Your examples of suffering are exactly what we would expect if no god exists, so no, they don’t defy scientific explanation. We’re still waiting for your proof beyond your fantasies.
Could we please take the Flood veracity angle to another thread?
How in P’nath did that get there?
(I’m sure I left the house with two squids and a few scallops.)
Again, no, quantum physics doesn’t say anything like that. Please read some actual quantum physics instead of quantum-physics-inspired philosophizing. It sounds like you’re confusing concepts like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with… I don’t know what. It’s true that light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave, and it’s true that we can either know a particle’s position or its velocity but not both. It’s not true that everything is nothing but possibilities for consciousness to choose from. That doesn’t make sense.
..and some despair change?
Excuse me, but atheists are the ones who changed the subject. I have no desire to get back into the global flood thing again. THis post was about showing my personal reasons for believing in God. I said you would reject them. Made my case. You rejected it. Score!
And I’ve covered this already. The cultural stories have striking similarities. The athiest can only explain this as common mythological elements in any flood story or this culture ripped off Epic of Gilgamesh. Flood stories sharing elements with the Bible are as far away as South America. Did someone fax them a copy? Furthermore, I doubt that the Bible’s account fits in the myth mold as it contains specific details like the boat’s dimensions.
Funny how atheists keep always coming back to the Flood story as if it is the lynch pin on which the entire Bible rests. Why not debate a story like Joseph or King David? It’s a bold statement to claim that the Bible is a work of fiction. How about backing that claim up for once?
Once again, could we please take the Flood argument to another thread?
I’m waiting for proof to demonstrate that my real life experiences were just fantasies.
The best your side could offer is that Doyle Dykes is a liar. Pathetic. Extremely pathetic. The fact that amazing stories of healing and spiritual encounters doesn’t phase you only serves to demonsrate just how close minded atheists really are.
What do you require for evidence anyways? Only what you experience with your senses? Even the movie, the Matrix, punched a hole in that line of thinking.
Elements such as what? The idea that the world was flooded?
Also, containing the boats dimensions does not shatter the myth mold. Gilgamesh’s myth had specific details of the boats dimensions:
I’m not really interested in the flood - I don’t think it’s remotely plausable, but even supposing it did occur, that doesn’t show that your specific God was the originator of it.
As an agnostic I take the position that I don’t know, but neither do you. But I’m open minded enough to allow for the possibility of there being much much more to reality and understanding that we currently know. Atheists can be just as devout as fundamentalists in their close-mindedness. Don’t be so arrogant to assume you have all the answers.
This is a really unstable road for you to go down. What makes your revelations/experiences any more convincing than Andrea Yates’?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that:
- We know that ‘healings’ can be faked.
- Healings can also occur psychosomatically.
- Healings do not only occur with one religion.
I don’t know the specifics of Doyle Dykes, so I have to refrain from speculating in his case. I can say that the extraordinary nature of his abilities make me skeptical - I don’t see why one should automatically accept miraculous tales (or even highly improbable ones) without looking into it.
You weren’t talking to me, but I would have to say that it all depends on the claims made by the particular religion. I see no reason to differentiate the Gospel accounts from other ancient tales of miracles, for instance, so I would need very compelling evidence that showed they were true.
Some people claim that God’s name is written in Hebrew in our DNA.
That’s odd, I’m an atheist and I admit that I don’t know and I allow for the possibility of there being much more to reality than we currently know.
I just don’t find any particular religion or God believable, which is why I’m an atheist.
You say you don’t know whether God exists or not, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? That is to say, do you believe in God despite not having evidence or do you disbelieve in God because there is no evidence?
I also agree that the flood is another thread. The Bible is another thread. Just because we can disprove the Bible (easily done) doesn’t mean we can disprove the existence of some form of god or designer. Again, I say disprove the existence of God! I challenge you. It is all faith, whether you have faith that there is no god or you have faith there is. Both viewpoints are devout and blind to futher possibilities. History is full of people declaring things as certainties and being proven wrong.
Please provide a cite for any atheist that has claimed to know all the answers. Just one.
For example, we have many full threads of people erroneously declaring they know what atheists think and what they have “faith” in.
I find your position puzzling. You are acting as though all atheists are strong/positive atheists and that agnosticism is some sort of ‘middle ground’. Agnosticism answers a completely different question than ‘do you believe in god’. It answers the question of whether one knows god exists or not. You can ‘have faith’ while not knowing god exists, you realize?
Most atheists would be what is considered an agnostic atheist, something you don’t seem to consider.
I suppose I’m an optomist in that I say I allow for there the existence of god. So I’m an agnostic theist. A practicing agnostic? I say the evidence isn’t all in yet. Why state anything for certain? I know there are subtlties that can not be explained in the universe. Not yet. I still think the fact that mathmatics can explain the universe is suggestive of something more going on than random chaos.
[Head slamming into table]Bang![/Head slamming into table]
This thread ins’t about atheists disproving the Bible.
This thread is for religionists to display any evidence they may have as to the existence of their deity of choice.
I don’t see the question as being an optomistic/pessimistic one, but fair enough.
I don’t understand why you would ascribe certainty to people asking for evidence/reasons to believe in god before they ascent to the belief.