Atheisim is not real.

Maybe you should try removing your atheist ear plugs‼️😂🤣😉
Maybe you should try thinking. That there is a universe that you think is evidence for a God, doesn't mean it is evidence for God. There is only real evidence for God if God exists, which pointing at the universe doesn't confirm.

The most you have by pointing at the universe is might be, maybe.
 
Oh, okay. Thank you for educating me in the God that you do not believe exists, nor know little about in the pages of the Bible about sonship and inheritance.


Yes, but only if they do not disinherit themselves through disobedience. Just as that is true and reasonable in our own human father/son relationships.


No, not at all. It helps when we can understand God through similarities in our own dealings with each other. That's what analogies do. Except for the atheist, who is determined to always develop an argument against what is leveled against them, unbelievers can learn about God and verify his teachings by what they themselves find true about our relationships with one another.
You have that backwards. Atheist find the problems with your god concept by examining the proper loving, nurturing, and forgiving relationship with our own.
 
So there are atheists.

This is an empty claim.

This is a claim only. It's in need of justification.

It's really not good enough. By all means, present evidence that actually demonstrates God is real.

Where you get this from I don't know, but it's nonsense. Probably some creationist source, and creationists are notorious for not understanding evolution. Evolution isn't random, and as time goes by more and more evidence in favor of evolution comes to light.

When anyone says things like this they lose credibility, so what else they say will be looked a with more suspicion. You're not achieving your goal in being here.


No, it's that there is no evidence that "that something" is the God of the Bible.

Come now whatshisface ,

I don’t believe in atheists because they don’t exist. All we have are people 👉👉👉trying to be atheists👈👈👈 by UNconvincing themselves that God is real.
 
Oh, and by the way, you keep forgetting that you and three other atheists in this forum eventually said about yourselves what you all denied was true that I said was true about atheists.
That's not what happened at all, and I'm pretty sure you don't even remember the details.

I made an effort to support your claim for you, but all I could find was this claim:

Atheists do not accept the Bible's authority to define sin.

Nearly every atheist here will agree with the above claim - and I say "nearly" because there may be an atheist willing to qualify the statement somewhat. Regardless, if that's ALL you had said, there'd be no disagreement here. Unfortunately for you, that's not all you said:

Atheists are atheists because they don't want to stop sinning. They challenge the Bible's definition of sin, and the existence of God to justify not repenting.

---

No atheist here agrees with you on this claim; not one. You've never provided a single quote to show otherwise. This rhetorical victory of yours exists only in your head.

This time, try supporting your own claims yourself.
 
Come now whatshisface ,

I don’t believe in atheists because they don’t exist. All we have are people 👉👉👉trying to be atheists👈👈👈 by UNconvincing themselves that God is real.
This is an empty claim, as you've given no justification.

That you don't understand this basic point of logic is baffling. It makes me wonder what else you've got wrong.
 
You’ve been lied to. Stop believing lies😎
Nobody had to tell me a thing. I read your god’s special revelation. I experience his natural revelation. I also build proper loving relationships in my own life, what makes them successful and loving, and what brings failure and animosity. If I follow your god’s model, failure and animosity are the result. This I know through experience.
 
Hope that helps
Unfortunately it does not.

You said in post #1223
I just happen to KNOW the mindset of atheists
I am an atheist. I know the difference between mindset and a specific piece of knowledge.

Although I can well understand how I could know a specific piece of knowledge held by Jones, while not knowing Jones' mindset. I can't imagine how I could know Jones' mindset while not knowing any specific pieces of knowledge held by Jones. That would be impossible.

For example I can know one single proposition of knowledge Jones believes about tennis without knowing Jones' mindset toward tennis. But I cannot know Jones's mindset toward tennis and not know any single proposition of knowledge Jones believes about tennis.

You said above that you know my mindset. You must know single propositions of knowledge I believe. What are they?

This of course excludes things I have previously stated on this website as well as things that could reasonably be guessed. For example I am an atheist. It could reasonably be assumed that one single proposition of knowledge I believe is "God does not exist". Reasonable guesses are excluded.

Impress me with your knowledge of what I think. What was I thinking yesterday morning at 9:30 AM? Tell me anything you know that I think.

By the way, do you know the mindset of all atheists on earth? Or just some of them? That would be a huge amount of information.
 
That's not all we are, by nature. We also, by nature, are kind, generous, and giving, evidenced by what must be millions of examples of truly unselfish behavior every day throughout the world.
Indeed. It's evolution that's made us so.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately it does not.

You said in post #1223

I am an atheist. I know the difference between mindset and a specific piece of knowledge.

Although I can well understand how I could know a specific piece of knowledge held by Jones, while not knowing Jones' mindset. I can't imagine how I could know Jones' mindset while not knowing any specific pieces of knowledge held by Jones. That would be impossible.

For example I can know one single proposition of knowledge Jones believes about tennis without knowing Jones' mindset toward tennis. But I cannot know Jones's mindset toward tennis and not know any single proposition of knowledge Jones believes about tennis.

You said above that you know my mindset. You must know single propositions of knowledge I believe. What are they?

This of course excludes things I have previously stated on this website as well as things that could reasonably be guessed. For example I am an atheist. It could reasonably be assumed that one single proposition of knowledge I believe is "God does not exist". Reasonable guesses are excluded.

Impress me with your knowledge of what I think. What was I thinking yesterday morning at 9:30 AM? Tell me anything you know that I think.

By the way, do you know the mindset of all atheists on earth? Or just some of them? That would be a huge amount of information.

PA, that’s a rather lengthy albeit impressive obfuscation.
Looks like you’re doing a little damage control there 😉
Why not just cut to the chase and admit your error. You obviously confused definitions.
You just don’t know the difference between what defines a person’s mindset and what defines psychic clairvoyance.

Worse yet, you’re remain confused about the status of your own wanna-be-atheist mindset. You can’t prove that you are an atheist in any convincing way AND you seem to think your ambition to rid yourself of any trace of God is not obvious to all
 
Let me help.
No, no, you don’t need logic to prove self evident truths😌. That would like appealing to the principles of logic to prove the color of red😉

Let me help correct your last paragraph:
You should have said:

I'm interested in people, particularly quirky, odd people with oddball ideas and a disregard for reality and for self-evident truths. There's a high density (pun intended) of such people on this Christian site. Here you can find grown adults discussing in all seriousness the 👉👉👉reality of the myth of an evolution god who can create brains but can’t think. Maybe that’s why his/hers/its gullible followers speak out of their backside🤣. This place is free entertainment. Why wouldn't I come here?🤣😂😇😉

How do you like my version⁉️⁉️😎
Like most of what you say, it's not true. It's written by a child who prefers colouring in shapes to understanding what the shapes mean. It's as full of self- important hogwash as it is of lies. It's a fairly mundane, typical post by you. One star, I don't recommend this poster.
 
Like most of what you say, it's not true. It's written by a child who prefers colouring in shapes to understanding what the shapes mean. It's as full of self- important hogwash as it is of lies. It's a fairly mundane, typical post by you. One star, I don't recommend this poster.

Come now Temujin, I’m tutoring children, after all. If you think you’re not the child you appear to be then behave like a thinking adult and stop believing everything your leader tells you to believe. Start thinking on your own, perhaps for the first time. Until then enjoy the colors 😉😇
 
Come now Temujin, I’m tutoring children, after all. If you think you’re not the child you appear to be then behave like a thinking adult and stop believing everything your leader tells you to believe. Start thinking on your own, perhaps for the first time. Until then enjoy the colors 😉😇
You should sue your own tutor before you attempt to pass on your ignorance to others. You are one of a very few posters here from whom there's absolutely nothing worth learning. You are the proverbial empty vessel, but without the personality.
 
Why not just cut to the chase and admit your error. You obviously confused definitions.
I made no error.
You just don’t know the difference between what defines a person’s mindset and what defines psychic clairvoyance.
A rather ironic statement from the person who in post #1223 said
I just happen to KNOW the mindset of atheists
You just don’t know the difference between what defines a person’s mindset and what defines psychic clairvoyance.
So what is your claim? You KNOW my mindset while simultaneously don't know a single thing I think? OK. Taking into consideration the caveats I stated above (things I've already said and things that can reasonably be guessed), tell me anything you know that I think. You are the one claiming to know my mindset. What are you claiming to know? Tell me.

Where did you get this knowledge of my mindset? Crystal ball?
You can’t prove that you are an atheist in any convincing way
1. I state categorically I am an atheist.
2. I have written proofs that god does not exist and shown them to others
3. I have spent hours on this website arguing that god does not exist.
4. I do not believe in nor do I participate in any religious activities.
5. I am a member of an informal group of atheists
you seem to think your ambition to rid yourself of any trace of God is not obvious to all
Prove that I am trying to rid myself of any trace of god.
 
Xtians constantly have to see the world and humanity as a terrible place. The better off our lives are the less need there is to believe in a god that has to save us. So they don’t like a happy world and they are not interested in working toward one. They like to imagine that evolution has made us all aggressive self centered killers. But xtians don’t want to notice that constantly starting unnecessary violence is likely to get you killed and is not a good survival strategy. Even predators that must kill to eat generally don’t kill for no reason.
National Geographic How Human Violence Stacks Up Against Other Killer Animals:
The medieval period was a particular killer, with human-on-human violence responsible for 12 percent of recorded deaths. But for the last century, we’ve been relatively peaceable, killing one another off at a rate of just 1.33 percent worldwide. And in the least violent parts of the world today, we enjoy homicide rates as low as 0.01 percent……Bekoff has long contended that nonhumans are predominantly peaceful, and he points out that just as some roots of violence can be found in our animal past, so can roots of altruism and cooperation. He cites the work of the late anthropologist Robert Sussman, who found that even primates, some of the most aggressive mammals, spend less than one percent of their day fighting or otherwise competing. After all, challenging another animal to a duel is risky, and for many animals the benefits don’t outweigh the risk of death.
Washington University, St. Louis - “Humans may not be as aggressive and competitive as thought”:
Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, and a colleague found that affiliated behavior — or friendly behavior like grooming and playing — is probably a hundred times more frequent than aggressive behavior in primates, and that aggressive behavior constitutes less than 1 percent of primates’ activities….."The basic premise right now about animals that live in groups — including humans — is that they are constantly competing for resources. It’s a simplistic view of Darwinian survival of the fittest, but many scientists have taken it on. They state that almost all behavior is related to how animals strategize to compete with one another so that they can gain more resources and reproduce more. We think this is a very narrow and unsophisticated view of evolutionary theory," says Sussman, who is immediate past editor of The American Anthropologist……"Then we looked at the aggressive behavior of primates and found that usually less than 1 percent of their day is spent fighting or competing, and it’s usually much less than 1 percent. Basically, what animals do is they interact in a general, coordinated way. There is not a lot of social behavior but most of the social behavior is affiliated, and we find that aggressive behavior is extremely rare, even in baboons, thought to be among the most aggressive primates."
Scientific American:
COOK: What would you say is the biggest misconception people have about violence?

PINKER: That we are living in a violent age. The statistics suggest that this may be the most peaceable time in our species’s existence.
COOK: Can you give a sense for how violent life was 500 or 1000 years ago?

PINKER: Statistics aside, accounts of daily life in medieval and early modern Europe reveal a society soaked in blood and gore. Medieval knights—whom today we would call warlords—fought their numerous private wars with a single strategy: kill as many of the opposing knight’s peasants as possible. Religious instruction included prurient descriptions of how the saints of both sexes were tortured and mutilated in ingenious ways. Corpses broken on the wheel, hanging from gibbets, or rotting in iron cages where the sinner had been left to die of exposure and starvation were a common part of the landscape. For entertainment, one could nail a cat to a post and try to head-butt it to death, or watch a political prisoner get drawn and quartered, which is to say partly strangled, disemboweled, and castrated before being decapitated. So many people had their noses cut off in private disputes that medical textbooks had procedures that were alleged to grow them back
.

COOK: What made you interested in violence as a scientific question?

PINKER: I’ve long argued that the human mind is not a blank slate but has been fitted by evolution with a complex set of emotions, drives, and systems for reasoning, learning, and communicating. Advocates of the blank slate fear that the very idea of human nature dooms us to perpetual conflict—that if we are killer apes with a territorial imperative, a thirst for blood, a death instinct, and genes for aggression, then it’s pointless to try to make the world a better place.

These fears, I’ve argued, are illogical. Human nature may embrace motives that lead to aggression, but it also embraces motives like empathy, self-control, and reason, which, under the right circumstances, can outweigh the aggressive impulses. And empirically, we can observe many ways in which violence has decreased over time, including a relief from cycles of deadly raiding and feuding when tribes came under the control of states, the 35-fold decline of homicide in medieval Europe, the abolition of slavery, cruel punishments, and frivolous executions, and the recent replacement of totalitarian regimes with democracies.

COOK: Having worked through this material, I wonder, do you see current events differently now?

PINKER: Absolutely. The present looks less sinister, the past less innocent. The mind always focuses on current threats, and takes for granted the violent events that don’t happen but could easily have happened a few decades ago. A sniper in Norway kills dozens of innocent people—and the population does not riot or lynch the perpetrator and his extended family, but holds candlelight vigils. The Egyptian government falls—but the new one does not vow to push the Israelis into the sea. North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, killing 45 sailors—but instead of escalating to war, the Koreans go back to life as usual. Every day I notice the dogs that don’t bark.
It is ironic that Judges13:18, in post #1171 asked:
I haven't checked yet this morning, has Iran nuked Israel yet, or vice versa?
Yet another continuing example of religionists killing each other over whose invisible being really exists and whose book is the right one, and he wants to blame atheists. In what is almost a self-satire of religion (with a complete lack of self awareness) judges13:18 self righteously states
I have found life that is truly life. You can too if your heart is so inclined to be attracted to the promises of God and be repelled by this revolting human condition the world wallows in and which it endures in frustration and discontentment.
So if I become willing to stop being an atheist and become a theist, I too can be repelled and revolted at theists killing each other over religious differences?? Truly wacko.
 
Back
Top