Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
@leonidas69 People who become atheists are often people who have had a negative experience with some religious person/people, and then they reject the religion because they can't reconcile that person's behavior with their understanding of god. The reality is that a scripturally accurate belief of god is often very liberating, even if you don't believe in the Christian god.
Furthermore, you can logically deduce the existence of a creator with science (something I would be happy to share with you, if you would like) but there is no logical deduction for the absence of a creator. The statement "you can't prove that an invisible being exists who can defy the laws of nature" is just reflective of a lack of understanding about what religious people actually believe in.
Doesn't sound like they weren't athiest in the first place but here's the logic. We have no proof god exists. So we cannot simply believe it exists.
@leonidas69 Yes, but if you think about it; that's predicated 3 huge assumptions. 1. It assumes that humans have reached the ability to observe the divine, if it exists 2. It assumes that we have observed enough nature to form a conclusion about its origin3. It assumes that the divine would choose to reveal itself to humans in an observable form.Those assumptions are why the Atheist understanding of what makes a god a god so problematic.
That's not a problem that's a conspiracy theory. 😂 Get fucked, lol.
Even the logical proof of the statement "we have no proof of god, therefore we cannot believe in god," is a little bit tricky... It's honestly a little of a leap.
@leonidas69 It's not a conspiracy at all my man, I would be happy to share my deduction with you, if you would like. I promise that you'll find it rewarding.
What's tricky about my 2 step logic? 😂
P. s. my statement was writen different than your attempt at a quote!
@leonidas69 I'd actually heard that quote from another person I'd spoken to, but you're right; it's not a direct quote. The reason your two-step logic is tricky is because you have your mind made up as part of the reason you have believe what you do. Your conclusion is a necessary part of your premise, which you use to support your conclusion (I'm in law school, we deal with this kind of stuff all the time). You make the statement that you cannot simply believe something exists because you have not witnessed proof of its existence. But would you say the same thing about intelligent life on Mars? No, of course you wouldn't. You would say that there might be proof of intelligent life on Mars, and if we found suspicious rocks that looked like buildings you would say "wow, that kind of looks like there was intelligent life on Mars." This is why I call atheism an emotional thing. Because no one in their right mind would turn down a chance to study cool Mars rocks that sort of look like buildings, but the reason you haven't taken me up on my offer is simple; because you already made up your mind that you don't want to look.
You talk shit mate. I first said we have no proof god exists. Then I said so we cannot simply believe it exists. I'd apply the same logic to life on Mars. We have no proof of life on Mars. So we cannot simply believe it exists. Going to search for proof is not simply believing because there is intentions of finding out more. The difference is we have had millenias with no proof of god and only hours of proof of no life on Mars. But you're in law school so you think you can put words in my mouth. Take your belief (as that's all it can possibly be) and walk away. It's the only logical step.
@leonidas69 I'm not talking shit man and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If someone told you that they found evidence of life on Mars, would you take a look?
Yeah ofcourse. But a lot of videos in these topics are questionable so even if it was compelling I'd say my statement stands. "We cannot SIMPLY BELIEVE it exists".
@leonidas69 but you would give yourself a chance to look at the evidence, and that's my point. I'm not judging you for it. You want to be an atheist, that's fine by me (I'm an agnostic, for crying out loud), but being an Atheist is every bit as emotionally based as believing in a religion.
Looking at potential evidence and choosing to believe in something without evidence are completely different things. Looking at evidence doesn't mean it's going to change your mind. Your emotions must be super confusing for you if this is how you think.
@leonidas69 as I already told you; I can logically deduce the existance of a creator. If you are presented with evidence of something that you choose not to believe; then you have made an emotional choice not to believe it
Philosophy has been used by individuals to "prove" their opinions for centuries and you could easily find one of the systems. If you still feel entitled to you idiotic beliefs then I'd suggest looking up the counter arguments that have already been made. Ofcourse you could always choose to stay ignorant. 😂
@leonidas69 nice. And again, you still haven't asked about the absolutely concrete and scientific deduction, called some people's belief systems "idiotic," and made a very bold statement about staying in the dark about counter arguments, all the while staying in the dark about the counter arguments against your own.
@leonidas69 so we've devolved to name calling. You still feel triggered enough about my emotional atheism comment, felt that I considered you inferior when I mentioned my law school, refuse to listen to a counter argument, and somehow I'm the ignorant one. This has been very productive
I'm suggesting you look up the counter arguments yourself because I've wasted enough time on you already. You're attempting to take the moral high ground while doing the same things I me. 😂 I can't be fucked.I resulted to name calling because you're not able to stop yourself and I don't have the time to mess around with the way you tell me what I've said. You probably developed this bad habit from law school. It doesn't make me feel infirior infact, I feel sorry for you.
@leonidas69 lmfao you're the one who started the name calling? Whatever, this was fun. Have a good one
🤔 she never did say god was loving.
@leonidas69 isn't that the gist of it though, a loving God
Supposedly forgiving but condemns to hell for eternity. 🤷♂️😂
@leonidas69 i thought he only forgives because his son was painfully sacrificed for us? Such a kind entity