Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by sonship
Now I get to say one of your favorite lines.
You believe wrongly.

And you are mistaken.

Go check. LOL
Go check yourself. Improve your reading comprehension first though, and reread my post above a bit more carefully.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you are mistaken.

[b]Go check. LOL
Go check yourself. Improve your reading comprehension first though, and reread my post above a bit more carefully.[/b]

I see an assertion from twhitehead.
I see your question.
I see NO REPLY from twhitehead.

Fetch, did you see twhitehead reply to your question ?

Where is your reply ?
Is the date and time stamp of your reply BEFORE the date and time stamp of his question ?

Yes ?
No ?

Correction: It was about 8 days ago, not 15.

Originally posted by sonship
800 replies to the question of basically "What is your evidence of the correctness of Atheism?"
[b] 800 replies and no one answers the question

(Only five minutes fifty some seconds)

Atheist can't answer a simple question Where is the proof and evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eil9chRNBKA[/b]

Watched 10 seconds and concluded that the video is by an idiot. Well done.

And if you think that that question has not been answered in this thread [and many others]
then you are deeply deeply lacking in reading comprehension and reasoning faculties...

Or you are flat out lying.


Here it is again for you as you are obviously to thick to figure it out yourself.

A theist is a person who believes that a god or gods exist.
This is a positive belief that requires evidence to justify it, it carries a burden of proof.
An atheist is a person who is not a theist, and thus simply lacks belief in the existence of any gods.
This is an absence of belief, and thus is not a positive claim and does not have a burden of proof.
SOME atheists go farther and believe that all or some god concepts do not exist and THOSE
atheists have a positive belief that carries a burden of proof. They/We are a minority, and are not
representative of atheists as a whole.

Thus "atheists" do not in general have any burden of proof as they are not making any claims.

Some atheists such as myself do make positive claims about the non-existence of gods AND I HAVE
PROVIDED WHAT I CONSIDER PROOF [in explanatory form]. And what's more I have done so even in
this very thread. [as well as numerous others in the past]

Given that anyone actually reading this thread would know that I can only conclude that you are lying
through your teeth.

Originally posted by sonship
Where is your reply ?

In another thread, as stated.
I see you didn't have the sense to go back and reread my post as advised and instead have made a fool of yourself. And all because you are upset about being called out over your '800 replies and no answer' that was obviously a load of hogwash.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Watched 10 seconds and concluded that the video is by an idiot. Well done.

And if you think that that question has not been answered in this thread [and many others]
then you are deeply deeply lacking in reading comprehension and reasoning faculties...

Or you are flat out lying.


Here it is again for you as you are obviously to thick to figur ...[text shortened]... reading this thread would know that I can only conclude that you are lying
through your teeth.

Watched 10 seconds

Don't care if you watched a 10th of a second.
Moving on.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In another thread, as stated.
I see you didn't have the sense to go back and reread my post as advised and instead have made a fool of yourself. And all because you are upset about being called out over your '800 replies and no answer' that was obviously a load of hogwash.

Common sense would have it that the REPLY would be FOLLOWING the question on the SAME thread.

Common sense would not rule that one first go looking and hunting elsewhere ... somewhere for a reply randomly placed, rather than where reading comprehension should EXPECT it, immediately or soon after the post containing the question.

The one making a fool of oneself is you.

And stop flattering yourself that I am "upset" at some little quip about 744 verses 800 (or whatever the case may be). That was nothing so substantial to get "upset" about.

Be careful you don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on your back.

Originally posted by sonship

Watched 10 seconds

Don't care if you watched a 10th of a second.
Moving on.

Not surprising really. You were just spamming the thread with videos you liked the title of. Typical sonship.

Originally posted by sonship
Common sense would have it that the REPLY would be FOLLOWING the question on the SAME thread.

It would if the discussion was taking place in only one thread. Next time, take my advice and read what I write rather than using common sense and mind reading.

And stop flattering yourself that I am "upset" at some little quip about 744 verses 800 (or whatever the case may be). That was nothing so substantial to get "upset" about.
It was a blatant lie on many levels and I called you on it. Your immediate response was to try and paint me as dishonest for not answering a question. Clearly you were very upset.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Earlier you said that 'greater purpose' was 'giving us free will'. Have you changed your mind? If so, what is this new 'greater purpose'?

[b]If you had no free will you wouldn't be able to start a war.
But it doesn't require me to start a war.

Free will allows you to start a war if you were a puppet on a string you probably wouldn't be able ...[text shortened]... it and it will remain one of the reasons why I find the Bible to be a less than credible source.

Earlier you said that 'greater purpose' was 'giving us free will'. Have you changed your mind? If so, what is this new 'greater purpose'?

I never said the greater purpose was giving us free will. I think the greater purpose is love. Without free will you cannot choose to love God or anyone else for that matter.

But it doesn't require me to start a war.

It enables you to start a war if you so wished.

I could have free will without being able to start a war.

Yes if you decided not to else you wouldn't have free will.

Five year olds have free will, but cannot start wars.

I have seen many a fight between 5 year olds.

I am an adult, and cannot single handedly start a war. And I have had free will all my life without starting a war.

That is your choice, because you are exercising your free will.

Being able to start a war is clearly not necessary for free will.

I have never claimed that. I said to start a war you need free will.

Therefore wars are not a necessary outcome of free will and allowing wars is not explained by the desire to give us free will.

So what is required to start a war? A lack of free will? Being a robot?

As far as I am aware CS Lewis never summed up anything well.

That's your opinion.

And your point is?

God can use suffering to draw us closer to himself.

Yes, so I believe, and my belief is based solely on the consensus of historians as I have explained.

So if the consensus of historians were to change, would your belief also change?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I never said the greater purpose was giving us free will. I think the greater purpose is love. Without free will you cannot choose to love God or anyone else for that matter.

You did say that the cause of suffering is because it is a necessary requirement for free will. You seem to be backtracking on that.

It enables you to start a war if you so wished.
No, it does not. Even if I wished to, I could not start a war.

Yes if you decided not to else you wouldn't have free will.
Free will is not equivalent to omnipotence.

I have seen many a fight between 5 year olds.
And zero wars.

That is your choice, because you are exercising your free will.
No, it isn't.

I have never claimed that.
Yes, you do, in the very post I am replying to.

I said to start a war you need free will.
You say having free will guarantees you can start a war. You also say that wars are a necessary result of free will. If that is not your claim, then why does God allow war? Saying 'free will' will not be an acceptable answer unless you are in fact saying that war is a necessary requirement of free will.

That's your opinion.
Yes, that is kind of obvious. Pointing it out doesn't make it wrong.

God can use suffering to draw us closer to himself.
I really don't know how you got that from the CS Lewis quote. I also don't think it is the loving way to do it. Do you hurt your kids so that they can be closer to you?

So if the consensus of historians were to change, would your belief also change?
Yes. If the consensus of historians was that the exodus took place, then I would believe the exodus most likely took place.

It enables you to start a war if you so wished.

No, it does not. Even if I wished to, I could not start a war.

World War I was started by a man who decided and took it upon himself to assassinate a government official, an archduke of Austria.

Wiki on WWI (my bolding)

A short-term analysis focuses on why the conflicting sets of powers went to war when they did. The immediate causes lay in decisions made by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914, triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, on 28 June 1914.

That assassination carried out by a man's decision started World War I.
Whether he intended to start a war or did not intend to start a war, he started one.

Of course "the cause of World War I" has been written about very much. And I heard that some scholars think the whole war was a mistake. And people can argue over the cause forever. And opposite sides of warring nations will always argue over WHO started the war anyway, ie. who was the aggressor.

The origins of World War I remain controversial and debated questions. The war began in the Balkans in late July 1914 and ended in November 1918, leaving 17 million dead and 20 million wounded.

It is reasonable to state that a war could be started by the free choice of a man carrying out an act, as is the case with World War I.

If twhitehead reasons that a man cannot start a war, he will rob atheists of their cherished accusation that Christians start wars. if a man cannot start a war than they'll have to cease claiming that religious people start wars.

Originally posted by sonship
World War I was started by a man who decided and took it upon himself to assassinate a government official, an Archduke of Austria.

Yet interestingly he didn't choose to start a war. He chose to do something, that started a war. Of course it was a war waiting to happen and the real intentional part of it was the people that used that as an excuse.

It is reasonable to state that a war could be started by the free choice of a man carrying out an act, as is the case with World War I.
Yes, it is most definitely reasonable to state that, and that doesn't contradict anything I have said, as you well know.

If twhitehead reasons that a man cannot start a war,
Except twhitehead never reasoned any such thing. Sonship needs to improve either his reading comprehension or his honesty.
Twhitehead believes that twhitehead could not choose to start a war because twhitehead is not in a position to do so. Twhitehead could be wrong about this, but it doesn't really matter.

If sonship had been paying attention, instead of being so upset about being called out for lying, sonship would know that twhitehead's argument is that it is not necessary that a person be able to start a war for them to have free will. Therefore anyone who says that God allows wars because he desires for us to have free will has some more explaining to do. It is noted that sonship is unable to provide this explanation which is why he has instead chosen to deliberately and maliciously misrepresent what I have actually argued.

Originally posted by twhitehead

It would if the discussion was taking place in only one thread. Next time, take my advice and read what I write rather than using common sense and mind reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next time avoid scattering your comments around on different threads. Then the appropriate response can be conveniently found below the relevant question. Reading comprehension would expect it such.

And if you want to be careful, you could take your reply and paste it after the question on that thread (if you claim it existed elsewhere) if you really want to be comprehended.

And stop flattering yourself that I am "upset" at some little quip about 744 verses 800 (or whatever the case may be). That was nothing so substantial to get "upset" about.

It was a blatant lie on many levels and I called you on it. Your immediate response was to try and paint me as dishonest for not answering a question. Clearly you were very upset.

On "many levels" ?
Name one level. "Many levels" may just be obfuscating on your part.

1.) I was quoting the video maker. My quote was not a lie. At around .23 seconds he claims that he had over 800 replies. (stated on or before 1/26/2011)

2.) No, I did not personally count the replies and make a decision about any of them.
If someone wants to go back and read all the replies and decide answers were given, he is welcomed to give his opinion on that.

I just virtually referred to the statement of the author of the video.

3.) I could have said that "It was claimed".

4.) The claim about over 800 replies was apparently made on or before the video was uploaded on Jan. 26, 2011. How do I know that he preserved all the replies until today 2016 in May ?

5.) The man complained about deleting posts to the video. Maybe he deleted some since 2011 and the count was effected. He said he will delete. He probably did delete many remarks.

The Amazing Atheist said he could not offer evidence for the truth of Atheism. So why should it be such a shock that these posters didn't do so. That's possible, that other atheists couldn't do so either like the "AMAZING" one said couldn't.

At any rate my conscience is clear that no lie was told by me about the 800 replies.
In hindsight a more careful post would have said something like:

"This video maker claims that over 800 replies could not answer his question"

twhitehead seems intent on making a big point about the number of replies.

If twhitehead insist that of the 700 plus or whatever contained good answers on EVIDENCE for Atheism, he can refer me to the name of a poster who he thinks answered, and I'll go and read it.

whether you guys like it or not the video author seems like a reasonable person to me. I know you doubt that a theist could be a reasonable person. But post your own comment referring to the poster who you think DID offer substantial evidence for atheism.

Who did ?
What was his or her tag name ?
About how far down in the comments ?

Did you read them all ?
I didn't. Did you?

So if you read one, where is the one proving a "lie" that not 800 replies could answer?
Specifics please. You're harping on honesty now.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
Don't care if you watched a 10th of a second.
Moving on.

It has to be said, some of the 'confirmation bias' videos you and RJHinds offer are absolutely dreadful from the point of view of legitimate discourse. And when whatever post-video discourse that ensues goes south from your point of view, you stop trying to fight the corner of the video clip's polemic, if you bothered to fight it in the first place. Having said that, I fully support your right to post them and, to reveal your mind map by doing so. Just saying, that's all. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
It has to be said, some of the 'confirmation bias' videos you and RJHinds offer are absolutely dreadful from the point of view of legitimate discourse. And when whatever post-video discourse that ensues goes south from your point of view, you stop trying to fight the corner of the video clip's polemic, if you bothered to fight it in the first place. Having said ...[text shortened]... rt your right to post them and, to reveal your mind map by doing so. Just saying, that's all. 🙂

I am biased. I love God.
I am biased towards my father, mother and wife too.

I have told posters that a certain question was too hard for me.
I don't think proof of my God is dependent upon me being able to field without exception every tough question posed by skeptics.

So are you with some bias of your own. .
I will occasionally post videos that I found interesting.

I find some videos opposing my faith interesting at times.
You atheists can do that.
I don't have to provide links to them.

Anybody who comes back bragging that they couldn't watch 30 seconds of some video I posted doesn't deserve 30 seconds of my time to consider his comments on it.

RJHinds is not here to speak for himself. But I found some of his videos wildly posted. The one on finding dinosaur trinkets supposedly excavated from some village in Mexico I thought was wild and counter productive to his own cause.

I don't think I am as wild as RJHinds was.