1034 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

 

I love how atheist can find no proof in God, yet science has many conflicts that can't be logically explained, yet most atheist take it as fact.

 

You are making no sense to me.

If I had proof of a God I wouldn't be atheist, I would be a <insert religion here>. Perhaps you could provide an example of a conflict that an atheist may take as a 'fact' ? I would suggest being careful in using the word 'fact' as you did.

 

Mankind has a long history of explaining away the unknown as evidence of divinity. Modern religions, to date, have been no exception.

 

Again what is proof?  Those who throw that word around usually haven't a clue.  T|he word cuts two ways.

[shadowhawk]

 

Candy man is MajinBrian who proposed a candy bar as god.  No disrespect intended.  God, God, God does not come to you?  I wonder why.  God does come to me all the time, or I should say He never leaves  me.  You finish with your profession of faith,  Perhaps that is why God does not come to you?

 

 

I was simply making a comparison.

 

You see God in magical, flying orbs.

Others see God in candy bars and dirty laundry.

 

 

But you know what?  The existence of orbs and candy bars are not self explanatory.  Lets let you explain them for in fact you have said absolutely nothing.  What are you trying to say?
 

[The Brain]

Chocolate god loves you Shadowdork...

Let him into your life and you'll be rewarded for eternity

Come be part of the chocolate brotherhood, just renounce your silly christian god and be part of a new fun religion where masturbation isn't frowned upon and gluttony and sloth are goals.

Let chocolate god melt in your mouth and slowly slide down your throat..... Pure ectasy !

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

I love how atheist can find no proof in God, yet science has many conflicts that can't be logically explained, yet most atheist take it as fact.

You are making no sense to me.
If I had proof of a God I wouldn't be atheist, I would be a <insert religion here>. Perhaps you could provide an example of a conflict that an atheist may take as a 'fact' ? I would suggest being careful in using the word 'fact' as you did.

Mankind has a long history of explaining away the unknown as evidence of divinity. Modern religions, to date, have been no exception.

Would you say you know Aathiesm is real?


Or would you just say you have faith in atheism, Also if you read all my posts you'll get the jist of what I meant as I already illustrate it pages ago. Thanks for the civil reply though.

 

 

Atheism is real. Catholicism is real. Buddhism is real. <insert religion> is real. They are all equally real because people adhere to those beliefs (or lack thereof). For example, we can provide evidence that Catholicism is 'real' because there are people actively following that faith and those people are the 'evidence'. The real question is not whether or not a particular belief system is real, but whether or not what is being believed in is in fact real.

 

 

There is no proof in the existence or lack of existence of any one god or gods. Proving the lack of belief in divinity behind atheism is impossible, because in order to do, one would have to exist in all of space/time simultaneously and have the capability to verify divinity vs. technology. In other words,  in order to verify the lack of a true divinity with 100% absolute certainty, one would have to be divine themselves thus disproving the lack of divine presence. In comparison, proving religious beliefs is relatively easy as all the divinity in question has to do is 'speak up' on a divine scale.

 

 

Faith in atheism no. I am only atheist until proven otherwise.

 

Yes all these beliefs exist but no, they can't be all totally true.  You misuse the word "Proven," and Atheism is a blind unproven faith.  You have no "proof" of Atheism, yet you believe it.  Blind.  Technology is not evidence against God.  How so?  So far little real evidence has been given for blindly believing in atheism though I suspect we are off topic here. 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

 

Candy man is MajinBrian who proposed a candy bar as god.  No disrespect intended.  God, God, God does not come to you?  I wonder why.  God does come to me all the time, or I should say He never leaves  me.  You finish with your profession of faith,  Perhaps that is why God does not come to you?

 

 

I was simply making a comparison.

 

You see God in magical, flying orbs.

Others see God in candy bars and dirty laundry.

 

 

 

But you know what?  The existence of orbs and candy bars are not self explanatory.  Lets let you explain them for in fact you have said absolutely nothing.  What are you trying to say?
 

 

 

 

I am saying your attempt to justify evidence for God in magical, flying orbs is as silly as other peoples' attempt to justify evidence for God in candy bars.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

 

 

Would you say you know Aathiesm is real?


Or would you just say you have faith in atheism, Also if you read all my posts you'll get the jist of what I meant as I already illustrate it pages ago. Thanks for the civil reply though.

 

 

Atheism is real. Catholicism is real. Buddhism is real. <insert religion> is real. They are all equally real because people adhere to those beliefs (or lack thereof). For example, we can provide evidence that Catholicism is 'real' because there are people actively following that faith and those people are the 'evidence'. The real question is not whether or not a particular belief system is real, but whether or not what is being believed in is in fact real.

 

 

There is no proof in the existence or lack of existence of any one god or gods. Proving the lack of belief in divinity behind atheism is impossible, because in order to do, one would have to exist in all of space/time simultaneously and have the capability to verify divinity vs. technology. In other words,  in order to verify the lack of a true divinity with 100% absolute certainty, one would have to be divine themselves thus disproving the lack of divine presence. In comparison, proving religious beliefs is relatively easy as all the divinity in question has to do is 'speak up' on a divine scale.

 

 

Faith in atheism no. I am only atheist until proven otherwise.

 

Yes all these beliefs exist but no, they can't be all totally true.  You misuse the word "Proven," and Atheism is a blind unproven faith.  You have no "proof" of Atheism, yet you believe it.  Blind.  Technology is not evidence against God.  How so?  So far little real evidence has been given for blindly believing in atheism though I suspect we are off topic here. 

 

 

I think you should be banned from this forum.

 

I don't believe you have "two masters degrees".

 

I honestly think your posts make me dumber. 99.9% of the time your response posts make no sense. 99.9% of the time it doesn't seem like you read people's posts before responding. Maybe you do read them, and it's that you simply can't understand what you are reading.

Edited by MajinBrian, 18 May 2015 - 10:42 PM.

[The Brain]

He's a religious troll, he likes to play word chess to play up to his ego.

[shadowhawk]

I didn't try to justify God with either an Orb or a Candy Bar.  You did!  I suppose I could think of a few names to call you but that would not be kind.  I won't advocate you being banned either.  You don't believe a lot of things and now you want to be personal.  You don't believe in me!   And why?  Because I asked you about a candy bar and what we could learn from its existence and you can't even deal with that.    OK rave on but be warned you are acting dumber 99.9% of the time as you say.  Soon it may be 100%  So orbs what are they and what are they evidence of?  Candy bars?

[The Brain]

Orbs are what weirdo wankers like to suggest are spirits to give their fantasies some weight.

Whether they are new agers or religo's, they try to support their baseless claims with something tangible to try and gain some credibility they desperately need to cling to.

[old_school]

Let chocolate god melt in your mouth and slowly slide down your throat..... Pure ectasy !

 

Is it true that once you have gone black there is no going back?
 

Edited by old_school, 18 May 2015 - 11:59 PM.

[shadowhawk]

For those who are unfamiliar with the Pruss-Koons version, we are invited to imagine that there are denumerably infinitely many Grim Reapers (whom we may identify as gods, so as to forestall any physicalistic objections). You are alive at midnight. Grim Reaper #1 will strike you dead at 1:00 a.m. if you are still alive at that time. Grim Reaper #2 will strike you dead at 12:30 a.m. if you are still alive then. Grim Reaper #3 will strike you dead at 12:15 a.m., and so on. Such a situation seems clearly conceivable—given the possibility of an actually infinite number of things—but leads to an impossibility: you cannot survive past midnight, and yet you cannot be killed by any Grim Reaper at any time.

 

Suppose since the reapers are gods they are orbs who will kill you.  Can you ever be killed?  Can a cause and effect candy bar be infinite?  Can you ever exist if cause and effect and infinite?

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 May 2015 - 11:57 PM.

[The Brain]

Oh shut up clown


Start praying to the chocolate god before it's too late

[shadowhawk]

Orbs are what weirdo wankers like to suggest are spirits to give their fantasies some weight.

Whether they are new agers or religo's, they try to support their baseless claims with something tangible to try and gain some credibility they desperately need to cling to.

 

Sounds as if this is baseless and is the usual name calling.  He knows there is nothing like a spirit and it wouldn't look like an orb!  How does he know that?  To use his his misused  word, "proof?"  He has none.  He is a mocker who if he looked in a mirror could be mocked.  I don't know what orbs are but there very existence raises lots of questions the mockers don't even ask.  I can think  of reasons I wouldn't equate them with God but if there is a God does He ever manifest  himself in the physical world?  Old School has raised many interesting questions which the simple minded can scarcely grasp.
 

[The Brain]

Old Fool has raised nothing, he's fabricated a story of lies to suit his fantasy of the world as he wants it to be. You are in need of a buddy to support your lonely crusade and is why you promote his rubbish. He intention is obvious, you're trying to make something out of his lies and fantasy to make him seem less crazy than he is.

[shadowhawk]

Proof?  Oh forgot you don't know what that is.  Evidence?  Forgot all you can do is call people names.  Well I tire of this simple minded nonsense.  

[cats_lover]

I'm sorry old_school but this isnt a valid proof; is just an optic consecuence of cameras. I believe in God but not because of that I will look at these things in a non-critical way.

By the way, when i has young i was weightlifter (im coach currently), in weightlifting competition you use a special powder in your hands (magnesium carbonate) to increase the grip with barbell; so in competitions this powder is in the whole room and every photo you take (with a non profesional camera) have a lot of this orbs. So these orbs are a consecuence of light interaction with dust when you take a photo... it is the light reflection in some particles.

[shadowhawk]

Cat Lover, I am a very advanced photographer and have many lenses and have at times deliberately created lens flair.  However this does not explain all cases of orbs a case that was pointed out earlier.  Some orbs can be explained this way.  In addition the very existence of orbs raises some very interesting issues as why there are orbs of any kind in the first place.  Light itself operates by non physical rules.  I tried to get the mockers to come out and deal with this and other issues but all they can do is call names.  Light is a very fascinating subject.   To say God does not and has never interacted with the physical world is a claim of knowledge.  Light may be one of those things God may dabble with.  God is said to have created light in my religious tradition and I don't mind someone giving me another reason.

[The Brain]

Oh for christ's sakes you're a little whiny bitch ...

God could represent as a cat turd for all it matters, as long as it's mystical enough to not be 100% proven as a cat turd you'll be there banging on with your repetitive never ending diatribe

You're a one trick pony always trying to revert the conversation to some deep meaningful load of horse shit so you can wax lyrical to feed your pathetic ego

[Clacksberg]

probably because a better explanation is dust particles. There's even a you tube video slowed down showing near field dust particles passing near to the lense - and you can see they are orb like as they pass close to the camera.

Mind you, i dont know how the orbs on ghost hunting sites have little faces and things in them. Could be Photoshopped or anomaly.

Edited by Clacksberg the Cat, 19 May 2015 - 11:52 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

Again what is proof?  Those who throw that word around usually haven't a clue.  T|he word cuts two ways.

 

 

I have explained to you several times in the past what constitutes proof for me and what would make me a believer in a god. I will not waste my time doing so again to cater to your passive aggressive nonsense.
 

[mikeinnaples]

 

 

 

 

I love how atheist can find no proof in God, yet science has many conflicts that can't be logically explained, yet most atheist take it as fact.

You are making no sense to me.
If I had proof of a God I wouldn't be atheist, I would be a <insert religion here>. Perhaps you could provide an example of a conflict that an atheist may take as a 'fact' ? I would suggest being careful in using the word 'fact' as you did.

Mankind has a long history of explaining away the unknown as evidence of divinity. Modern religions, to date, have been no exception.

Would you say you know Aathiesm is real?


Or would you just say you have faith in atheism, Also if you read all my posts you'll get the jist of what I meant as I already illustrate it pages ago. Thanks for the civil reply though.

 

 

Atheism is real. Catholicism is real. Buddhism is real. <insert religion> is real. They are all equally real because people adhere to those beliefs (or lack thereof). For example, we can provide evidence that Catholicism is 'real' because there are people actively following that faith and those people are the 'evidence'. The real question is not whether or not a particular belief system is real, but whether or not what is being believed in is in fact real.

 

 

There is no proof in the existence or lack of existence of any one god or gods. Proving the lack of belief in divinity behind atheism is impossible, because in order to do, one would have to exist in all of space/time simultaneously and have the capability to verify divinity vs. technology. In other words,  in order to verify the lack of a true divinity with 100% absolute certainty, one would have to be divine themselves thus disproving the lack of divine presence. In comparison, proving religious beliefs is relatively easy as all the divinity in question has to do is 'speak up' on a divine scale.

 

 

Faith in atheism no. I am only atheist until proven otherwise.

 

Yes all these beliefs exist but no, they can't be all totally true.  You misuse the word "Proven," and Atheism is a blind unproven faith.  You have no "proof" of Atheism, yet you believe it.  Blind.  Technology is not evidence against God.  How so?  So far little real evidence has been given for blindly believing in atheism though I suspect we are off topic here. 

 

 

I really don't know why I waste my time responding to you and no I did not misuse the word 'proven' just because you say so. Perhaps you need to evaluate what proof is and consolidate your understanding of the word with the generally accepted meaning.

 

Now, putting aside your silly nonsense I feel like you need to go back and actually read what I wrote and try to understand it because your response indicates that you are missing the point completely. You call Atheism a blind, unproven faith and you may be correct when referring to 'some' people who claim to be atheists, however, you absolutely cannot make that statement when referring to me with any good conscience. I don't have 'faith' in Atheism and I don't 'believe' in Atheism. This was very clearly stated by me in the very posts you quoted above several times. I would GLADLY become a Christian if the God I was raised upon were to make his divine presence known to me. I really wish he would so I could trade the harsh cold universe I believe to be reality for the warm, fuzzy afterlife of Christianity's heaven. Unfortunately I cannot reason the existence of that so called loving God when refuses to even so much acknowledge his presence.

 

No Shadowhawk, I am not blind. I look at these things through very open and rational eyes. I sought out my God for most of my life and it was not finding anything that led me to where I am now.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Again what is proof?  Those who throw that word around usually haven't a clue.  T|he word cuts two ways.

 

 

I have explained to you several times in the past what constitutes proof for me and what would make me a believer in a god. I will not waste my time doing so again to cater to your passive aggressive nonsense.
 

 

 

I am not interested in a subjective "Proof for me."  I asked what is proof and all I get is personal attacks.  You have said nothing.  No amount of evidence will persuade I suspect.  You certainly have given none.
 

[Clacksberg]

God is within. Man is God, God is man (if he/she /it is there )

The arts. music. The peak experience (Maslow)

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Mikeinnaples:  I really don't know why I waste my time responding to you and no I did not misuse the word 'proven' just because you say so. Perhaps you need to evaluate what proof is and consolidate your understanding of the word with the generally accepted meaning.

So, let me ask you again.  What is proof?  For most learned the words “Probability,” and “Evidence,” are used.  Absolute proof does not exist for anything except in mathematics and logic and even there it is built on assumed axioms and in-probability.  It is not just because I say so.
 

Now, putting aside your silly nonsense I feel like you need to go back and actually read what I wrote and try to understand it because your response indicates that you are missing the point completely. You call Atheism a blind, unproven faith and you may be correct when referring to 'some' people who claim to be atheists, however, you absolutely cannot make that statement when referring to me with any good conscience. I don't have 'faith' in Atheism and I don't 'believe' in Atheism. This was very clearly stated by me in the very posts you quoted above several times. I would GLADLY become a Christian if the God I was raised upon were to make his divine presence known to me. I really wish he would so I could trade the harsh cold universe I believe to be reality for the warm, fuzzy afterlife of Christianity's heaven. Unfortunately I cannot reason the existence of that so called loving God when refuses to even so much acknowledge his presence.

Well how does God have to appear to you?  In an orb?  God is spiritual in his nature and no one has seen Him at any time.  No one has seen your spirit (personality) at any time either.  Do you exist?  You have to embrace your lover before you really know her.  That is what love is all about.  Do you want to know God?  Embrace him and He will embrace you.  Put your faith in Him and you will be surprised by joy.  It is not rational alone but deeply spiritual, emotional and personal.  I was raised an atheist by two very non religious parents.  I became a Christian in the military and He has been with me ever since.

No Shadowhawk, I am not blind. I look at these things through very open and rational eyes. I sought out my God for most of my life and it was not finding anything that led me to where I am now.

 

 It seems to me that you are not as rational as you think.  I love the rational but that is not how I came to know the mystery that is my wife.  Yes I can see her but by far the greatest thing I know you cannot see.  I know her through the heart.  To only be rational would mean I would never know her.  The same goes for God.  I am not in any way saying something not rational.

[shadowhawk]

God is within. Man is God, God is man (if he/she /it is there )

The arts. music. The peak experience (Maslow)

 

If Man is God we are indeed in trouble.
 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

Mikeinnaples:  I really don't know why I waste my time responding to you and no I did not misuse the word 'proven' just because you say so. Perhaps you need to evaluate what proof is and consolidate your understanding of the word with the generally accepted meaning.

So, let me ask you again.  What is proof?  For most learned the words “Probability,” and “Evidence,” are used.  Absolute proof does not exist for anything except in mathematics and logic and even there it is built on assumed axioms and in-probability.  It is not just because I say so.
 

 

Now, putting aside your silly nonsense I feel like you need to go back and actually read what I wrote and try to understand it because your response indicates that you are missing the point completely. You call Atheism a blind, unproven faith and you may be correct when referring to 'some' people who claim to be atheists, however, you absolutely cannot make that statement when referring to me with any good conscience. I don't have 'faith' in Atheism and I don't 'believe' in Atheism. This was very clearly stated by me in the very posts you quoted above several times. I would GLADLY become a Christian if the God I was raised upon were to make his divine presence known to me. I really wish he would so I could trade the harsh cold universe I believe to be reality for the warm, fuzzy afterlife of Christianity's heaven. Unfortunately I cannot reason the existence of that so called loving God when refuses to even so much acknowledge his presence.

Well how does God have to appear to you?  In an orb?  God is spiritual in his nature and no one has seen Him at any time.  No one has seen your spirit (personality) at any time either.  Do you exist?  You have to embrace your lover before you really know her.  That is what love is all about.  Do you want to know God?  Embrace him and He will embrace you.  Put your faith in Him and you will be surprised by joy.  It is not rational alone but deeply spiritual, emotional and personal.  I was raised an atheist by two very non religious parents.  I became a Christian in the military and He has been with me ever since.

 

No Shadowhawk, I am not blind. I look at these things through very open and rational eyes. I sought out my God for most of my life and it was not finding anything that led me to where I am now.

 

 It seems to me that you are not as rational as you think.  I love the rational but that is not how I came to know the mystery that is my wife.  Yes I can see her but by far the greatest thing I know you cannot see.  I know her through the heart.  To only be rational would mean I would never know her.  The same goes for God.  I am not in any way saying something not rational.

 

 

 

I feel like I'm reading college level writing, when I read Mikeinnaples' posts.

Then I read Shadtroll's posts, and I feel like I'm reading work by my eleven year old sibling.

 

Mikeinnaples is making you look silly. He is utterly destroying you in this debate.

 

It's pointless to argue with you, Shadowhawk. You are one of two possibilities... Either far too indoctrinated in your own fantasies/beliefs or you simply do not have the cognitive ability to participate is such discussions.

[mikeinnaples]

I am not interested in a subjective "Proof for me."  I asked what is proof and all I get is personal attacks.  You have said nothing.  No amount of evidence will persuade I suspect.  You certainly have given none.
 

 

Please. I was being more than civil and you made unsolicited, veiled insults towards me. Complaining when I call you out on it is silly.

 

 

As for the rest of your nonsense, I have explained it in the past to you directly so there is no need to do it again. I have also both alluded to it and given a direct example of what work for me here, though at posts directed towards other people. What I suggest that you do is actually read what is written before posting.

 

 

Thanks.
 

Edited by mikeinnaples, 19 May 2015 - 07:43 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

 

Mikeinnaples:  I really don't know why I waste my time responding to you and no I did not misuse the word 'proven' just because you say so. Perhaps you need to evaluate what proof is and consolidate your understanding of the word with the generally accepted meaning.

So, let me ask you again.  What is proof?  For most learned the words “Probability,” and “Evidence,” are used.  Absolute proof does not exist for anything except in mathematics and logic and even there it is built on assumed axioms and in-probability.  It is not just because I say so.

 

Really, This is where you are choosing to go with your response? More thinly veiled insults and attempting to engage me in a discussion over the generally accepted definition of a word. You make it very hard to to engage you in a civil discussion when you hurl insults while crying martyr when you get a response you dislike.

 

 

Now, putting aside your silly nonsense I feel like you need to go back and actually read what I wrote and try to understand it because your response indicates that you are missing the point completely. You call Atheism a blind, unproven faith and you may be correct when referring to 'some' people who claim to be atheists, however, you absolutely cannot make that statement when referring to me with any good conscience. I don't have 'faith' in Atheism and I don't 'believe' in Atheism. This was very clearly stated by me in the very posts you quoted above several times. I would GLADLY become a Christian if the God I was raised upon were to make his divine presence known to me. I really wish he would so I could trade the harsh cold universe I believe to be reality for the warm, fuzzy afterlife of Christianity's heaven. Unfortunately I cannot reason the existence of that so called loving God when refuses to even so much acknowledge his presence.

Well how does God have to appear to you?  In an orb?  God is spiritual in his nature and no one has seen Him at any time.  No one has seen your spirit (personality) at any time either.  Do you exist?  You have to embrace your lover before you really know her.  That is what love is all about.  Do you want to know God?  Embrace him and He will embrace you.  Put your faith in Him and you will be surprised by joy.  It is not rational alone but deeply spiritual, emotional and personal.  I was raised an atheist by two very non religious parents.  I became a Christian in the military and He has been with me ever since.
 

Please feel free to read our previous discussions on the issue as far as what would serve as convincing enough evidence for me to unquestionably accept the existence of a divine being.

 

How do you know God, if it exists, is spiritual in nature? At least we both agree that nobody has ever seen him, so what evidence can you provide that not only does God exist, but it is spiritual in nature? What is existence? What is personality? How do you know spirit is personality? Your questions can be answered by more questions, which in turn can be answer by even more.

 

I was a Christian and had faith, but no God embraced me or gave me joy. Something... anything, would have been enough to keep my faithful, but there was nothing. Your words are empty me because I still actively seek God and would be among the most faithful if he/she/it gave me a sign that it was real. Nothing, not then and not now.

 

No Shadowhawk, I am not blind. I look at these things through very open and rational eyes. I sought out my God for most of my life and it was not finding anything that led me to where I am now.

 

 It seems to me that you are not as rational as you think.  I love the rational but that is not how I came to know the mystery that is my wife.  Yes I can see her but by far the greatest thing I know you cannot see.  I know her through the heart.  To only be rational would mean I would never know her.  The same goes for God.  I am not in any way saying something not rational.

 

I am quite rational and there is nothing your insults will do to change that. I am confused by your response here, though, because I said that 'I' was rational not that you were irrational. *shrug*

 

 

Above in blue ....and for the love of your creator, can we stop the super long quotes. lol

Edited by mikeinnaples, 19 May 2015 - 08:05 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question.  Some of these orb like lights are not witnessed through a camera lens is that correct?  There are eye witness accounts?

 

This is correct.
 

 

 

Interesting.  We can't discount it as lens flair in every case.  You think it is the Holy Spirit.  I think the question, why is there something rather than nothing is a question we each have to answer with faith.  That there are orbs at all is the real mind bogeler.  Why?  What does it all mean?  Seen with the atheists eyes of faith that is just an orb but seen with theistic eyes of faith its very existence is evidence for God.  There is a lot more to what we are seeing than just the physical manifestation. 
 

 

 

You can't discount it as a lens flair in every case, but still there are many other phenomenons - sphere shaped lightenings, reflections of planets and the moon, viewing the moon or planets in an unusual places or day times. Atmospheric energy discharges, other still not explored things.

 

I agree.  Some things have short term explanations or partial answers to some questions but there are more issues than may meet the simple minds eye.  Even knowing it is a lens flair in some cases does not solve all the questions or things we can learn from it.

 

 

It is about the belief system here. People, who believe in God, don't need reasoning and thinking for what they have seen. For them each unexplained event is an absolute evidence of God. That's that. Full stop. This is not the correct path to search answers. The correct path is to question everything, and backing it up with evidences. If you can't get enough evidences, then the correct way is to say "I don't know what's that". 

 

 

That is nonsense.  People who believe in God use reason just like anyone else.  We have reasonable faith.  Everybody has and lives by faith.  Without faith we could not even practice reason.
 

 

 

Your faith is not base on proofs. Science is based on proofs. Reasoning over unproven concepts never has been the best choice. 

 

I don't have faith. And I practice reason, so your concept, that we can't practice reason without a faith is wrong. 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Mikeinnaples:  I really don't know why I waste my time responding to you and no I did not misuse the word 'proven' just because you say so. Perhaps you need to evaluate what proof is and consolidate your understanding of the word with the generally accepted meaning.

So, let me ask you again.  What is proof?  For most learned the words “Probability,” and “Evidence,” are used.  Absolute proof does not exist for anything except in mathematics and logic and even there it is built on assumed axioms and in-probability.  It is not just because I say so.
 

 

Now, putting aside your silly nonsense I feel like you need to go back and actually read what I wrote and try to understand it because your response indicates that you are missing the point completely. You call Atheism a blind, unproven faith and you may be correct when referring to 'some' people who claim to be atheists, however, you absolutely cannot make that statement when referring to me with any good conscience. I don't have 'faith' in Atheism and I don't 'believe' in Atheism. This was very clearly stated by me in the very posts you quoted above several times. I would GLADLY become a Christian if the God I was raised upon were to make his divine presence known to me. I really wish he would so I could trade the harsh cold universe I believe to be reality for the warm, fuzzy afterlife of Christianity's heaven. Unfortunately I cannot reason the existence of that so called loving God when refuses to even so much acknowledge his presence.

Well how does God have to appear to you?  In an orb?  God is spiritual in his nature and no one has seen Him at any time.  No one has seen your spirit (personality) at any time either.  Do you exist?  You have to embrace your lover before you really know her.  That is what love is all about.  Do you want to know God?  Embrace him and He will embrace you.  Put your faith in Him and you will be surprised by joy.  It is not rational alone but deeply spiritual, emotional and personal.  I was raised an atheist by two very non religious parents.  I became a Christian in the military and He has been with me ever since.

 

No Shadowhawk, I am not blind. I look at these things through very open and rational eyes. I sought out my God for most of my life and it was not finding anything that led me to where I am now.

 

 It seems to me that you are not as rational as you think.  I love the rational but that is not how I came to know the mystery that is my wife.  Yes I can see her but by far the greatest thing I know you cannot see.  I know her through the heart.  To only be rational would mean I would never know her.  The same goes for God.  I am not in any way saying something not rational.

 

 

 

I feel like I'm reading college level writing, when I read Mikeinnaples' posts.

Then I read Shadtroll's posts, and I feel like I'm reading work by my eleven year old sibling.

 

Mikeinnaples is making you look silly. He is utterly destroying you in this debate.

 

It's pointless to argue with you, Shadowhawk. You are one of two possibilities... Either far too indoctrinated in your own fantasies/beliefs or you simply do not have the cognitive ability to participate is such discussions.

 

 

I love how this has so much content.  Nothing but name calling.