For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.
They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.
The atheist does not recognize this power.
They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.
It is chance that you and them are alive.
By observation alone it is evident that power is there - and it is supported by function, design, purpose, intelligence, creativeness, wonder and beauty.
The atheist concludes that beauty is just and accident.
That the sweet smelling flowers and their design is an accident.
That the thousand of varieties of foods are accident.
That the fine balance of the universe is an accident.
That the complexity of conscious life is an accident.
That the laws of physics are an accident.
That the varieties of life are an accident.
Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DasaAs an atheist I can confirm I don't 'recognise' the existence or 'power' of god.
For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.
They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.
The atheist does not recognize this power.
They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.
It is chance that you and them are alive.
By obs ...[text shortened]... Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
However all your other statements about what 'atheists say' are false.
Which makes this entire post a giant strawman fallacy.
Maybe you should ask (nicely and actually listen to the responses) what atheists
actually think (although as there are so many different people who qualify your
answers will be diverse) rather than telling us what you think we think.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNot recognizing this power is clearly not recognizing what you obverse.
As an atheist I can confirm I don't 'recognise' the existence or 'power' of god.
However all your other statements about what 'atheists say' are false.
Which makes this entire post a giant strawman fallacy.
Maybe you should ask (nicely and actually listen to the responses) what atheists
actually think (although as there are so many different pe ...[text shortened]... o qualify your
answers will be diverse) rather than telling us what you think we think.
Why do you not recognize what you observe?
Or why are you blind to what everyone observes.
Originally posted by Dasaobserving something you don't understand and then making something up to explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.
Not recognizing this power is clearly not recognizing what you obverse.
Why do you not recognize what you observe?
Or why are you blind to what everyone observes.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNot recognizing the power at the foundation of everything is simply madness -and teaching that conclusion is thoroughly dishonest.
observing something you don't understand and then making something up to explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo Atheists do believe in Intelligent Design? Else, much of what Dasa said has some truth to it.
As an atheist I can confirm I don't 'recognise' the existence or 'power' of god.
However all your other statements about what 'atheists say' are false.
Which makes this entire post a giant strawman fallacy.
Maybe you should ask (nicely and actually listen to the responses) what atheists
actually think (although as there are so many different pe ...[text shortened]... o qualify your
answers will be diverse) rather than telling us what you think we think.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Dasa
For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.
They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.
The atheist does not recognize this power.
They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.
It is chance that you and them are alive.
By obs ...[text shortened]... Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
The atheist does not recognize this power.
They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.
Who is it that denies God the power to use random chance?
Originally posted by DasaWhy not make one statement to debate rather than preaching a multitude?
For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.
They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.
The atheist does not recognize this power.
They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.
It is chance that you and them are alive.
By obs ...[text shortened]... Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
Whatever it is you are trying to achieve is not served by these childish rants.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sumydidNo. the fallacy is claiming everything came about by randomness and accident.
So Atheists do believe in Intelligent Design? Else, much of what Dasa said has some truth to it.
Only someone ignorant of science would claim this.
However atheism doesn't rely on science for its foundations.
Being an atheist doesn't require accepting science.
the two are independent.
The majority of atheists may very well be strong supporters of science.
But not all are nor are they required to be so.
Originally posted by DasaThis from the person who recently told me he wouldn't believe the moon was the moon even when he was observing it? And also you apparently 'observed' that the moon was a mere 35mm across yet admitted that you do not recognize this observation.
Not recognizing this power is clearly not recognizing what you obverse.
Why do you not recognize what you observe?
Or why are you blind to what everyone observes.
> observing something you don't understand and then making something up to
> explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.
That as I see it is the difference between religion and science.
* Both see something we can't explain
* Both make something up to explain it
Science remains conditional. There are no definite answers - the best we can do is to make up an explanation that fits all the known facts. Discover new facts or come up with a simpler or more widely applicable theory that fits the known facts, and the explanations adjust to compensate.
Religion on the other hand is not conditional. The answers are definite, and if new facts don't fit, that doesn't mean religion would necessarily adjust. It is The Truth, and those who say otherwise are by definition wrong.
Don Quixote de la Mancha knows that sweet Dulcinea is the most perfect woman in existence, and Romeo knows that there is nothing in this world as wonderful as Juliet Capulet. Both could, and enthusiastically would prove it too, by rhyme and verse, personal dedication, logic, or blade. That's the sort of certainty I see in theism.
I'm sure it is comforting to know something without any doubts at all.
Originally posted by talzamirAny religon worth it salt must be willing to adjust.
> observing something you don't understand and then making something up to
> explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.
That as I see it is the difference between religion and science.
* Both see something we can't explain
* Both make something up to explain it
Science remains conditional. There are no definite answer ...[text shortened]... see in theism.
I'm sure it is comforting to know something without any doubts at all.
The best example off the top of my head is the Hindus accepting Lord Buddha as their avatar.
Good post dude, 2 thumbs up, as gb would say.
Oh, and Dasa, have you heard of the contention that there are no accidents? This was one of Willam Burroughs favourite themes.
And since I have applied this to my life ,(ie.altered my thinking on the subject), I have found this statement to be more true by the day. Do you have anything like that going on?
Originally posted by Dasawe're discussing the absurdity of your assertions here. you can't claim teaching something is dishonest without knowing anything about what is being taught.
Not recognizing the power at the foundation of everything is simply madness -and teaching that conclusion is thoroughly dishonest.
you keep preaching about honesty, yet the variety of disjointed assertions you made has little if any honesty involved. these things have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to repeat the lies as if doing so will make them true.
this has a couple consequences for you.
1. your lack of honesty makes you a poor candidate to be preaching the virtues of honesty.
2. you lack of scientific understanding makes you a poor critic of science and the scientific process.
in conclusion, you have zero credibility to discuss the topics you love to discuss. you need to get yourself an honest education.