Are you going to respond to any of your threads or are you just going to keep spamming?

I understand it takes time to answer. Perhaps you could use the time you take to create new threads to respond to the others.

A Paranoid Schizophreniac also "knows" that the government is spying on him and every single observation that he makes supports that "knowledge". He is, however, unable to convince other people about his "knowledge". You may play around with definitions of faith and knowledge, however if it is insufficient to convince someone by providing concrete proof, then the more likely scenario is that your "knowledge" is strikingly similar to the schizophreniac mentioned before. You both have faith in an unchanging fact of life and no amount of reasoning will change your view of life.

So have fun with that.
adieu

Atheists may have knowledge of such things, but do not necessarily believe such things in much the same way one can have knowledge about Santa Claus but believe that Santa Claus does not exist. I think your evaluation of atheism is false, so any conclusion on the matter is certainly faulty.

One does not "believe in atheism" as if it were something to believe in. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god. Anyways, how can one believe in atheism if one is lacking knowledge as you asserted earlier. Your initial point is contradictory to this statement....

I think you're generalizing again. Atheism can be many thing, of which one can be a lack of epistemic assertions about a god, or disbelief in given assertions about god. There's nothing about any of this that necessitates an "infinite epistemology". But even if such a thing did exist, how could you as a being with a finite mind and finite understanding possible grasp such a thing?

I think you'd do well to attempt to understand atheism before you go attacking it. It seems to me you have no idea what atheism encompasses. And besides, you seem to be defining atheism to suit your purposes too. How's that any different?

I think your committing the No True Scotsman fallacy here by (1) ignoring the faith of Muslims, Hindus, and other theists, and (2) labeling the faith of other Christians as something else other than what you would consider faith and (3) suggesting that uneducated Christians are fooled easily. It seems to me that the only biblical faith is biblical faith as seen my Jean Chauvin. Another Christian very well may have what they think is "Biblical Faith" and it be radically different from your own. I'd be happy to discuss this matter more in depth is there is a consensus among theist or even Christians, but there's not, and for this reason don't generally delve in the particulars of doctrine.

Um no. The Bibile is a book. You approach with a hermeneutical philosophy as determined by epistemic presuppositions about the book, do you not? If you say you get it from the book, then I think you'll end up question begging here too.

And what is this quote  "proper science" look like? I mean, are you a YEC in the line of Kent Hovind? Are you an ID'er or somthing like that? I really don't know what you mean by Christians having "proper science" and atheists having "fake science".

                He shows signs of Aspergers syndrome or Bi-polar disorder. Eather way it is sad.

This guy is either an idiot, a troll, or both.  He's not worthy of engaging in conversation.  He can't even understand the theist portion of the word aTHEIST.  Lack of belief in a deity.  If he can't understand that then we can't even really communicate with him.

Hello,

Regarding other posts, no questions, just name calling. One person even spoke in tongues. I think I just saw Sarah Palin.

Goodnight, will return with entertaining refutations in the morning.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It was French. How are you going to refute it if you don't understand it ?

Btw, if French isn't your first language, then what is ? It obviously isn't english. 

I have to admit, the spectacle of you trying to talk down to Ubuntu , Blake ,AE,... is quite entertaining, but not in the way you're hoping for.

Your initial assertion regarding atheists not having knowledge is what I was referencing. My contentions was that your evaluation of atheism is wrong. I think you will find that atheists, generally speaking, are more knowledgeable about religion that theists are. Atheist obtain knowledge and reject it as contradictory, inconclusive, or some something else such they they don't believe it to me true.

Agnosticism, for the most part, is a type of atheism. O'Hair may of thought so, but I don't think that represents O'Hair's brand of atheism. Many atheist have a distaste for O'Hair because she was rather dogmatic....a sort of cult without a god.

Actually it was Huxley that started what has come to be known as "agnosticism", but anyways, on matters of  belief, one can be agnostic about many things until presented with some sort of reason to believe. Suppose one conjected that there was liquid water on Pluto. If this was the case, we do not have a means to detect it. I may doubt strongly considering the distance Pluto is from the sun etc, But that when the New Horizon probed passes it, it does indeed discover liquid water. This would show give me reason to believe there is liquid water on Pluto. Concerning gods one can have reason to doubt too for whatever reason he or she may have. But agnosticism does not eliminate the possibility of a god or gods entirely.

Atheism is not the lack of belief in general...it is the lack of belief in a deity of any kind....you're over extending the definition such that I think you are equivocating non-belief in a deity to no beliefs at all. But based on what you've said already, you may indeed believe this to be true considering that for you it's all or nothing concerning god. But as I've said on some other threads, I think your epistemology collapses uncertainty and guessing because it is not grounded in anything other than itself.

An atheist without guts...ha ha. Not really. Just someone who is trying to be honest with oneself. Agnosticism is a sort of epistemic atheism, while O'Hairs (strong atheism) is a sort of ontological atheism. It's the difference between the statements, "There is no god" and "I have a reason to believe a god exists". The former is an ontological statement, the latter is an epistemological statement.

Even the Christians that claim to uphold the same book you do and come to some radically different understandings than you do?

Futhermore, based on what you've said about your epistemology, I have no way of knowing that these are false other than you telling me they are false. Insofar as I can tell, that would be no different than a Muslim telling me that your religion is false or an atheist saying they are all false. At the end of the day, no winner can be determined if all we have to go on are unwarranted, unsubstantiated claims. In this case, I think the intellectually honest position would be agnosticism concerning all the available religions until one can demonstrably be shown to be true.

Why is that necessarily true? Because you said it was?

Of the two, I find ID to be more compelling honestly. And not all ID'er hold to transpermia...so hold to ex nihilo creation. That aside, you should define science for us as being more than "knowledge itself". That's rather ambiguous. Science as it is traditionally understood is the application of empirical process to created predictable outcomes about systems...This is done through experimentation and repeated observations about certain phenomenon. Is this the "fake science" to which you are referring?

Insofar as I can tell, your science is completely containted in the holy book of Prostestant Christianity. I think you need more than this.....

Answers,

Hi Ubunt,

Another long one. Okay, let's go.

The reason why atheists are so knowledgeable, is because they borrow the Christian epistemology without telling anybody. And because of the Imago Dei. BUT, if they were to be consistent within their worldview, they are forced into ignorance.

Heraclitus would agree with me. That's why one of his students to a vow of silence since knowledge was not attainable. If atheists can know, as you say, show me via argument how they can know and define the know for me.

Agnosticism is a type of atheism. Wow, we agree. But technically, via the system of classification, has differences. So don't hide under the atheist cape, just come out and don't be ashamed of being an agnostic. Come out with that first, then the discussion would be tailored to your worldview. Instead, these cowards like Dan Barker hide so his wife can keep paying him the big bucks.

Huxley was an Existentialist. And I believe I can demonstrate that some Greek Philosophers were agnostics before him.

You are putting your own spin on atheism. George Smith, O'Hair, my College Professor, and some guy named Joy at Pizza Hut all have different definitions. This is what you would expect to find since Atheism by default fragments everything. Their own system is fragmented.

You do have a reason to believe God exists. I gave a valid argument, you doubt my soundness. The Bible says that this belief is impossible unless God opens your mind (John 20:25). More could be said about the technicals of this, but belief is a gift from God. And those who don't believe, have not been given the gift.

Christians who claim my book, and are radically different are known in logic as heretics. They tend to either smoke the Green Bud often, or simply deceived. This is what we would expect to find since The Bible says in the last days, this would happen.

You like ID? So you think aliens from other planets sprouted life? Transpermia. I had some evolution buddies out of highschool. After refuting their position so badly, they said the Aliens did it. I could not stop laughing for days. Then ID came alone, not to be confused with E.D.

Science in reference to knowledge must be absolute to be knowledge. I have SOME knowledge, you have zero knowledge consistently. I think I'm holding the

better end of the stick.

_________________________

Hi Rev. Willie,

I just have two assumptions. The rest are inferences of those assumptions via a deductive form of argument. Next question.

I am indeed a Calvinist.

Freewill according to the encyclopedia of philosophy, under freedom is the negation of the freedom. Meaning it is cause and effect relationship. So logically, the question is?

Whom is your will free from?

Since God is Sovereign, then for God to not be sovereign over will would by definition not make Him Sovereign, thus destroying the Bible as a logical argument and system of thought. Free Will is a logical fallacy.

Faith IS knowledge according to Scripture. Along with belief. So I am absolute about the normative of my argument. And this knowledge is a gift. Since faith is knowledge, and if faith is a gift, then logically knowledge is a gift (see Eph 2:8-10).

I like atheists ganging up on me. It's a good time. Though I would drink a beer but it may slow me down. I made the mistake of opening up ten thousand threads, now I'm just trying to keep up.

But again, tell me an atheistic argument for epistemology via knowledge which by definition is a variable with absolute zero error. Nobody has yet to do this. I have refuted empiricism. Shall I continue to refute the same old things?

Now you are talking about open mindedness? Okay, then be open minded about Christianity. I goes both ways. I have arguments you have not heard, so accept them as let's move on. They can't both be right unless we enjoy absurdity of LaVey and Aquino.

Nice talking to you Reverend. Though, you are a reverend of what exactly? Atheism? That's funny.

__

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

This is only true if and only if your epistemology is the only epistemology available. You have yet to give me a reason as to why this is the case and why I should trust yours over some other theistic reason. But atheists do have reason to invoke agnosticism concerning theism as presented by you because there is no grounding for it...insofar as we know it is at best a wild guess.

Atheists generally speaking adopt empirical methods for ascertaining true knowledge. Theism according to you assumes knowledge that may or may not be grounded in reality. But there is not way to determine whether or not it is fact or fiction other than taking your word for it. Atheists use of empirical means can demonstrably show another how one obtained his or her knowledge....

Rather than lambasting atheism as a whole, you might do better to deal with the particulars. You don't...you make generalizations without warrant and without substantiation. For this reason, I think many have written you off as having nothing new to add or substantial to say.

The Huxley reference was talking about the term "agnosticism", not the idea.

Of course atheists do this  Atheist label themselves "free thinkers" for a reason, in that they feel free to borrow, modify, and create ideas without the restrictions of dogma. The fragmentation is not a problem for atheism, it is the hallmark of atheism. It shows that atheism is full of people trying to be honest with themselves rather than adhere to some sort of doctrine. But that aside, when theist do this they are labeled as heretics or they start a new denomination or something like that. Fragmentation in theism is a bane rather than a blessing.

If belief is a gift from your god, why do you bother debating. Nothing you can do can change my mind if this is the case....only your god can.

So what denomination are you? Does everyone in your denomination think exactly the same way you do? Who started it, and why?

Never said I liked it...just that it was more compelling than YEC.

What you are calling science is not science at all...even that which is claimed by Christians. Science as a discipline, at least to my knowledge, does not claims infallibility. Rather, it claims more certainty upon reproducible tests and repeated observation and accept correction and better understandings via new and/or more precise discoveries.

Seriously, why bother answering me if this is the case? Have you been appointed as your god's prophet to do his face punching for him?

An ad hominem is to attack your character. I attacked the argument, saying nothing about about your character. I'm sorry if you took it personally, but was not intended to be a personal attack.

But I do not relinquish the assertion that your argument is not grounded in reality... If you can show me how you get your god as necessary truth axiomatically, then I would be willing to withdraw the statement. But insofar as I can tell, you've failed to do this, other than asserting that your god "is" ad nauseum. I've raised multiple objections, all which have been answered, so it seems by you saying asserting the truth of your view over and over without showing how the objection are false.

If I were to use the word "Christian" to describe all those who call themselves Christian, based on what you've said already, I presume you would object saying the only "true" Christians are those who believe like you do. But this is simply the No true Scotsman fallacy. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the only thing that all atheist necessarily have in common is that they don't believe in a god. This may the only "tenet" (if you can call it that) that atheist  have.  The extent and reason for disbelief vary, but that's does not change the fact that all atheists don't believe in god.

I was referring to the word...

Thieves? Since when are public ideas something to be stolen? Heck, one could say the same for Christian theism too by suggesting that Christians stole stories about about life-death-rebirth deities such as Osiris or Dionysus or that Muslims stole ideas from Judaism, local moon worship, and Christianity.

You're free to mock atheists, but don't get mad when they mock you either....

This isn't true for atheism because in atheism there is no heresy. (except for being a theist of some kind, I suppose. )

I don't know where you're getting your ideas about Euclid from....but it isn't Euclid. Which of his axioms did not map onto the observed world? And where did he reject space and time? Euclid was describing space.....

And science...wow...you way off here too. I'm not sure were you're getting your ideas about science from, but I don't think it has ever been defined as you are defining, even by other Christians.

Funny how some Christians label anyone who does not agree with them a "liberal"... Insofar as I can tell, the only one doing and sort of redefining here is you: you're attempting to redefine atheism for your purposes  and science for your purposes.

But if you want to credit Christians as inventing Science, I think you will have to call Catholics "Christians" too...are you willing to do that?

OK, so are you asserting that atheists can't ever know anything because they are atheists?

Then I shall have to ask you what is up with these people (all atheists):

Julius Axelrod (1912–2004): American Nobel Prize winning biochemist, noted for his work on the release and reuptake of catecholamine neurotransmitters and major contributions to the understanding of the pineal gland and how it is regulated during the sleep-wake cycle.

Patrick Blackett OM, CH, FRS (1897–1974): Nobel Prize winning English experimental physicist known for his work on cloud chambers, cosmic rays, and paleomagnetism.

Sir Hermann Bondi KCB, FRS (1919–2005): Anglo-Austrian mathematician and cosmologist, best known for co-developing the steady-state theory of the universe and important contributions to the theory of general relativity.

Paul D. Boyer (1918&ndash: American biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1997.

Sean M. Carroll (1966&ndash: American cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity.

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1910–1995): Indian American astrophysicist known for his theoretical work on the structure and evolution of stars. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983.

Frank Close OBE (1945&ndash: British particle physicist, Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, known for his lectures and writings making science intelligible to a wider audience, for which he was awarded the Institute of Physics's Kelvin Medal and Prize.

Francis Crick (1916–2004): English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist; noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962.

Paul Dirac (1902–1984): British theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, predicted the existence of antimatter, and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.

Thomas Edison: American inventor.

Sandra Faber (1944&ndash: American University Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, also working at the Lick Observatory, who headed the team that discovered 'The Great Attractor.

Richard Feynman (1918–1988): American theoretical physicist, best known for his work in renormalizing Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics . He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Christer Fuglesang (1957&ndash, Swedish astronaut and physicist.

Vitaly Ginzburg (1916–2009): Russian theoretical physicist and astrophysicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2003. He was also awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics in 1994/95.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002): American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.

E. T. 'Teddy' Hall (1924–2001): English archaeological scientist, famous for exposing the Piltdown Man fraud and dating the Turin Shroud as a medieval fake.

Sir James Hall (1761–1832): Scottish geologist and chemist, President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and leading figure in the Scottish Enlightenment.

Beverly Halstead (1933–1991): British paleontologist and populariser of science.

Stephen Hawking: arguably the world's pre-eminent scientist advocates atheism in The Grand Design

Peter Higgs (1929&ndash: British theoretical physicist, recipient of the Dirac Medal and Prize, known for his prediction of the existence of a new particle, the Higgs boson, nicknamed the "God particle".

Sir Julian Huxley FRS (1887–1975): English evolutionary biologist, a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund.

Frédéric Joliot-Curie (1900–1958): French physicist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1935.

Steve Jones (1944&ndash: British geneticist, Professor of genetics and head of the biology department at University College London, and television presenter and a prize-winning author on biology, especially evolution; one of the best known contemporary popular writers on evolution.

Lawrence Krauss (1954-): Professor of physics at Arizona State University and popularizer of science. Krauss speaks regularly at atheist conferences, like Beyond Belief and Atheist Alliance International.

Harold Kroto (1939&ndash: 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.

Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 –1827): French mathematician and astronomer whose work was pivotal to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics, and anticipated the discovery of galaxies other than the Milky Way and the existence of black holes.

Richard Leakey (1944&ndash: Kenyan paleontologist, archaeologist and conservationist.

Ernst Mayr (1904–2005): a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, historian of science, and naturalist. He was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists.

Jeff Medkeff (1968–2008): American astronomer, prominent science writer and educator, and designer of robotic telescopes.

Peter D. Mitchell (1920–1992): 1978-Nobel-laureate British biochemist. Atheist mother, and himself atheist from age 15.

Jacques Monod (1910–1976): French biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965 for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis.

Hermann Joseph Muller (1890–1967): American geneticist and educator, best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis). He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946.

PZ Myers (1957&ndash: American biology professor at the University of Minnesota and a blogger via his blog, Pharyngula.

Paul Nurse (1949&ndash: 2001 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine.

Linus Pauling (1901–1994): American chemist, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1954) and Peace (1962)

Francis Perrin (1901–1992): French physicist, co-establisher the possibility of nuclear chain reactions and nuclear energy production.

Norman Pirie FRS (1954&ndash: British biochemist and virologist co-discoverer in 1936 of viral crystallization, an important milestone in understanding DNA and RNA.

Richard J. Roberts (1943&ndash: British biochemist and molecular biologist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993 for the discovery of introns in eukaryotic DNA and the mechanism of gene-splicing.

Marshall Rosenbluth (1927–2003) American physicist, nicknamed "the Pope of Plasma Physics". He created the Metropolis algorithm in statistical mechanics, derived the Rosenbluth formula in high-energy physics, and laid the foundations for instability theory in plasma physics.

Carl Sagan (1934–1996): American astronomer and astrochemist, a highly successful popularizer of astronomy, astrophysics, and other natural sciences, and pioneer of exobiology and promoter of the SETI. Although Sagan has been identified as an atheist according to some definitions, he rejected the label, stating "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." He was an agnostic who, while maintaining that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to disprove, nevertheless disbelieved in God's existence, pending sufficient evidence.

Claude Shannon (1916–2001): American electrical engineer and mathematician, has been called "the father of information theory", and was the founder of practical digital circuit design theory.

Michael Smith (1932–2000): British-born Canadian biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1993.

Richard Stallman (1953&ndash: American software freedom activist, hacker, and software developer.

Victor J. Stenger (1935&ndash: American physicist, emeritus professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado. Author of the book God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Leonard Susskind (1940&ndash: American theoretical physicist; a founding father of superstring theory and professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University.

Gherman Titov (1935–2000): Soviet cosmonaut and the second human to orbit the Earth.

Linus Torvalds (1969&ndash: Finnish software engineer, creator of the Linux kernel.

Alan Turing (1912–1954): English mathematician, logician, and cryptographer; often considered to be the father of modern computer science. The Turing Award, often recognized as the "Nobel Prize of computing", is named after him.

J. Craig Venter (1946&ndash: American biologist and entrepreneur, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome, and in 2010 the first to create a cell with a synthetic genome.

James D. Watson (1928&ndash: 1962-Nobel-laureate co-discover of the structure of DNA.

Joseph Weber (1919–2000): American physicist, who gave the earliest public lecture on the principles behind the laser and the maser, and developed the first gravitational wave detectors (Weber bars).

Steven Weinberg (1933&ndash: American theoretical physicist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 for the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force.

Victor Weisskopf (1908–2002): Austrian-American theoretical physicist, co-founder and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Joker may respond for him/herself, but I have to throw in my 2 cents here.  This is called perspective.  A common term and how artists can make a painted scene look real.  The optical illusion that causes the table to look smaller is because humans - like many other animals including primates and some dogs - have binocular vision.  If you were a horse or a fly, your perception of the table would be markedly different.  The reason the table appears to disappear is because of its relative size and the curvature of the earth.  No different than traveling across the midwestern US and watching the Rocky Mountains apparently rising up from the plains.  They aren't actually rising, it is an optical illusion.

That Hume had a problem with perspective and the earth's curvature is no one's problem but Hume's.  His problems don't disprove empiricism nor do they prove something about reality.  The really amusing part is that you claim god/s/dess gives you all kinds of insight about art, but you have demonstrated you don't have a clue about the mechanics of the craftsmanship that underlies the artistic expression.

And inventing computers, and going to the moon, and taking pictures of light that has travelled for 13 billion years, and prising open the secrets of reality via quantum theory and relativity.

The problem with your argument is that empirical rationalism has given us most everything we have today, from longer lives and less pain and suffering (at least in the developed nations) to global communication to knowledge that is simply not present in the Bible.

If we were to rely solely on the Bible for knowledge, we'd still be bronze-age sheepherders. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that was not known to the people who wrote it down. This indicates the Bible is the work of man, and not divine revelation.

Meanwhile, this "empiricism" at which you scoff gives you the real miracles. Well, empiricism tempered by rationality.

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding.

What exactly has your divine revelation given us that we haven't given ourselves?

Sigh, I am not jewish, not ethnically, not philosophically, not religiously.  Not. at. all.  Einstein was ethnic jew, but by his own writings, did not believe in the religion or in god.

Empirical science brought you the electricity, the batteries, the computer, and the internet.  Light bulbs, monitors and flat screens, TVs, frozen food, canned food, larger and tastier veggies and fruits (just by breeding for better, no genetic manipulation needed), machine looms for clothing, coal tar dyes for coloring clothing - yes even black, indoor plumbing, houses, buildings, streets, sidewalks, concrete, asphalt, and on and on and on....

Your opinion of empiricism matters not to me or to any of the modern technology you are so obviously using. 

OK, thr forum owner already told you but let me clue you in again anyway. The forum software truncates long user names. Mine is Answers In Gene Simmons.

I am going to guess that you don't really know much past the obvious slam on the fundie web site with a similar name but Gene Simmons is (in no particular order):

The bass player for KISS

A rock solid loyal American

A total moral degenerate

An ethnic Jew

OK, as far as that reads, you are making a vague assertion. Did you have specifics in mind for any of them?

Heck, pick a few names from that list and say why you think that each of them is a crypto-chirstian. You pick the names but be specific in laying your charge.

Well, I suppose that it may not even be an accurate statement that I ever left the occult. At least not in the sense that I left believing in fake gods behind me. What would be more accurate might be that it was something I did in the process of getting the woo and pussy stuff out of my life. Certainly the occult has plenty of that going on. I don't have that in my life any longer.

In one of your threads, I noticed that you mentioned Michael Aquino. That is mildly impressive as most people have probably never heard the name. Actually, I have personally corresponded with the Lt. Col. He claims to have personally met the Egyptian gods. I say that he is full of shit on that one. However, one of the Setian deals is to spend time intentionally believing wrong things.

Is he full of shit because it pleases him to be full of shit or is it because he really thinks that he has done that? I don't fucking know and I don't really care.

You think atheism is the negation of everything....that is simply not the case. It is disbelief in a god.... Why do you unnecessarily heap on other qualifiers. If you have the liberty to do this, why can I not do the same for Christians on your behalf? You'd probably certainly object to me calling Mormons, Modalists, and JW's "Christain" would you not?

So to be a Christian you have to believe the Bible is a "normative epistemolgy". Wouldn't that be adding to what most protestant Christians believe about salvation--simply belief in Jesus. And what about those who believe in Jesus before the Bible was Canonized circa AD 300? And on top of that, what about those who affirm the Bible as you do, but don't think it teaches YEC or a world wide flood. Are all these people Christian?

My problem with what you are saying is that you are calling "true Christians" only those who believe like you do and more or less the same thing about atheist such that the only true atheist are those that fit your definition of atheism. Either case is fallacious.

But you are begging the question...you assert that universals are justified using a universal.... That's like defining "dog", using the word "dog". It does not add any new meaning or warrant the definition...

But that aside, you justified your universal using particulars...(i.e. your god created trees and we observe trees). Perhaps the best and only way to know the difference between fact and fiction accordingly is to infer the universals from the particulars by means of induction. BobSpence1 noted, and I've said it before there may be a few universals, but they are internal and can be validated via observation. What to prevent me from saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created trees, we observe trees, therefore we know what the Flying Spaghetti Monster does is real. Insofar as I can tell, there's no way to know per your epistemology, which means it is not a successful at producing knowledge...

This is a complete red herring....You are shifting the discussion away from theft of ideas to teleology... Why can't I call you a thief too? birth-life-rebirth deities existed before Jesus, and Christians stole the idea from these mythologies.

One could not believe in a god but believe in a young earth at the same time. One can be pro-life or pro-choice and be an atheist too.... Nothing about atheism prevents one from believing these things per se.

I think you've got Euclid wrong....I think Euclid was attempting to describe geometry in terms of Plantonism. Right, wrong, or indifferent, his ideas map onto reality. His arguments "outside of observation" sound a whole lot like Plato. Classic Greek thought is hung up on this pretty heavily.

Situational ethics are a challenge for normative ethics... I think you should know this even from within the pages of your own holy book.

Ontology and epistemology aren't clean either. Ontologically I think you're platonic which has problems.... Epistemologically, I think you're bankrupt because your project fails to get off the ground...

If these were math equations, we would now conclude that atheism = God exists.

That is the wrong way to approach any problem. We should not assume an answer. We should start with non-belief and conform our position to reality as best as we can.

Your math analogy makes no sense at all.

This equation has no solution. The x's cancel out, and you get 70=35. 

x is not 5.

35 is not "right" or "wrong." It is given in the equation.

Just because it's on the right side of the equation doesn't mean it's "the answer." You have a grade school level understanding of mathematics.

Okay, then his point is a strawman. We do not assume that there is no God and organize our worldview around it.

Hello Jab,

Your two examples of equations are not equations. The mathematical definition is:

You simply asserted things. 

The issue is not in the area of seem, but absolute. Since the worldview of Christianity is valid, and sound, and empirical atheism is not, then they must abandon empiricism, and find one that works. Logically, since Christianity is the only means that works for one to know, if they wish to know, then logically they wish to be a Christian. However, if they hate the truth, and despise the truth, then they will hate Christianity, and despise Christianity.

And what do you know, that is exactly what the Bible says. They HATE the truth.

So the means of knowledge, which I am arguing, is evident within them. This is partly do to two things:

1) Imago Dei

2) General Revelation

God made it evident to them. Within them is not in the Greek Text. But keep reading, this is where it gets really good.

GOD GAVE THEM OVER IN THE LUSTS OF THEIR HEARTS (caps for emphasis).

So the fact that you are an atheists, is because God designed you that way. You are atheists via God's glory. You have no choice NOT to be an atheist, because God gave your hearts to lusts and impurity, and ignorance (I Corinthians 2:14, 16).

This is beautiful. So in the same way, God changed my nature to choose life, God purposely has your nature locked into death for your to choose death. And there's nothing you can do about it, and you like it that way. You like being dark and dead.

The Greek word for "Heart" (Kardia), in the Bible is not talking about the 21st century warm and fuzzy heart like most ignorant Christians think. The Greek concept for heart is "Whole Being." So logically, via the Greek.

vs. 24. God gave them over in the lusts of their WHOLE BEING to impurity. Your whole being, God gave over to impurity. That's so neat. In your wickedness, God is still Sovereign, and is in control, despite your wickedness.

Also we read:

So in terms of logic now, if God has sent upon you a delusion. If he is allowing you to believe what is false, that would mean, remember we are speaking logically here, that for you to believe what is true, God MUST allow you to believe what is true.

Isn't that awesome. So the God you hate, the Got that you despite. Oh, excuse me, say isn't there (shhh), is designed by HIM for you to not believe in Him.

So on that judgment day, you will have NO EXCUSE. Period.

It's so beautiful. So remember, the more you argue against God, the more God is glorified since he allowed you to disbelieve the easy logic of God that I am presenting to you. This is why you guys are so frustrated. I am 100% Christian in my argument, and you can't stand it.

Your wickedness is the Mona Lisa of God's Sovereignty.

Praise God, the Almighty, Creator of the Heavens, and the wicked. All glory and honor is to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For in Him, we can know, and will continue to know, for eternity (Deut 29:29).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

No excuse implies that it is our fault.

If we are designed and forced to act this way, then it is God's responsibility. 

No one likes you.  No one believes you.  You are not accomplishing anything here. 

The only thing I got out of this is that you're moving, and you have 10k books. I'm not sure how a logical fallacy is going to show me anything -- however, it seems to be all you have. (For instance, your insistence that the media and universities have been taken over by liberals, and therefore you can disregard what they have to say, is an ad hominem fallacy.)

As I said in another thread, atheists have a significantly lower divorce rate than most religious groups. Conservative Christians have one of the highest divorce rates of all groups. It seems atheists (which you incorrectly equate with liberals) are far more family-friendly than most religious groups. In fact, it seems Conservative Christians are attacking the family rather than atheists, if the divorce rate numbers are any indication.

And does anyone take Allister Crowley seriously? Really?

Oh, and it would be nice to get a real definition of what you think "liberal" means. Because you certainly don't use the word like it is usually used. It seems you use it to conflate religion and politics. This is muddy thinking.

Just as a hint: the Jesus Christ portrayed in the Bible was a liberal.

I don't think you can be both condescending and respectful. Just food for thought.

What, What?

Everybody is mad at me and doesn't like me anymore? What happen. Look, I never said I was perfect. Sometimes I make jokes, but I'm not meaning to insult people. Perhaps a few get away, but it's all light hearted.

And JCG, look at the Fox Network of shows. "Family Guy" (atheist), Married with Children (Family attacked), Bill O'Reilly, (a liberal). There are some conservatives on there. But very inconsistent.

So look, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You guys are way to sensitive. My daughter isn't this sensitive and she's 5.

There's absolutely absolutely absolutely nothing, at all whatsoever I can do that can possibly cause you guys to ever ever ever want to become a Christian. The Potter made the clay. Can the clay say to the potter, hey chump, make me this way.

Romans 9:21-22 talks about this. (Romans 9 the whole chapter is a good one). God makes some as vessels of wrath, and some as vessels of righteousness. Period. So there is absolutely no way, for a vessel of wrath to EVER BECOME a vessel of righteousness. It's 100% impossible never going to happen. However, the ELECT, they may be confused, but they will be rescued.

I don't know who are the Vessels of Wrath, or Vessels of Righteousness ultimately. The Bible does say that you shall know them by their fruits. And there are rotten fruits of the flesh. And logically, by that means you can know.

So specifically to the Vessels of Wrath, made by the Potter you claim isn't there (I'm clay, there's no potter, hey look, i'm a machine, I can do the 80's robot dance), has really set you up to NOT believe Him, so that He may demonstrate His wrath. So you don't fear Him now, but you will. I Fear Him, and I'm His child.

There will be a day that EVERY KNEE WILL BOW (Philippians 2:10-15), and every tongue WILL confess, that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord.

So let's be friends. I truly want you to be consistent in your liberal atheism. If you can be 100% consistent, I will be happy. And that ought to be welcomed I would think.

And when's the last time you've had a Christian wanting you to be a "good" atheist? I would probably say never.

And don't forget, you Atheists have your very own holiday. April 1st. (Psalm 14:1).

We are enemies spiritually, but we can still be nice. Let's try to do that.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You really are self centered.

No one hates you. But if you want us to hate you you certainly are doing a good job of falsely accusing us of hating you. We will hate you if you continue this bullshit.

There is a difference between a person and what a person claims.

NO, we are not enimies "spiritually". We are not even "enimies". The only "enemy" here is to humanity and it is your bad use of logic you inflict yourself with and sell to others.

There is no such thing as a god, not yours, not any. The sun was not a god and Thor doesn't make lighting and your god is no different. The "enemy" is human credulity in all of human history. You are merely one in a history of people who fall for a delusion because it sounds nice.

We are not "lost" in any way. We do not worship a fictional devil. We do not buy your superstition.

We don't believe in any gods, not just yours. Nor do we think humans are gods themselves. There  is no such thing.

We don't worship dictators nor do we desire anarchy. You merely don't like the competition to your claims or the challenge to your claims. Your stereotypes of atheists are nothing but bullshit you buy to make yourself feel superior to atheists.

I'm sorry it bothers you that atheists can be good and do good without believing in fictional super heros like you. That is your problem, not ours.