Soooooooooo.....no rapture...again.

[ceyko]

You have your very own thread in here in which all of this has already been addressed.

Yeah, I was going to say..."What the hell, same topic, same people, arguing the same thing." ....again.

If it's entertaining, cool. Just seems like it would be frustrating, sort of like that guy off Forrest Gump who had the hooker riding him and could not get it up.

[jdgregory84]

I honestly think you're doing this whole thing just to be a contrarian at this point. You're probably laughing at yourself, trying to think of something to say (measuring from about half the posts you made on here). I get it. It is kind of funny.

Actually, I'm not.

Prove that going to heaven is fake, dick. Please prove it.

This is actually still the only thing keeping me around this thread. You still don't seem to get how things typically work. You say something exists and tell other people to prove that it doesn't when you have never proved that it does. At this point, you remind me of a 6 year old. Which IS funny. Especially since you try to be everybodies daddy around here.

[Denny]

I never needed the proof and I was trying to show the ones that do need proof of His existence that it could go both ways. Doesn't sound so 6 year old to me, son.

[jdgregory84]

I never needed the proof and I was trying to show the ones that do need proof of His existence that it could go both ways. Doesn't sound so 6 year old to me, son.

That's exactly what it is. "I don't need proof. Prove me wrong." It's immature as hell. You're making a pretty substancial claim, and use something I would expect to hear a kid tell another kid at recess as a defense mechanism to try and validate your claim.

[Denny]

Look... I'll dumb it down for you EVEN MORE.

I believe in God without proof. The guy I responded to doesn't believe in God because of lack of proof. There is also lack of proof that He DOESN'T exist, so it doesn't make sense for hime to not believe (thus coming to a conclusion) if he is claiming to need proof. Wouldn't someone needing proof, need to have it either way before drawing a conclusion? If not, then his conclusion would be founded on a belief. So, if it is a belief (either way), then why knock the ones that have a belief with a different conclusion?

[Denny]

I don't need to be proven wrong, he just needs proof either way if his conclusion is supposed to be based on proof (or lack thereof). If it was truly that way, he would have no conclusion.

[jdgregory84]

There is also lack of proof that He DOESN'T exist

If you use this train of thought in everyday practices, you're literally one of the dumbest mother fuckers on the planet.

[jdgregory84]

A unicorn just galloped down my street. It was crazy.

[Denny]

If you use this train of thought in everyday practices, you're literally one of the dumbest mother fuckers on the planet.

I don't, but once again... I'm showing you the silliness of someone comparing faith to proof on something that cannot be proven. You'll get it eventually.

[Maddhattter]

Look... I'll dumb it down for you EVEN MORE.

I believe in God without proof. The guy I responded to doesn't believe in God because of lack of proof. There is also lack of proof that He DOESN'T exist, so it doesn't make sense for hime to not believe (thus coming to a conclusion) if he is claiming to need proof. Wouldn't someone needing proof, need to have it either way before drawing a conclusion? If not, then his conclusion would be founded on a belief. So, if it is a belief (either way), then why knock the ones that have a belief with a different conclusion?

I don't need to be proven wrong, he just needs proof either way if his conclusion is supposed to be based on proof (or lack thereof). If it was truly that way, he would have no conclusion.

It doesn’t make sense for someone not to believe something in which there is no proof? How does that not sound like an idiotic claim?

Believing and not believing is what is called a true dichotomy. The same way theist and atheist is a true dichotomy. There is no in between. If you can’t say that you believe in god/gods/supernatural, then you don’t believe or lack the belief. There is no middle ground. Either you do, or you do not believe.

If you do believe in god/gods, then you are a theist. If you don’t believe or lack the belief in god/gods, you are an atheist. There is nothing between the two.

The person who does not believe is not making a claim, of any kind. They are merely rejecting your claim, due to the lack of proof provided to support your conclusion. They are not buying what you are selling(religion), they are not selling something else.

[Denny]

It doesn’t make sense for someone not to believe something in which there is no proof? How does that not sound like an idiotic claim?

Believing and not believing is what is called a true dichotomy. The same way theist and atheist is a true dichotomy. There is no in between. If you can’t say that you believe in god/gods/supernatural, then you don’t believe or lack the belief. There is no middle ground. Either you do, or you do not believe.

If you do believe in god/gods, then you are a theist. If you don’t believe or lack the belief in god/gods, you are an atheist. There is nothing between the two.

The person who does not believe is not making a claim, of any kind. They are merely rejecting your claim, due to the lack of proof provided to support your conclusion. They are not buying what you are selling(religion), they are not selling something else.

Negative. If all of your decisions are proof-based, then you cannot be atheist. A person can be agnostic, though. Saying there is no God IS a claim.

[jdgregory84]

I don't, but once again... I'm showing you the silliness of someone comparing faith to proof on something that cannot be proven. You'll get it eventually.

What makes you just accept God on faith rather than evidence which apparently you need in other aspects of your life?

[Maddhattter]

Negative. If all of your decisions are proof-based, then you cannot be atheist. A person can be agnostic, though. Saying there is no God IS a claim.

Theists are those with belief in a god or gods.

Therefore, Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods.

Now, when gnostic and agnostic are used as adjectives for theist and atheist, they slightly change the definition.

A Gnostic Theist is a theist who claims to know there is a god or gods.
An Agnostic Theist believes there is a god or gods, but doesn't claim to know.
A Gnostic Atheist claims to know there is no god or gods.
An Agnostic Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, but does not claim to know.

Long Story short, theism and atheism are statements of belief. Gnosticism and Agnosticism are statements of knowledge.

I'm sorry. You don't get to just redefine words at your whim.

[jdgregory84]

Negative. If all of your decisions are proof-based, then you cannot be atheist. A person can be agnostic, though. Saying there is no God IS a claim.

Not believing and a belief in nothing is different.

[Denny]

What makes you just accept God on faith rather than evidence which apparently you need in other aspects of your life?

We exercise faith in many things every day. Maybe not whether or not that God exists, but faith in the things and people around you.