╌>

Ex-Atheist Dr. Sarah Salviander Destroys Atheism with One Tweet

  

Category:  Religion & Ethics

Via:  donald-trump-fan1  •  5 years ago  •  81 comments

Ex-Atheist Dr. Sarah Salviander Destroys Atheism with One Tweet
Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe. Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



If you're unfamiliar with Dr. Sarah Salviander, I encourage you to make her acquaintance. She's a Christian apologist, takes the Genesis creation account literally (although she's not a young earth creationist, she believes that God created the cosmos in six days), has a Ph.D. in astrophysics, and is an ex-atheist. Because of her background and credentials, Salviander has insight into atheism that many do not. Earlier this month, utilizing that insight, Salviander tweeted a sharply worded reminder that atheism suffers from intellectual dishonesty.

In the tweet, Sarah Salviander provides steps to crafting your own atheistic philosophy. Her steps are: "1. Start with the assumption of no God 2. However, also start with Christian morality 3. Remove the bits you personally don’t like 4. Proclaim that it's self-evident 5. Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe."  


In a follow-up tweet, and in case you're curious, Salviander explains that since she receives the same criticism and arguments from atheists over and over, she's pinned a tweet to the top of her page linking to an article answering commonly asked questions and arguments from atheists. However, the above tweet is apologetics gold.

Step number one pokes at the wholly unsubstantiated claim that there is no God. Contrary to popular belief, Christians do not blindly believe in God. We look at the evidence and conclude that the data supports our belief in God. Atheists, on the other hand, blindly believe that there is no God. This is demonstrated by Salviander's next three steps.

Dipping into the evidence for the existence of a God, atheists pick and choose which parts of Christian morality they like and discard whatever they don't like. Paraphrasing a statement Douglas Wilson made to Christopher Hitchens, atheists hijack the Christian's car (morality) and then unwittingly crash it into a tree. The reality is that if the universe is impersonal, then morality is socially constructed with no basis in objectivity. Without a transcendent Being that has authority, no one can rightfully claim that it's wrong to do anything. Without the existence of a God, I am free to do whatever I want.

Sure, people can band together and form a society that restricts actions that they agree impede their collective goals. But, if another group takes power and decides to pursue goals that allow for previously restricted actions to be unrestricted, there is no outside authority to which those who disagree can appeal to. Might makes right.



Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.

Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by utter chaos. Sarah Salviander's tweet almost perfectly sums up the intellectual dishonesty inherent in atheism.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

“Might makes right.


Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.

Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by utter chaos.”

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

Atheism is an intellectually dishonest viewpoint.  It is riddled with inconsistencies and is dependent upon the idea that life has no meaning and that the universe is utter chaos totally formed by random chance.  

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2    5 years ago

I'm sorry that you feel your life has no meaning without some evil boogeyman threatening to torture you if you don't worship it.  My life has plenty of meaning.

And morality is not Christian. The Golden Rule far predates Christianity.  It's actually an immoral stance to only behave because you think some god will reward you if you do, and punish you if you don't.  Atheists are moral for its own sake - a much better mindframe.  The bible is one of the most immoral books I've ever read - your god commands its followers to destroy an enemy tribe (including all women who aren't virgins) and then to rape and enslave the young virgin girls.  It tells parents of disobedient children to have their neighbors stone the kids to death.  Thank goodness I don't rely on THAT for my morality!

"Without the existence of a God, I am free to do whatever I want."

That's what Christian apologists think, actually. They think their faith alone gives them a get out of hell free card, and that as long as they worship God, they can do whatever they want and still have an eternal reward.  It's sad that these people are so immoral that they admit that without their belief in a god, they wouldn't be able to behave.  So they project their immorality onto atheists, because they apparently just don't have a real innate morality to fall back onto as we do.

Far from "destroying atheism," this twit just made it even clearer why some Christians are so full of crap and are so immoral.

"Atheists, on the other hand, blindly believe that there is no God."

Do you believe in unicorns or flying spotted hippos or leprechauns?  Do believe in Isis or Zeus?  If not, why not?  I'd guess you don't because there is no evidence.  I merely believe in one fewer god/supernatural being/fairy than you do, for the same reason you don't believe in those other gods/fairies/supernatural beings.  It's not blind belief - it is merely the lack of evidence that makes us not believe.  Not to mention that if I did believe in your god, I wouldn't worship it - I don't worship evil psychos who commit mass murder.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  katrix @2.1    5 years ago

This former atheist the seed is about has triggered the musotheism infecting and being the true cause of atheism.  

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
2.1.2  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.1    5 years ago

The true cause of atheism is intelligent and logical thinking, for most people.

In others, it's simply the lack of brainwashing.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
2.1.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  katrix @2.1.2    5 years ago
The true cause of atheism is intelligent and logical thinking, for most people.

That's weird, because for myself it was those two things that made me believe in GOD not some books written by men thousands of years ago. 

Although my logical believe of GOD is more inline with what I now understand is a deist beliefs than any other religion.   

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.1    5 years ago

How could I hate any mythology or superstition unless I ever believed in it? 

Those who have been brainwashed into believing figments of the imagination are also not worthy of my hate, just my pity.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  cjcold @2.1.4    5 years ago

There attests who were once believers and there are former atheists who are now believers such as the topic of the seed.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.5    5 years ago
There attests who were once believers and there are former atheists who are now believers such as the topic of the seed.  

And that means what exactly? There are also theists who became atheists too. Neither validates any claims about god or god's existence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.1    5 years ago

What the hell is musotheism?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    5 years ago
Step number one pokes at the wholly unsubstantiated claim that there is no God. Contrary to popular belief, Christians do not blindly believe in God. We look at the evidence and conclude that the data supports our belief in God. Atheists, on the other hand, blindly believe that there is no God. This is demonstrated by Salviander's next three steps.

Typically believers redefine atheism as a positive disbelief in a god.   That is intellectually dishonest.   While some atheists do go that far, most atheists simply lack belief that a god exists.   Profoundly different positions.    As for Christian evidence, it would be very intriguing to actually see this evidence.   Claiming evidence is not nearly as good as actually delivering it.   This article is no different.  Note that no evidence is provided - only claims in passing.

The reality is that if the universe is impersonal, then morality is socially constructed with no basis in objectivity.

Indeed.   Without an arbiter there can be no objective morality.   That would mean that morality, as we perceive it, is subjective (relative).   Not surprisingly, that is exactly what we observe.

Without a transcendent Being that has authority, no one can rightfully claim that it's wrong to do anything. Without the existence of a God, I am free to do whatever I want.

Except that we are all subject to our culture and societies.   Our larger 'group' defines a subjective morality.   This morality is not that of a god, but (as with our laws) it is binding.   So, no, we are not free to do whatever we want.   But yes, without a god there is no objective morality - morality is then at best of human origin.

Sure, people can band together and form a society that restricts actions that they agree impede their collective goals. But, if another group takes power and decides to pursue goals that allow for previously restricted actions to be unrestricted, there is no outside authority to which those who disagree can appeal to. Might makes right.

That is correct.   If there is no uber-authority then there is no uber-authority.   If there is no god then there is no god.   This is not an argument.   It is an appeal to emotion.   If we do not have objective morality we only have subjective (relative) morality.   

Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.

If reality is undirected (i.e. no god) that does not mean there is no morality.   It is odd that people argue that morality is all or none.  Objective (god-determined) morality would be all or none.  Subjective morality, however, does exist (we observe it) and will continue to exist as long as human beings are around.   Not as cool as objective morality, but morality nonetheless.

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
4  DRHunk    5 years ago

Why does morality have to be  Christian thing.  Morality is a societal thing, not attributed to any one religion. 

Example.  It is now considered immoral to use children for labor, not so much in the past. It is now immoral to have relations with anyone under 18yrs old.  Not so much in the past. It used to be immoral for girls to wear pants, not so much anymore.  It used to be moral for governments to conquer less civilized and technologically advanced nations, not so much anymore....etc

This ladies whole premise is left wanting

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
4.1  katrix  replied to  DRHunk @4    5 years ago

Just think how immoral biblical marriage is to us now.  Selling little girls to old men, forcing widows to marry their husband's brother, telling people to kidnap, enslave and marry little girls from neighboring tribes, saying that husbands can beat their wives ... we now consider those things immoral but, as you said, back then they were accepted as normal.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  DRHunk @4    5 years ago

Her premise is 100% correct.  

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
4.2.1  DRHunk  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2    5 years ago

wow, best argument ever, i am totally changing my mind.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2    5 years ago

You didn't prove a damn thing and neither did she

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
4.2.3  DRHunk  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.2    5 years ago

Pick up a history book and underline all the places where the world has changed due to "Christian"/"Biblical" morality and underline all the areas where societal pressures has changed the morality and then get back to me on who won.

Would be nice for someone to identify what is "Christian" Morality really is also.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  DRHunk @4    5 years ago

Without God there is no morality.  He is the author of it.  Without Him there would be no life.  Just a void filled with chaos.  

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
4.3.1  Phoenyx13  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.3    5 years ago
Without God there is no morality.  He is the author of it.  Without Him there would be no life.  Just a void filled with chaos.

that would be filed under "your own personal belief" - of course some of us don't condone nor enthusiastically support slavery and murder as you do for your God and your God's "morality"

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
4.3.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.3    5 years ago
Without God there is no morality.  He is the author of it.  Without Him there would be no life.  Just a void filled with chaos.  

The concept of morality predates your religion by 2000+ years 

The existence of the very secular concept of the ethic of reciprocity leaves your claims wanting.  There is nothing to suggest that religious belief is inherently moral. More than 70% of the people in American are Christians is proof of that idea. 

The lack of belief in a god is neither immoral or chaos.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.3.3  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.3    5 years ago
Without God there is no morality.  He is the author of it.

How odd, considering god is one of the most immoral entities ever imagined, according to the bible. I guess god thinks slavery is moral and acceptable then, as he didn't outright prohibit it?

 Without Him there would be no life.  Just a void filled with chaos.

Still waiting for you to prove that. Otherwise, that's merely your own belief.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
4.3.4  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.3    5 years ago

"The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe."

But the bible DOES tell me to take my neighbor's farm by force, and to murder all males and all non-virgin women living on it, and to kidnap, rape and enslave the young virgin girls.  Well, an entire village, not just a farm.  And that's even worse.

You have no moral ground to stand on.  None at all.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

Creation by God is the source of origin of the universe, this solar system, and all life including mankind.  She is right in pressing that fact.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.1  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5    5 years ago
Creation by God is the source of origin of the universe, this solar system, and all life including mankind.  

It is a shame that you cannot prove a word of that nonsense.

She is right in pressing that fact.  

She is a liar.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
5.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  epistte @5.1    5 years ago
you cannot prove a word of that 

True, whats your explanation, or do you offer one ?    

  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.1.2  epistte  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @5.1.1    5 years ago
True, whats your explanation, or do you offer one ?    

1.) There is no god

2.) Religious belief does not in any way make a person moral because the belief in a god does not guarantee moral behavior.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
5.1.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  epistte @5.1.2    5 years ago
There is no god

Maybe to you,

I do have a GOD, it arranged all the atoms to be all that is. Can you disprove my GOD ? I offer no prove myself. So its OK if you can't. Feel free to try though. I'll check back. 

Religious belief does not in any way make a person moral

I fully agree !

IMO: Most are religiously brainwashed, non thinking followers of someone else's ideas. Pawns usually for someone's benefit in some way as well.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.1.4  epistte  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @5.1.3    5 years ago
I do have a GOD, it arranged all the atoms to be all that is. Can you disprove my GOD ? I offer no prove myself. So its OK if you can't. Feel free to try though. I'll check back. 

I don't have to prove anything because I am not the person who is claiming that something exists.  Something doesn't automatically exist until I can objectively prove that it does not.  That is not how the burden of proof works. You are making a positive claim so the burden of proof is on your to prove your claim to be true. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
5.1.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  epistte @5.1.4    5 years ago
You are making a positive claim so the burden of proof is on your to prove your claim to be true. 

I covered that:

I offer no prove myself.

Just offering the option, some like that. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @5.1.4    5 years ago

On this matter no direct proof will come from God. People will believe by faith or not with the full eternal ramifications we all know about for either choice.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.1.7  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.6    5 years ago
On this matter no direct proof will come from God. People will believe by faith or not with the full eternal ramifications we all know about for either choice.  

This claim didn't come from god because if it did then there would be proof that God exists but there is no proof of God existing.

Your belief that there is an eternity is completely unsupported by facts. I'd ask how would you feel after you die when you don't go to heaven, but there is no consciousness after the brain dies, so your thoughts will cease to exist.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.6    5 years ago
On this matter no direct proof will come from God.

No one asked for proof from god. Only from those who claim there is a god.

People will believe by faith or not with the full eternal ramifications we all know about for either choice.

If there were a god, there would be no such thing as choice. But some of us are incapable of mere belief. We prefer actual evidence or proof.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    5 years ago

Ultimately it is because faith is belief in something without sufficient (or any) evidence.   Evidence is the foundation of fact.   Faith is not factual - it is merely believing something because some other human being claims it is true. 

When someone makes a claim such as 'you will all burn in hell'  or 'come judgment day you will regret your disbelief in God' or any other religious claim, that individual is simply parroting an idea that someone else claimed to be true.   The natural response will be to corroborate the claim.   

If someone told you that Allah demands you face Mecca and pray (submit) to him five times a day and the penalty for refusal is to be deemed an apostate, executed and then face judgment as a disbeliever, would you accept that on face value or would you challenge the claim?

For example, here is one Muslim's view of what happens when a disbeliever dies:

Death of a Non-Believer

When a non-believer is close to death, Hazrat Izraeel and thousands of other Angel come with darkened faces. They will have Clothes from hell and dirty smells from hell. Angel Izraeel will approach the non-believer and say:

"Oh corrupt soul come out, Allah is angry with you". The soul with great difficulty leaves the body and will be dressed in the clothes from hell and the dirty smells of Hell will be put on him. The soul is then taken to the sky and on the way all the Angel who go past, curse it. When the Angels knock on the door of the first level of the sky, the Angel in side reply "Throw him in SIJJEEN" (Sijjeen is a place under the seven skies where all the soul of non-believers wait). The soul is thrown into Sijjeen and the souls who are already there can not talk, because they are in their own punishment. The soul is then taken back to his body at the time of burial and the questioning starts in the same way. When the questioning is done, the soul returns to Sijjeen and it still has contact with its body. When a non-believer is buried, the same questions will be asked to the non-believer:

"WHO IS YOUR LORD"?
"I DON'T KNOW" replies the non-believer.

"WHAT IS YOUR RELIGION"
"I DON'T KNOW". replies the non believer

Then the dead person will be then be shown the face of prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the two Angels will ask: "WHO IS THIS"? "I DO NOT KNOW" replies the non believer.

The Angel will say: "He is a liar! put clothes of fire on Him, make Him a bed in hell and open the window of Hell for him". Then facing the non-believer, the window of hell fire opens and hot air from hell enters the grave. The grave tightens and the Angel will hit the non-believer between the eyes with an iron bar. If that iron bar hit a mountain in this world, the mountain would crumble like powder. Then the non-believer will scream in so much pain that everything from East to West will be able to hear the screams, all except human beings and Jinns. The second punishment will be the 99 poisonous snakes in the grave, which will not stop biting the person until the Day of Judgement. This is because he did not believe in Allah (subhana wa ta'ala).

Then an ugly looking man will come, who will smell disgusting and who will be wearing dirty clothes and say: "Be unhappy this is the day that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) promised you. You will suffer in agony until the Day of Judgement". The person from the grave, will ask: "Who are you" The man will reply: "I am your bad deeds"

Is it wrong to wonder how this person knows this to be true?   Should one simply accept this as true or should one seek evidence that supports these claims?  After all, these are very serious consequences.   Seems that if one does not believe in the right religion (and in the right way - e.g. pray 5 times a day) one will face eternal damnation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.9    5 years ago
why does every single article dealing with anything remotely related to God or faith always boil down to "That's nice. Prove it."?

Because some people make affirmative declarations regarding god, so the logical response and expectation is the requirement of proof, or even evidence.

Why would I be bothered by something I don't believe is true regarding religion or God?

Part of it is that some people claim to have "truth" regarding god, when it is impossible to collaborate.

Why does every single argument remotely touching on religion or God devolve into "Prove it"?

See first statement. A request for proof is a valid response to affirmative claims about god.

Can atheists simply not be happy unless everyone believes as they do?

What makes you think atheists are unhappy? And what beliefs do atheists have exactly?

Is that why so many of them constantly demean people of all faiths?

Challenging or analyzing the claims based on faith is not demeaning anyone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.11    5 years ago
... or I can make a fool of myself and start arguing with them

Engaging in debate is foolish?   Depends on the details, right?   You 'argue' all the time on NT.   Do you consider that making a fool of yourself?

Why does every single argument remotely touching on religion or God devolve into "Prove it"?

My prior post addressed that.

Can atheists simply not be happy unless everyone believes as they do? Is that why so many of them constantly demean people of all faiths?

Atheists are simply people who are not convinced in a god.   People differ and thus you will see different behaviors.   Demeaning people is never good; demeaning ideas is a very different thing. 

Challenging claims is almost always good.   It is through challenges (the dialectic) that human beings advance understanding of reality.    One can choose to ignore whatever one wishes, but if one is in pursuit of truth one will likely challenge and debate rather than ignore with a dismissive 'whatever'.

I offered you an example of an Islamic belief.   This is a belief that you likely do not share.   Yet billions of people in the world consider you an apostate - an individual whom Allah will consider scum and cast away for eternity - a person who should be executed.   It is easy enough to see how that can easily be turned by radical organizations into complete disregard for human life.   Plenty of nasty things are taking place on the planet today and will continue for the foreseeable future all based on believing the claims of others as absolute truth.   

Challenging beliefs that are not founded in evidence is a good thing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.14    5 years ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
5.1.16  Phoenyx13  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.10    5 years ago
Should one simply accept this as true or should one seek evidence that supports these claims?

it certainly does seem odd to me that many of the religious won't require any kind of evidence (empirical evidence, facts, logic) for something involving their religious beliefs - but they will certainly require/demand evidence (empirical evidence, facts, logic) for claims involving politicians, the President and other topics... makes me wonder why they won't take all of that stuff just on faith like they do with their religious beliefs ? what makes religious belief different ?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.1.16    5 years ago

Because religious belief is based on faith. Without faith there is nothing.  Not one person who ever lived, is living now, or will live in the future without faith and the resulting development of a relationship based on it and whatever best light they were shown will ever end up in Heaven.  

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
5.1.18  Phoenyx13  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.17    5 years ago
Because religious belief is based on faith. Without faith there is nothing.  Not one person who ever lived, is living now, or will live in the future without faith and the resulting development of a relationship based on it and whatever best light they were shown will ever end up in Heaven.

why don't you take everything on faith ? why do you require facts/empirical evidence/logic for some topics but not others ? shouldn't you be consistent and require facts/empirical evidence/logic for everything ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.17    5 years ago
Because religious belief is based on faith.

True. but some of us prefer facts and evidence.

Without faith there is nothing.

Speak for yourself. It's quite sad if you think you have nothing without faith. 

 Not one person who ever lived, is living now, or will live in the future without faith and the resulting development of a relationship based on it and whatever best light they were shown will ever end up in Heaven.  

So you speak for god now? You know precisely what he will decide in the future? Wow, you must be as omniscient as god is if you know that. Or just plain arrogant to make such presumptions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.17    5 years ago
Without faith there is nothing.

Without [ strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ] there is nothing.

There is quite a bit more than nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.15    5 years ago

'There are plenty of people doing bad things on earth who don't subscribe to any religion or God.'

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Well no duh right?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5    5 years ago
Creation by God is the source of origin of the universe, this solar system, and all life including mankind.

Who created God then?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
5.2.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Ozzwald @5.2    5 years ago
Who created God then?

Perhaps GOD 

whose to say the creation isn't the creator and the creation all one and the same ? 

Not I.

But my only GOD is whatever arranged all the atoms to be all that is.

I dont know any more, and dont feel I need to. I also dont really believe any other living human knows for sure either. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2    5 years ago

"Who created God then?"

Her name is yet to be revealed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  bbl-1 @5.2.2    5 years ago

Her name is yet to be revealed.

I see what you did there... jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2    5 years ago

No one and nothing.  God was not created and has always existed and always will.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.5  epistte  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2    5 years ago
Who created God then?

The FSM created everything.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.4    5 years ago
No one and nothing.  God was not created and has always existed and always will.  

Once again: That's nice. prove it! Otherwise, that is just an empty declaration.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.6    5 years ago

In the last days the great deceiver will supply “proof” tha “god” exists and it will be so convincing that the non believers and nominal believers will believe the direct signs and wonders they see and wander after the beast.  Only the most devout will not fall for the impersonation deception and those will be severely persecuted by followers of the “proof”.  Those demanding proof via signs and wonders will get their wish but it will come from the dark side.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.7    5 years ago

You are parroting stories written by ancient men.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
5.2.9  Phoenyx13  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.4    5 years ago
No one and nothing.  God was not created and has always existed and always will.

isn't it odd ? you'll state the Big Bang Theory (the *poof* into existence so to speak) is nonsense and pseudo-science yet you are peddling the same theory since your God was *poofed* into existence according to you.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.10  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.8    5 years ago
You are parroting stories written by ancient men.

The stories being parroted are not original to the Christian or even the Abrahamic religions. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @5.2.10    5 years ago

Lots of parroting took place in the past too.  jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

The worst source of information is that which relies solely on the word of another human being.

The best source of information is that which can be empirically measured and verified.

Personally, I favor the latter.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @5.2.1    5 years ago

congrats Steve.  Meet random chance, your creator and god over our meaningless existence.jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.8    5 years ago

Are we superior to those that lived before us?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.14  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.2.9    5 years ago

I never said that. I said the opposite.  That God was never created, never popped into existence from nothing, and never had a beginning.  There was no beginning of time for Him.  He has simply always existed.  No beginning and no end.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  epistte @5.2.10    5 years ago

But they are original to God who had believers before Abraham.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.13    5 years ago
Are we superior to those that lived before us?

No, but we know substantially more than they did and -crucially- we can do our own thinking rather than simply accept that what they wrote is true.   Especially when their words are so clearly errant.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
5.2.17  Phoenyx13  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.14    5 years ago
I never said that. I said the opposite.  That God was never created, never popped into existence from nothing, and never had a beginning.  There was no beginning of time for Him.  He has simply always existed.  No beginning and no end.

there had to be a beginning for your God - everything has a beginning and an end , i'm not sure why you aren't aware of that. I guess if you believe in magic then anything is possible - including something never beginning an existence but suddenly just existing jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
5.2.18  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.12    5 years ago
your creator and god over our meaningless existence.

O come on now KMG, Everything needs a friend. maybe GOD did to. 

I like that better than thinking I was created to make it feel good for eternity. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.2.19  bbl-1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.7    5 years ago

"In the last days?'  Rats.  I want to see Ivanka pole dance now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.14    5 years ago
He has simply always existed.

The only thing that we can logically know has always 'been' is existence itself:

1.  Things exist - existence is true  

2.  Something cannot come from nothing (literally nothing)

∴  Existence has always 'been'

If God exists then God is 'of' existence; God is a form of existence.   God thus had a beginning or God is existence itself.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.2.22  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.20    5 years ago

My comment was about Ivanka, not women in general.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.24  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5.2.17    5 years ago

God said he always has been, that He had no beginning and has no end as in eternal into the past and into the future, and I’ll take His word for it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.25  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.16    5 years ago

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the expressions written by men and women inspired to write what they did by God.  The only part literally written by God himself by His own hand is His eternal law,  The Ten Commandments.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.26  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.25    5 years ago
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the expressions written by men and women inspired to write what they did by God.  The only part literally written by God himself by His own hand is His eternal law,  The Ten Commandments.  

Your god needs meds for multiple personality disorder if he wrote both the Old and New Testament.  Why is there 4 gospels that do not agree if you claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of your god? 

 The Bible was written by and has been edited many times by ignorant men, so which edition of the Bible is the correct one? When did your God tell you that it is true, or is this another of your beliefs?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.25    5 years ago
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the expressions written by men and women inspired to write what they did by God.  The only part literally written by God himself by His own hand is His eternal law,  The Ten Commandments.  

I understand you believe that KAG, but it is a belief that contradicts the evidence.

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of a perfect God it would not contain errors.    Further, which Bible do you think is the inerrant Word of God?   Are you aware that the original source of the Bible does not exist?   So even if the original Bible (whatever that might be) was inerrant, how do you claim that all the translated and edited versions over time are inerrant?

Without even getting into specific (and obvious) errors, not having the original source for the Bible means you cannot actually claim anything about its divinity or veracity because you are simply repeating claims made by edited, translated words at the hands of an uncountable number of human editors/writers.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.28  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.12    5 years ago
congrats Steve.  Meet random chance, your creator and god over our meaningless existence.

His Deistic god is the only one that has even a very slight chance of being remotely possible. Your god is a 3rd-rate plagiarized myth by comparison.  

Why do you have a problem with there being no meaning to your existence?  The fact that life on Earth exists at all is random chance.  Far more than 1/3 of people in the US were not planned by their parents.

Despite advancements in contraceptive technology and the millions of dollars that is spent each year on contraception research and development, unplanned pregnancy rates in the U.S. have remained essentially unchanged for decades. The cost of these unplanned pregnancies is enormous, both in terms of public health and personal financial and emotional costs, and while they occur in all socioeconomic groups, unplanned pregnancies tend to happen more frequently in the underserved – women who are already financially and socially challenged. Approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and of these, 43 percent will end in abortion.

“Approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and of these, 43 percent will end in abortion.”

Over three million women in the U.S. each year experience an unplanned pregnancy, but this is not, however, usually due to failure to attempt contraception. About 90 percent of sexually active women use some form of contraception. The 10 percent of women who do not use contraception account for approximately half of unplanned pregnancies, but the other half occur in women who were attempting to use some form of birth control.
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.2.29  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.7    5 years ago
In the last days the great deceiver will supply “proof” tha “god” exists and it will be so convincing that the non believers and nominal believers will believe the direct signs and wonders they see and wander after the beast.

In other words, you have no proof. Just empty assertions with no basis in fact. Got it. Can't say I'm surprised either.

That God was never created, never popped into existence from nothing, and never had a beginning. There was no beginning of time for Him. He has simply always existed. No beginning and no end.

Just another empty platitude and religious rhetoric.

God said he always has been, that He had no beginning and has no end as in eternal into the past and into the future, and I’ll take His word for it.

Repeating your illogical nonsense doesn't make it any more true, nor you any more correct.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the expressions written by men and women inspired to write what they did by God.

"Inspired" is meaningless and does not equate to actual or factual.

The only part literally written by God himself by His own hand is His eternal law, The Ten Commandments.

Really? Where's his signature then?

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
5.2.30  Phoenyx13  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.24    5 years ago
God said he always has been, that He had no beginning and has no end as in eternal into the past and into the future, and I’ll take His word for it.

I am telling you for a fact that I have always been, I have had no beginning and no end, as in eternal into the past and into the future - will you take my word for it ? I could write it in a book if you wish as well - then you could read it, would that help ?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @5.2.28    5 years ago

I know I was an oopsie

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.32  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.31    5 years ago
I know I was an oopsie

As was I, as I have learned recently.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
5.3  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5    5 years ago
Creation by God is the source of origin of the universe, this solar system, and all life including mankind.

That's nice. prove it!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6  bbl-1    5 years ago

I always had a crush of Cassiopeia.

They said she was vain.  But she wasn't------------she was beautiful.  She was right.

 
 

Who is online


Jeremy Retired in NC


680 visitors