So here's a question for the believers...

[YALE]

There was no inference there. Religion and its relationship to the Bible was the only topic of my post.

Whatever man, keep that goalpost moving bullshit out of my thread.

[YALE]

You are taking peices of the Bible and making conclusions by your own understanding. The Bible will prove itself if you would actually apply yourself in a good study.

I'm really not. I had a very specific question about the nature of god and existence that the bible doesn't speak to. Between then, and now, the thread has imploded into the same faith vs. logic battle they all do.

[The King]

Whatever man, keep that goalpost moving bullshit out of my thread.

That really was the only topic of my post. I know this better than anyone because I wrote it.

U mad bro? If so, don't be.

[BlackSnake]

I'm really not. I had a very specific question about the nature of god and existence that the bible doesn't speak to. Between then, and now, the thread has imploded into the same faith vs. logic battle they all do.

Sorry. Its easy to get caught up in the conversation and take different paths. But to honestly answer your question is pretty much where I left the last post. The proof is in the pooding so to speak. The answer I can not give you. You have to seak that answer on your own by actually studing the Word. The Bible is known as the "living word."

Hebrews 4:12
King James Version (KJV)

12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

OR...

Hebrews 4:12
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Thats as about as clear as I can put it by the scripture quote. Put it to the test as see if it aint so. I did.

[YALE]

Sorry. Its easy to get caught up in the conversation and take different paths. But to honestly answer your question is pretty much where I left the last post. The proof is in the pooding so to speak. The answer I can not give you. You have to seak that answer on your own by actually studing the Word. The Bible is known as the "living word."

Hebrews 4:12
King James Version (KJV)

12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

OR...

Hebrews 4:12
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Thats as about as clear as I can put it by the scripture quote. Put it to the test as see if it aint so. I did.

Oh, I'm picking up what you're putting down. I just have broader questions, and this was one of them. You're cool with me, man.

[jasonw_2005]

That's not the only thing he taught. But this isn't an argument, it's a discussion, and I'm not judging you for what you believe, if it seems like that. I'm trying to understand why. What caused the paradigm shift in your thinking? I'm genuinely curious. Whether you can tell me the actual reason why or not remains to be seen, for all we know you may not know the answer yourself, but the question must be asked. (that last part was an assumption on my part, and just as likely to be wrong as it is right.)

What made you become an atheist?

[racrguy]

What made you become an atheist?

You've asked this before, but this time you met the requirements for an answer!

I became an atheist because theology didn't live up to its end of the burden of proof and has failed to make a convincing argument.

Theology posits that a god exists. Fine, existence can be proven either by direct observation (you or I can be directly observed by measuring weight, height, pigment of the skin, any one of a myriad of ways) or by causality. Similar the way we understand gravity. We know THAT gravity works, because it is demonstrable, measurable, and reproducible, but we do not yet understand how it works.

After we've determined that the god either does or does not exist, each and every claim about said god must be tested in the same fashion. A hypothetical scenario: the god of the abrahamic faiths is known to exist, now it must be proven that the attributes of the bible, torah, and quran are true. One at a time. There can be no "God did X, so all of the *insert holy book here* is true!" God only did X, not Y or Z.

Remember, all babies are born atheists. Children have to be taught about the magic man in the sky.

[The King]

You've asked this before, but this time you met the requirements for an answer!

I became an atheist because theology didn't live up to its end of the burden of proof and has failed to make a convincing argument.

Theology posits that a god exists. Fine, existence can be proven either by direct observation (you or I can be directly observed by measuring weight, height, pigment of the skin, any one of a myriad of ways) or by causality. Similar the way we understand gravity. We know THAT gravity works, because it is demonstrable, measurable, and reproducible, but we do not yet understand how it works.

After we've determined that the god either does or does not exist, each and every claim about said god must be tested in the same fashion. A hypothetical scenario: the god of the abrahamic faiths is known to exist, now it must be proven that the attributes of the bible, torah, and quran are true. One at a time. There can be no "God did X, so all of the *insert holy book here* is true!" God only did X, not Y or Z.

Remember, all babies are born atheists. Children have to be taught about the magic man in the sky.

Since racrguy in his post above has clearly defined his requirement for proof supplied by (in his terms) either direct observation or by causality, perhaps he can provide us proof of the first sentence of his closing statement. Note by the way his inclusion of "all", which implies that he must have some superior knowledge of all babys' beliefs at birth that the rest of haven't been blessed with or taught. I personally can not see into the minds of others to know, with such clarity as racrguy seemingly possesses, their belief structures. We must have a reincarnation of Carnac the Magnificent among us, ladies and gentlemen!

[racrguy]

Since racrguy in his post above has clearly defined his requirement for proof supplied by (in his terms) either direct observation or by causality, perhaps he can provide us proof of the first sentence of his closing statement. Note by the way his inclusion of "all", which implies that he must have some superior knowledge of all babys' beliefs at birth that the rest of haven't been blessed with or taught. I personally can not see into the minds of others to know, with such clarity as racrguy seemingly possesses, their belief structures. We must have a reincarnation of Carnac the Magnificent among us, ladies and gentlemen!

Whatever man, keep that goalpost moving bullshit out of my thread.

werd, Yale.

[The King]

And yet another fail delivered by racrboy the tool as he stumbles all over himself, again.

[racrguy]

I'm going to sum you up with a quote from the internet.

Arguing with The King is like playing chess with a pigeon.

You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut around triumphantly.

(I edited the quote to include your name, to make it fit better.)

[The King]

Booorrrrriiiing racrboy, as usual

Do stick with quotes from the internet however, because that just might help you to avoid stumbling over yourself so badly in your ongoing quest to appear relevant when using your own words, Carnac.

[BlackSnake]

You've asked this before, but this time you met the requirements for an answer!

I became an atheist because theology didn't live up to its end of the burden of proof and has failed to make a convincing argument.

Theology posits that a god exists. Fine, existence can be proven either by direct observation (you or I can be directly observed by measuring weight, height, pigment of the skin, any one of a myriad of ways) or by causality. Similar the way we understand gravity. We know THAT gravity works, because it is demonstrable, measurable, and reproducible, but we do not yet understand how it works.

After we've determined that the god either does or does not exist, each and every claim about said god must be tested in the same fashion. A hypothetical scenario: the god of the abrahamic faiths is known to exist, now it must be proven that the attributes of the bible, torah, and quran are true. One at a time. There can be no "God did X, so all of the *insert holy book here* is true!" God only did X, not Y or Z.

Remember, all babies are born atheists. Children have to be taught about the magic man in the sky.

I absolutly, without a doubt, know that God exist.

You are pretty sure that he doesnt.

Im sorry man, but I kind of chuckle a little at the thought of babies being atheist. Since atheists are people who reject the notion of a god, then even by your own understanding babies cannot be athiest.

[The King]

Where's that proof you were told to provide, racrboy. Since you've obviously lost your focus, it's the proof that your knowledge is correct about what newborns believe that you have been summoned to provide. Get to googling now, we're eagerly awaiting your internet quotes.

[racrguy]

I absolutly, without a doubt, know that God exist.

Then you should be able to demonstrate it.

You are pretty sure that he doesnt.

There isn't enough information to make a call either way.

Im sorry man, but I kind of chuckle a little at the thought of babies being atheist. Since atheists are people who reject the notion of a god, then even by your own understanding babies cannot be athiest.

This is just all wrong. Atheism is NOT the rejection of a god, it's the lack of belief. Using your understanding of atheism, it would be similar to rejecting the existence of dogs, even with evidence proving the contrary.

Babies are atheists because they do not believe in a god, they have to be indoctrinated to believe religious claims.