The Atheist Experience [Broadcasting Show]

That's why I asked. Im not psychic playboy lol.

 

In general, I don't.... to each their own.

Except for when to each their own is not truly their own.

For example, I think homosexuals should be allowed to enter the exact same legal union as heterosexuals, irrespective to what the bible says about homosexuality.

 

agreed

 

A scriptural thesis taken from the book of Ecclesiastes
of what the atheist faces in death:

“What so ever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.”……….” For the living know that they will die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more reward: for the memory of them is forgotten”…….Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun”…….Their dust returns to the earth as it was----Their spirit or breath of life, returns to God who gave it”………

 

Thanks Arch, that reminds me... one of the great flaws of the religious is improper, misinformed, or misdirected quotes from the bible.

Part of me wants to sit back and see how many people jump on board Arch's post about what the non-believer faces in death. The greater part of me encourages that you first read the full scripture where you'll see that it's referring to all manner of living creature, man and beast, righteous and evil... not solely the atheist.

With that said, the bible generally reads to the atheist as nothing more than a graphic novel. Quoting scripture to the atheist is as effective as throwing paper airplanes into a brick wall.

 

......Jaisee...plain and simple If you have no faith in God.....Nothing is in-store for after you die......It all ends for you right there.....Now, if that is fine with you, then accept that reality and accept that fate.....be grateful however that you are still alive with the power to decide, for in death, you will have lost that power......

 

And this brings us right back to my original point. The non-believer and the believer can never have a sensible religious argument. The believers argument is rooted in faith (acceptance of a belief system with no tangible or creditable evidence), the non-believers argument is rooted in fact.

It's probably better that the religious stay on their side of the fence and the non-religious on theirs when it comes to discussions of religion.

 

Tbh, non believers are equally basing their belief in nonfacts. You can't actually prove that God does not exist.

 

I would beg to differ. It is not for the non-believer to prove that god does not exist. To the non-believer, the fact that god does not exist is proof enough. As the christian bible itself states, the believer lives by faith while the non-believer lives by sight. The believer lives an life where his belief system is defined by trust in the existence of something that does not exist where the non-believer lives in reality.

I realize how this comes across, and it is not my intention to be condescending to the religious. The simple fact that one chooses to accept religion is acceptance of exactly these things that I speak of and it should be nothing to have to feel defensive or argumentative against.

 

....You see,the laws are written in your heart, there is enough wisdom right here to begin to alter inevitability on the other side of death........

 

How is that a fact? How can the non-existence of God be proven and therefore be a fact? I may not be able to prove that God does exist, but I also don't believe that anyone can prove that he doesn't. I agree with TDK

 

Its perfectly fine for you to have that opinion, that wasn't my point, I just corrected you stating that atheist are basing their belief on facts

 

I have faith that the abominable snowman exists, can you or anyone definitively prove that he doesn't? No.

Therefore, can anyone definitively say that the abominable snowman does not exist?

Quite literally, the exact same logic.

 

The only flaw in that is that it is a misconception to say the non-believers (ones that do not believe) have beliefs. The believer has faith that god does exist, the non-believer knows without question that he does not. The gray area in between would be the agnostic.

 

That is an opinion that I don't even get. That's something that atheists say to put themselves above Christians, even though they operate the exact same way.
Atheists have a belief, obviously and clearly. The same way as Christians know without question that God exists, only difference is they believe he does no exist. Same thing exactly. Exactly same mode of operandi behind both, just in opposite direction.

But both you and I know that we will never convince the other person, but I would not mind arguing w you in person.

 

WHICH, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out, brings me right back to my original statement that it is an exercise in futility for a believer and a non-believer to have a debate on the existence of god.

One says without question, this is reality and it is truth... it is logic, it makes sense. End of story.
The other says without question, your reality is not real and though I cannot prove it.,. it just isn't real. I accept it and so should you.

 

In person, I'll accept whatever you want me to accept.

For the record, I've never stated my stance one way or the other on the existence of god. I just like to think I can see both sides of the coin.

 

I will remember that! And hold it against you!

And I actually knew the 'for the record' you stated that before and I remember

 

Its not literally the same. One is tangible while the other is intangible, to be fair you have a better chance of actually proving the abominable snowman does exist. The existence of a creator always seemed like a no brainer to me, how involved or much he cares is always up for debate but seems like a no brainer to me as well. We have human expectations on a non human entity and its more likely if God did take on any human traits its more likely to think of a small child who builds a sand castle at the beach and goes home afterwards not giving much thought about the sand castle when it goes home let alone taking an interest of the lives of its inhabitants after its gone.

 

My apologies for any misunderstanding. My use of the word 'supposed' is intended to be self-referential or rhetorical in meaning, not literally as in I think people are 'supposed' to do something. I am clear that I am no one's moral authority. At no time do I state myself to be an authority on atheism, either. Despite being an atheist, I was actually offering a critique of atheists who hold a belief in atheism, rather than being focused on the science and reasoning. There is a subset of the atheist community that 'believes' there is no god, when we are not 'supposed' (there goes that word again) to believe in anything. My age reference was only intended to show that I thought this way at a young age and that, like any thought process it has undergone change and refining. No similarity with rabbis is real or intended.