Kamchatka

Philosoft,

Oops, make that eloquence.

Kamchatka

Adrian Selby,

You said, "I have a two month old daughter, how could you tell she has a God belief? I don't see much evidence of any kind of belief except that she associates the sound of my voice and face with comfort."

The sound of Your voice, the sight of Your face, Your scent, Your touch, You are food, You are love, You are life, the beat of Your heart.

Describe it any way you wish. One description would be you are god to your child. You created Your child. Your child is totally dependent on You. You will have the greatest effect on the forming of Your child.

What will your child believe. Mostly, it will be according to what you expose to your child.

You are much more than a face and a voice.

Philosoft

Great. Although I have no idea how to be trivially interested in something.

<strong> You're being singled out because there aren't many theists here. Sort of like if you showed up at your wedding naked. We don't necessarily think you're special per se.

<strong> This kind of childishness actually bothers me very little. Nevertheless, free speech is valued around here but pointless insults will earn you a rebuke, at the least, from the fine moderators. Matter-of-fact, such an exchange recently took place, resulting in a rare banning. See: jojo-sa.

So, I'm asking you, as a gentleman, can we put an end to this now?

<strong> Not this one.

<strong> Not this either.

<strong> Nope.

<strong> Strike four.

<strong> I'm pretty sure I can find a common definition of God that precludes my mom from being one.

Actually, I was thinking about all those pesky questions that begin with 'why'.

Why are we here?
Why is the universe arranged the way it is?
Why do we have a sense of self?

These are the things that theists want existential answers for, when it isn't even apparently meaningful to ask those questions.

<strong> No doubt true.

<strong> On the contrary, I welcome confrontation. What I don't have time for are silly little digs at the competition. If you want to use sarcasm to express exasperation, who am I to object? But "puppies" and "potty-training"? Please.

Kamchatka

Samhain said, "Yes, you must be an authority on logic and intelligence; you who have failed to support your ridiculous assertions with anything which could be called evidence. The preachings of a person hundreds of years dead does not create a "god" it creates the idea of a god, not an actual god-entity itself.

"Therefore we can see that the idea of god(s) exist, or "god belief" exists, but god(s) themselves do not exist as anything more than words on paper.

"Sorry, allah as portrayed, does not exist. Belief, unfortunately, does."

Thank you for the compliment, Samhain. I admit that it is unwarranted, especially coming from such a vainglorious source.

You argument not only fails miserably with the Jewish, Christian and Islamic theists, it actually proves those theists' point of view.

For them those words on paper are the words of god. Furthermore, we are the words of god. God spoke.

Allah exists in the words and the minds of those who worship and follow the word. According to the word, in the end, all will worship and follow the word.

Samhain, what exists outside of your mind and the words you have to label those things within it?

I respect your opinion. I question your evidence, but no more or less than I question theist doctrine.

I respect atheism. I just find it as naive, and in some cases more so, than theism.

If allah was to reveal itself today as the true god and show proof that we should have been bowing to Mekkah five times a day for the last 1300 years, would that be proof enough for you to worship it?

Not for me. But my lack of worship would not change the fact that indeed allah is a god.

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

Oh, now I get it. It is okay to be sarcastic and offer no proof for your assertions as long as you are an atheist.

And now you threaten me with being banned.

Funny thing, Philosoft, I do not feel threatened.

Ban me and you prove my point. You are raising puppies as sure as the Catholics and the Islamics do, to name a few.

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

You call me silly and childish. You sarcastically say, "Strike four."

Maybe you should be threatened with banishment? Oh, that's right, your an atheist. I'm sorry, I forgot you have a free pass to belittle those you perceive as theists.

By the way, I wasn't aware this was a competition.
I also wasn't aware that I am a theist. But, if you say so it must be true.

Samhain

Kamchatka:

Worship? No. Believe? Yes. Then again, belief is no longer needed if allah were to appear before the world, but I could no longer consider myself an atheist if it was truly allah (of course, exploring this would mean countless years of testing in order to determine that this WAS a god and not just some kind of hoax or alien, etc.). If it was somehow determined that this was the god allah (which may be a logical impossibility), well, I'd guess I'd have to at least accept that god(s) exist, but, while it might change my stand on atheism, it would not change my stand of being godless. I just don't see allah as all loving, as for god and the holy jeebus, well, that has to do with hipocracy, and I wouldn't worship them either. A rather convincing and rather benevolent god would have to be presented in order for me to even think about "worshipping", but I doubt such a god is a logical possibility if we set the god according to my standards.

Isn't that the point? For them it is, without them it's just worthless words written by dumbasses put in a book. When perceiving things from a human perspective, what exists in reality which is not subject and which does not fall under accurate scrutiny from science and logic? Can you name something besides common perceptions of god(s)? That's the whole point, while everything may be based off of our perceptions as conscious entities, there needs to be something to percieve in order for us to percieve it as we do. While our perceptions may be all in our minds, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that our minds may create ridiculous ideas, or hold unreal delusions. These are the monsters of the mind, they are not monsters of reality, and thus, we cannot possibly combat them directly. Once again, they do not exist outside of the minds of those who would wish to believe in them.

"The word" has been proven by humans with our human perspective to be inaccurate, a faulty authority and a fallible source at best. So who is the more reasonable, the believer or the non-believer.

While your questions may be warranted they truly prove nothing. You may give an argument based upon the fact that all is dependent upon human existence and human perception, but then that also means that we must define our own existence in certain ways, ways in which the idea of god(s) is not possible. If all is based upon human perceptions, and logic is a human invention, then how can god(s) be possible?

free12thinker

Kamchatka

I am not God to my daughter. My child may believe what I tell her in her early years (and I will not stray her away from reason), but her moral beliefs beyond those years will be shaped by her experience and insight in this world. They will not be based on what I told her, they will be based on how she sees things and hears things and feels things. Do you understand this? I doubt you would.

You can call us puppies all you want and you can claim that we haven't answered any questions here, namely while you (much like WJ) insist on maintaining that we don't understand the 'god presence', meanwhile you aren't providing an iota of evidence surrounding such presence. You believe in god because you are a follower and you do not rely on logic and reason. And for that, I feel sorry for you.

I will be a puppy if that's what you wish, and I can sit back and watch as my daughter barks up the tree of intelligence and insight. She's already a leg-up on you, simply because she's her own person.

I'm sorry you are not.

Samhain

Get real, man! Banning happens extremely rarely around here, and not on the case that a theist disagrees with an atheist. If you look at some of jojo-sa's posts you will see that banning was warranted, and it's suprising that he wasn't banned sooner. We aren't the Baptist Board. All Philo was trying to say was that some of your comments are downright rude and obnoxious, far more so than any sarcasm can be. Personalizing demeaning comments will get you no-where, with sarcasm you could possibly get a few things. Some of your comments fall under the same line of conversation as saying something like: "Your mom is fat and she sucks golf balls through hoses." It's just pointless and gratuitous.

Philosoft

I have no problem with my sarcasm or anyone else's. If you want to answer my sarcasm with sarcasm of your own, feel free. I'd say that's appropriate. But silly stereotypical insults about atheists as a group are unwarranted. And if you'd care to point out any assertions I haven't backed (or any assertions period), I'd be happy to rectify that.

<strong> I can't threaten you with any such thing. In fact, I don't want you to be banned, honest. I want you to avoid those actions which might lead to banning. jojo-sa wasn't a complete ass in the beginning but his behavior deteriorated.

<strong> Fine. I don't want you to. We can be sarcastic to each other without being rude.

<strong> Oh come now. Stop trying to martyr yourself. I defy you to find any theist-run board that deals so openly with contentious topics. This is as free as it gets if you want to maintain a measure of civility.