Search results

Your last statement about atheists being confused is a good example of outgroup bias where “If they’re not with us, they are against us” sort of deal. Many atheists have arrived at their conclusion rationally by closely analyzing the claim of a god’s existence. It has nothing to do with anger...

Breathing includes both inhaling and exhaling. Carbon dioxide is just the byproduct of cellular respiration after breathing in O2. Oxygen can be seen when supercooled enough to a liquid state.

Well, the original concern here was being religious/atheistic while being politically affiliated generally with the party that opposes religion or atheism. I see eye to eye with Christians in general on many fiscal, national and foreign policy issues..but once they start going on about issues...

If we see God in the form of beauty or love…then that would be different. But if we’re talking about seeing God as an actual deity…that’s where it all falls apart. It’s funny to me how nearly every religion says something bad about those who aren’t on board with it. Not only that but we can say...

There are many logical fallacies and poor arguments on both sides of the aisle. For example a very poor argument used by Christians is that atheists were never truly Christian. There are atheists who have been more devoted to the faith than you or I, yet still were able to arrive to rationally...

We both know it’s a cheap victory to make a claim and then turning around saying that there is no burden of proof on you. And gravity does not exist, it’s a theory. It has not been proven. Again, that was a poor example in comparing it to God by saying it can’t be seen but it’s still there...

Gravity hasn’t been proven, which is why it’s called a theory in the science community. But, that theory can be tested over and over again with consistent results. Gravitational lensing effects can even be seen when looking into deep space with a telescope. Can you run an experiment on your...

Why do I have to explain why anything exists by inserting something without evidence to “fill the gap”? I’d rather leave it as a gap and whatever we find out, we find out along the way. Whatever we don’t find out, we just don’t find out. Filling the gap with something unsubstantiated kills the...

Of course I have prayed. I grew up Christian Orthodox. I memorized certain prayers. It was all going through the motions for me. Make this cross sign on yourself with your hand, recite these lines, done. I started to see the irony and question things when the priest was asking for money to...

All that’s revealed is that I don’t know. However, all claims are subject to logical scrutiny. Whether someone says there is a god or there is no god at all, I say to that….”prove it”.

Whatever the cause may be, it does not automatically mean it is God. Yes, I don’t know if there is a God. I admit that, I just don’t make claims of there being a god or not. All I’m saying is if one makes a claim..be ready to back it with evidence. Here is the logical issue with the cause and...

The issue with inserting God as the cause of everything in any argument is that something without any evidence for it, is being used as evidence. It does not logically follow…tentative at best. It’s like saying the cause of thunder is God bowling just because we have not yet found the cause of...

You are proposing the teleological argument towards the end here which you proposed initially in post #14. I just got around to answering it in post #29 for you (sorry, been answering to multiple people haha)

This is the teleological argument which suggests that there must be a designer due to the complex design of existence. I want everyone to see this because it is a common argument that comes up consistently among creationists in general. The problem with this argument is that it makes use of a...

Correct. I like to think of labels more as indicators of a general behavior. There only there as a means of communication to get a general idea of what is being communicated. It would be silly to be in lock-step with every single conservative policy if someone were to say they follow Jesus.

And his remarks are in line with atheism. Atheism doesn’t assert a negative belief (there is no god). That would be anti-theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s). Nothing more, nothing less. Even those who are agnostic (they do not know) are also atheists, because they lack the belief.

The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim that a certain deity exists of any religion. I am not concerned about God, I am concerned about the ‘evidence’ that is being presented by those who make the assertion. I will be concerned about God once there is evidence of one. A reply such as...

And I couldn’t get into it primarily because I can’t put my faith in something that cannot be proven. I am in no way insinuating that God does not exist because I can’t prove it. But, it is the assertions of people who claim God exists that places the burden of proof on them. This goes for all...

We see change. A seed grows into a plant, a timelapse of it quickly reveals the change it’s gone through. Time is quantifiable, just look at any clock. God himself however, you would be unable to quantify since a property of God is timelessness, being eternal and outside of time according to...

We can see the air we breathe. Ever been outside during winter and exhaled? If you’re exhaling a gas, it must of been inhaled too. This is exactly what I mean. Even when someone tries to offer a comparison to believing in God, it always turns out not being too great of a comparison after all...