Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Give Me Just One
191 Answers
piece of evidence that God exists...just one!
Have just been reading through the posts here on R&S and all I see are (tortuous) apologetics for ones own belief system. We have Theland who pleads with us to find salvation and then disappears. We have goodlife who appears incapable of thinking for himself and just copies and pastes. (typical JW from my experience) and keyplus who views the world through 'koran glasses' and cant even begin to see the world in any other way than that in which he has been brought up in.
All God believers, in my experience, seem to view unbelievers as been willfull sinners. They seem incapable of understanding that others have their own understanding of the world and that God plays no part in it because there is no EVIDENCE.
For the time being, I HAVE to be an honest atheist (or at best agnostic) because I value truth and evidence over faith (and there are so many faiths that I couldnt possibly choose one out of thousands even if I had to.)
SO...... Just one piece of evidence will suffice and then maybe I could take it from there and see if YOUR God might be the way forward.
I thank you.
Have just been reading through the posts here on R&S and all I see are (tortuous) apologetics for ones own belief system. We have Theland who pleads with us to find salvation and then disappears. We have goodlife who appears incapable of thinking for himself and just copies and pastes. (typical JW from my experience) and keyplus who views the world through 'koran glasses' and cant even begin to see the world in any other way than that in which he has been brought up in.
All God believers, in my experience, seem to view unbelievers as been willfull sinners. They seem incapable of understanding that others have their own understanding of the world and that God plays no part in it because there is no EVIDENCE.
For the time being, I HAVE to be an honest atheist (or at best agnostic) because I value truth and evidence over faith (and there are so many faiths that I couldnt possibly choose one out of thousands even if I had to.)
SO...... Just one piece of evidence will suffice and then maybe I could take it from there and see if YOUR God might be the way forward.
I thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You originally, on this thread wrote "an atheist doesn't believe"
Khandro asked if you are a spokesman for atheists.
Instead of saying yes or no, you are coming up with things like I was asked for my opinion.
What you have responded to me now "That is my opinion - but if you think I'm wrong, that's fine. You’re at liberty to ask other atheists for their opinions." means nothing to me. Wrong about what? Ask other atheists about what?
Why can you not answer Khandro with a straight answer like..
No I am not a spokesman for atheists and I should not have written "an atheist doesn't believe....."
Khandro asked if you are a spokesman for atheists.
Instead of saying yes or no, you are coming up with things like I was asked for my opinion.
What you have responded to me now "That is my opinion - but if you think I'm wrong, that's fine. You’re at liberty to ask other atheists for their opinions." means nothing to me. Wrong about what? Ask other atheists about what?
Why can you not answer Khandro with a straight answer like..
No I am not a spokesman for atheists and I should not have written "an atheist doesn't believe....."
divebuddy - //"It's scientifically impossible for the bumblebee to fly; but the bumblebee, being unaware of these scientific facts, flies anyway." //
This is a common myth, and it can be explained.
If bees flew by fixed-wing motion, then indeed the ratio of wing area to body weight would make flight impossible.
But bees do not have fixed-wing motion, they fly by rotating their wings which generates the necessary uplift for them to fly.
So, it's a popular saying - but it is not true - the evidence is more scientific than I have confirmed here, but the basics are sound.
This is a common myth, and it can be explained.
If bees flew by fixed-wing motion, then indeed the ratio of wing area to body weight would make flight impossible.
But bees do not have fixed-wing motion, they fly by rotating their wings which generates the necessary uplift for them to fly.
So, it's a popular saying - but it is not true - the evidence is more scientific than I have confirmed here, but the basics are sound.
Naomi, your answers to the question have been variously -
Is Nick Spencer?
I didn't see your question what was it?
I don't understand your questions.
That isn't true and you know it isn't true.
I'll repeat what I said I was asked for my opinion. I've given it.
Anyway, you now say that you are not a spokesman for atheists. If you had written this in answer to Khandro last Thursday this dialogue which you find tedious would have been avoided.
Is Nick Spencer?
I didn't see your question what was it?
I don't understand your questions.
That isn't true and you know it isn't true.
I'll repeat what I said I was asked for my opinion. I've given it.
Anyway, you now say that you are not a spokesman for atheists. If you had written this in answer to Khandro last Thursday this dialogue which you find tedious would have been avoided.
When a professional scientist decides it all a bit to complicated and caves in, starts believing in God… a small piece of my heart dies.
When a lecturer tells a student that abiogenesis is not for biochemistry to answer and it is the 1960s, 70s or 80s, that's probably okay - they were still working on theories at the time.
When a lecturer says the same thing in this millenium, a large piece of my heart dies.
You can probably find a remaindered 1980s copy of Genes II by Lewin (current edition is XII or higher, for under £15 on eBay. That's if you're seriously interested in the inner workings of DNA and protein synthesis. A grounding in chemistry, physics and biology will be required to grasp the kind of things the book expects you to know already and a three year degree course in biochemistry will set you back £27,000 in fees, plus living expenses.
Belief in God requires very little effort and hardly any expense. It does, however entail an awful lot of grovelling.
Being tone deaf helps, too.
When a lecturer tells a student that abiogenesis is not for biochemistry to answer and it is the 1960s, 70s or 80s, that's probably okay - they were still working on theories at the time.
When a lecturer says the same thing in this millenium, a large piece of my heart dies.
You can probably find a remaindered 1980s copy of Genes II by Lewin (current edition is XII or higher, for under £15 on eBay. That's if you're seriously interested in the inner workings of DNA and protein synthesis. A grounding in chemistry, physics and biology will be required to grasp the kind of things the book expects you to know already and a three year degree course in biochemistry will set you back £27,000 in fees, plus living expenses.
Belief in God requires very little effort and hardly any expense. It does, however entail an awful lot of grovelling.
Being tone deaf helps, too.
Naomi - "Grasscarp, you are over-stepping the mark."
How have I overstepped the mark?
"What have I do I don’t lie."
I have not said that you lie.
"If you have a problem with atheism and atheists, that is your problem – not mine."
I don't have a problem with atheism and atheists.
All I did was list what you had said in response to Khandro's question!
How have I overstepped the mark?
"What have I do I don’t lie."
I have not said that you lie.
"If you have a problem with atheism and atheists, that is your problem – not mine."
I don't have a problem with atheism and atheists.
All I did was list what you had said in response to Khandro's question!
What the heck was Khandro attempting anyway?
What if Naomi WAS the spokesperson for atheists? What's the big deal about that?
Oh, I get it. Khandro was laying the trap and she was to say "okay, why not?", to which he would have responded that this was arrogant and presumptious: score 1 negative personality trait against your debating opponent and refer back to it in *every* subsequent devate, to dent their credibility.
Karmically unsound, Khandro. Karmically unsound.
Any "self-appointed" spokeperson, in any field, is quite patently bonkers because they take flak from the side they claim to speak for as well as the people they principally oppose.
If each atheist has their own flavour of opinion they might not agree with each other, let alone with theists.
They are not a 'movement'; they are not an 'organisation' and they are certainly not a 'faith'. Kindly do not project, onto them, the same attributes you possess by virtue of subscribing to your various faiths.
If you had no faith but behaved as an organisation, some of us would still dislike the organisation part!
What if Naomi WAS the spokesperson for atheists? What's the big deal about that?
Oh, I get it. Khandro was laying the trap and she was to say "okay, why not?", to which he would have responded that this was arrogant and presumptious: score 1 negative personality trait against your debating opponent and refer back to it in *every* subsequent devate, to dent their credibility.
Karmically unsound, Khandro. Karmically unsound.
Any "self-appointed" spokeperson, in any field, is quite patently bonkers because they take flak from the side they claim to speak for as well as the people they principally oppose.
If each atheist has their own flavour of opinion they might not agree with each other, let alone with theists.
They are not a 'movement'; they are not an 'organisation' and they are certainly not a 'faith'. Kindly do not project, onto them, the same attributes you possess by virtue of subscribing to your various faiths.
If you had no faith but behaved as an organisation, some of us would still dislike the organisation part!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank106 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles148 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles169 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles217 mins ago
Elementary Particle In First Half Of...
Crosswords281 mins ago
