speak to you, what he speaks to me:

 

Having started out on the way of life everlasting, having accepted the assignment and received your orders to advance, do not fear the dangers of human forgetfulness and mortal inconstancy, do not be troubled with doubts of failure or by perplexing confusion, do not falter and question your status and standing, for in every dark hour, at every crossroad in the forward struggle, the Spirit of Truth will always speak, saying, “This is the way.”

 

 

Any of them doubts about the existence of God?

[pallidin]

The universe revolves around ME, so there.

[Will Due]

19 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Any of them doubts about the existence of God?

 

Not a one.

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I would think, anyone who has no doubt what so ever of what they believe, would be able to answer all good well point out questions to them, and not avoid them. Avoiding them, to me, seems to show doubt right there. 

I think, belief has a lot of room for doubt. When it stops having the ability to be doubted, then it’s something true, not a belief. 

I always have doubt within my belief. That’s why I know that’s between me, and not right or correct to assume I can pass it off to anyone else. 

Metaphors, riddles, analogies, can always be interpreted differently person to person, and would not be a good plausible way of showing proof. 

This reminds me of the analogy of some religious leader who tries to show someone who doesn’t think they should attend services, by separating a single ember from a fire to show a group mentality keeps it alive. But the thing is, why should a fire continue if it needs a whole group and it burns out as a single amber. I think it can be proven that it’s worth it, if the ember continues to glow and spark by itself. 

Cults and such could be a good way to describe these fires being something that cannot worth to continue to burn, if sole embers are separated and can cool down and lose it’s spark. 

[pallidin]

 

[pallidin]

There is a God, and very much a supernatural component of our reality. 

Deal with it.

[pallidin]

Stochastic resonance.

Familiar with military signal analysis, what this basically does is to overlay noise on a suspect signal to uncover the root.

This technique is also used in some paranormal investigations with regards to EVP recordings.

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Not a one.

 

 

So why are you preaching to the choir about it/him/her?

Using @Habitats logic, you should not be discussing stuff your absolutely certain about?

[Will Due]

45 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So why are you preaching to the choir about it/him/her?

Using @Habitats logic, you should not be discussing stuff your absolutely certain about?

 

Hab's logic?

Do you use what's Hab's? 

 

 

[Will Due]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

So, I think, it’s reflected that Atheists want to believe and have conditions. In which, I think it’s actually Atheists trying to stop those who approach them from even wasting their time. I often wonder, how is this turned around and they’re observed to be wishing to believe (with conditions)? Especially, when I see it as those with responses to those who want them to believe. 

 

All atheists believe.

 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

All atheists believe.

 

 

In general? yes. 

In god? no.

[Will Due]

17 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

In general? yes. 

In god? no.

 

Exactly.

But believing IN God, is not the same exactly, as believing God. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Will Due

[onlookerofmayhem]

18 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Exactly.

But believing IN God, is not the same exactly, as believing God. 

 

 

Well, yeah.

Those are two separate ideas.

One would need to believe in god in order to believe god.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

28 minutes ago, Will Due said:

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

So, I think, it’s reflected that Atheists want to believe and have conditions. In which, I think it’s actually Atheists trying to stop those who approach them from even wasting their time. I often wonder, how is this turned around and they’re observed to be wishing to believe (with conditions)? Especially, when I see it as those with responses to those who want them to believe. 

 

All atheists believe.

Are you going to narrow this down to mean all Atheists believe in God or shall I?

If not, and you're trying to point out of Atheists believing in varying manners in which that word is used, than I'll tell you, that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I would think you would see it at first read, that I meant that atheists assume they want to believe in God and want evidence. That is what I am pointing out in my frustrations of what I do see. 

This is not about Atheists believe in all sorts of things and use the term believing in varying ways, this is about Atheists believing in God and wanting to do so in accordance to what Theists think. In my observations, they Atheists don't. believe in God) Frankly, I think it's that simple to see that. Asking for evidence is the cut off for Theists to stop, because they have yet to show the evidence to allow Atheists to 'honestly' believe in a God that Theists want them to believe. 

I'm talking about a response to a provoked approach that shouldn't be approached in the first place. 

So, your response post to my post, has no bearing to what I said. It just drags the attention away from the simplified point to include points not attributed to my first point. 

So, for me to respect your answers, stay on point. Don't muddle it with inconsequential thinking. 

 

36 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

39 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

All atheists believe.

 

 

In general? yes. 

In god? no.

Exactly.

Why couldn't that be understood the first time?

20 minutes ago, Will Due said:

37 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

In general? yes. 

In god? no.

 

Exactly.

But believing IN God, is not the same exactly, as believing God. 

Despite again, I would find this point inconsequential to the other point, you would need God to be there to believe him. And considering, there really hasn't been any objective examples of God being there, it's only left to subjective examples of believing in him. 

So, yeah, it's not the same, but the first part goes away, when you have proof of the second part. 

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

There is a God, and very much a supernatural component of our reality. 

Deal with it.

It's called imagination.  Deal with it.

[Will Due]

 

When a person decides to believe something, sometimes, God is involved. Regardless if there's belief IN him.

 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

11 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

When a person decides to believe something, sometimes, God is involved. Regardless if there's belief IN him.

 

 

That entails presuming God exists in the first place.

You believe God exists and it's possible for him to be involved in belief some way.

You are simply asserting that God is involved in beliefs because you think as such.

I can simply assert God is never involved because I don't believe it exists. 

Neither of us have any way to support those assertions.