Who's really hallucinating?

[Boaz]

Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
that is true.

Atheist's have been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
direction except denial. And they always want someone else to prove
their argument for them. The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
to those who choose to deny Him. It's up to the individual to realize
a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
relationship with Him. We can't and won't do it for you.

In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
response is always the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance and that
the only logical answer has to be a Creator. The response is always
the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

So who's really hallucinating? Someone who has no answer and won't
listen to those who do? Someone who doesn't see the brokenness of this
world and admit that they have no answer to fix it.? Someone who
easily overlooks all the available evidence and blindly goes forward
with the same worn out rhetoric? Someone who claims that they are
great thinkers and debaters but they cannnot see past there nose to
see that the Spiritual world is real? Someone who responds with slurs
of hate and bitterness because they don't like the message and don't
want to be accountable for their actions? Someone who thinks that they
don't need God and that nothing will happen to them if they just deny?

The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
you. We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

I think there is a whole lot of hallucinating going on and it's
atheist's who are doing it.

He is Risen!!!

Boaz

[thea]

Thank you, Boaz.
thea

Boaz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Bob T.]

On Apr 8, 10:18 am, Boaz <rwsystemsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
> see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
> that is true.

We don't think you're hallucinating, we just think that you believe
things that aren't actually true.

>
> Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
> direction except denial. And they always want someone else to prove
> their argument for them.

It is impossible to prove a negative, and most atheists (unlike you)
already know that.

> The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
> to those who choose to deny Him. It's up to the individual to realize
> a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
> relationship with  Him. We can't and won't do it for you.

Ah, yes, Christian rationalization #1 - you can't see God unless you
already believe in Him.

>
> In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
> that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
> response is always the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

Show us some of this "evidence" and maybe we'll believe it.

>
> In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
> earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance and that
> the only logical answer has to be a Creator. The response is always
> the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

No, that's not a hallucination, that's simply denial. You prefer not
to believe in evolution because it contradicts your mythological
assumptions.

>
> So who's really hallucinating?

You, obviously.

> Someone who has no answer and won't
> listen to those who do? Someone who doesn't see the brokenness of this
> world and admit that they have no answer to fix it.? Someone who
> easily overlooks all the available evidence and blindly goes forward
> with the same worn out rhetoric? Someone who claims that they are
> great thinkers and debaters but they cannnot see past there nose to
> see that the Spiritual world is real? Someone who responds with slurs
> of hate and bitterness because they don't like the message and don't
> want to be accountable for their actions? Someone who thinks that they
> don't need God and that nothing will happen to them if they just deny?

If your denial of modern science doesn't convince atheists that God is
real, just threaten unbelievers with eternal torture.

>
> The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
> you. We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
> Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

It's not a choice at all. I could no more "choose" to believe in God
than I could "choose" to believe in the Easter Bunny.

>
> I think there is a whole lot of hallucinating going on and it's
> atheist's who are doing it.
>
> He is Risen!!!

And He hid chocolate eggs all over the house for the children to
find. Hail the Easter Bunny!

- Bob T
>
> Boaz

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Boaz <rwsyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
that is true.

Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
direction except denial.

What are we denying?

 

And they always want someone else to prove
their argument for them. The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
to those who choose to deny Him.

How can we "deny" something we don't believe exists?

 

It's up to the individual to realize
a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
relationship with  Him. We can't and won't do it for you.

So ... we have to believe in order to believe?

 

In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
response is always the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

What evidence? There's barely evidence to support claims he existed never mind any of the other claims.

 

In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance and that
the only logical answer has to be a Creator.

What evidence? Please provide it.

 

The response is always
the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

No I'm not assuming that you're hallucinating but I would like to see the evidence.

 

So who's really hallucinating? Someone who has no answer and won't
listen to those who do?

What's the question?

 

Someone who doesn't see the brokenness of this
world and admit that they have no answer to fix it.?

It's broken. No doubt. However, there are lots of ways to fix it. The best one's are social and scientific and have been proposed by critical thinkers and scientists.

 

Someone who
easily overlooks all the available evidence

I'd need to see the evidence and I haven't been provided with any. Just claims that it exists.

 

and blindly goes forward
with the same worn out rhetoric? Someone who claims that they are
great thinkers and debaters but they cannnot see past there nose to
see that the Spiritual world is real? Someone who responds with slurs
of hate and bitterness because they don't like the message and don't
want to be accountable for their actions? Someone who thinks that they
don't need God and that nothing will happen to them if they just deny?

The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
you. We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

I think there is a whole lot of hallucinating going on and it's
atheist's who are doing it.

He is Risen!!!

Boaz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

Freethinkers and atheists Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en

[lawrey]

Boaz

Now there is a nice biblical name, I hardly think we need say
anymore.

Hallucinating is one thing, anyone can experience that, but
you obviously have a bee-in-your-bonnet about it.

> "Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
> see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
> that is true."

Your whole attitude is indicative of one who does not recognise
reality.

God/s have never been known to exist on this earth. That is fact in
reality. It is the truth.

You may well have a god-thing stuck in your mind, but that is
because you are deluded by a belief in the superhuman,
superstitions from mythological times and promoted by religion.

Just because you believe that nonsense does not mean that
we must all tag along in your crazy wagon of false belief.

> "The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
> you. We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
> Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

The problem if there is one for you is christianity and its unhealthy
grip on your mind which has become psychologically impaired.

For atheists there is no choice to make we live on this planet,
in this world, in reality, not in the pretense of biblical stupidity.
You have no message for us. And you will never find what is
not there to be found save in your dreamlike superstitions.
Dream on I say and enjoy, don't try to turn your miserable god-
beliefs on to sane folk. We do not want nor do we need the
choices you have deluded yourselves into. Keep them for your
self. and rot with them. I find your dogma offensive and insulting
and you dare to accuse atheists of hate. All we ask is for you to
keep you filth in your own yard and stop trying to dump it on
decent folk.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Sunday, April 8, 2012 10:18:04 AM UTC-7, Boaz wrote:

Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
that is true.

Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
direction except denial. And they always want someone else to prove
their argument for them.

Ummm....we want you to prove your argument to us. It's not our fault that you don't have any valid evidence that God exists. 

 

The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
to those who choose to deny Him.

Nor does he reveal himself to those who believe in him. 

 

It's up to the individual to realize
a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
relationship with  Him. We can't and won't do it for you.

I don't want to have a relationship with psychopathic torturers, real or imaginary. I think you are immoral for thinking I should. 

 

In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
response is always the same.

What evidence is that?

 

Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

You are hallucinating that the evidence that a dead guy came back to life is increasing, that's for sure.

 

In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance

That only applies to those who don't understand biology. 

 

and that
the only logical answer has to be a Creator.

That only applies to those who don't understand logic. 

 

The response is always
the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

Nah, I don't need you to explain to me why you don't understand biology. 

 

So who's really hallucinating?

Anyone who thinks they have a personal relationship with God. 

 

Someone who has no answer and won't
listen to those who do?

Nope. Someone who sees (or hears) things that don't exist. 

 

Someone who doesn't see the brokenness of this
world and admit that they have no answer to fix it.?

Nope. Someone who sees (or hears) things that aren't there.

 

Someone who
easily overlooks all the available evidence and blindly goes forward
with the same worn out rhetoric?

Nope. Someone who sees (or hears) things that don't exist.

 

Someone who claims that they are
great thinkers and debaters but they cannnot see past there nose to
see that the Spiritual world is real?

Nope. Someone who sees (or hears) things that don't exist. 

 

Someone who responds with slurs
of hate and bitterness because they don't like the message and don't
want to be accountable for their actions?

Nope. Someone who sees (or hears) things that don't exist. 

 

Someone who thinks that they
don't need God and that nothing will happen to them if they just deny?

Nope. Someone who sees (or hears) things that don't exist. 

hal·lu·ci·na·tion

  

1.

a sensory experience of somethingthat does not exist outside the mind,caused by various physical and mentaldisorders, or by reaction to certaintoxic substances, and usuallymanifested as visual or auditoryimages.

I suggest you invest in a dictionary.  

The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
you. We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

I choose to believe the evidence - that Christians are under the delusion that a magical invisible torturer runs the universe and that he is worthy of worship. 

 

I think there is a whole lot of hallucinating going on and it's
atheist's who are doing it.

Nope. You really don't have any valid evidence that God exists. We're not imagining anything.

 

He is Risen!!!

Then where is he?

 

Boaz

[David Koester]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Boaz <rwsyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
that is true.

Observer

We have no hallucinations about the nothingness of a god peculiar only to christian ideologues. We do however (that is most of us) independently rely on  the tools of the cognoscenti , namely reason logic, scientific method , a reasonable reliance on the produce thereof and the rules of critical thought in determining what is worthy of an investment of belief therein.

 Since such as this fictive god thing , peculiar only to christian ideologues , can not be substantiated using such cognitive  tools we eschew such as meaningless 

.

Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
direction except denial.

Observer

Consider the following 

[quote]

A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven — indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist — just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings.

 

What Can Science Prove or Disprove?

To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.

 

Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.

 

Certainty & Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.

 

What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.

[end quote]

http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm

 

And they always want someone else to prove
their argument for them. The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
to those who choose to deny Him. It's up to the individual to realize
a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
relationship with  Him. We can't and won't do it for you.

I offer my much repeated challenge 

I challenge you to provide the following in accordance with logic, reason, scientific

method, the produce there of,and the rules of critical thought ,

a case for the existence of the god thing , peculiar to only

to christian ideologues, and any act ever committed in or on the universe by such, And then of course it will be necessary to establish, equally, the veracity of the

myths/ folk lore, within which such were concocted. (the bible)

 Failure to so argue the case successfully , by any one at any time, relegates the entirety of christianity  to the dung heap of all ill-begotten, failed and meaningless ideologies.

  

In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
response is always the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

Observer

No such evidence will withstand the scrutiny of the cognoscenti described in the above challenge.   

In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance and that
the only logical answer has to be a Creator.

Observer

Only to those who are uneducated, or mindless.

All that is necessary is the existence of infinite (in size) eternal space having the minimal attributes necessary for interaction , conjoing, exerting influence and be influenced by equally but differently evolving pre-substances, producing in and of it's self what, in a few cases became seedling universes , some of which had history enough and the proper kind, to precipitate such as a big bang. Wherein with the advent of a few simple events occurred.

[quote]

While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons tocombine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce throughgravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars orduring supernovae.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, much evidence has arisen to further validate the model.^[6] Georges Lemaître first proposed what would become the Big Bang theory in what he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." Over time, scientists would build on his initial ideas to form the modern synthesis. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubblediscovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.^[7]

[end quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang

 

The response is always
the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.

So who's really hallucinating?

[quote]

The illusion of reality: A review and integration of psychological research on hallucinations.

Bentall, R. P.

Current issue feed

Psychological Bulletin, Vol 107(1), Jan 1990, 82-95.

Hallucinations are among the most severe and puzzling forms of psychopathology. Although usually regarded as first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia, they are found in a wide range of medical and psychiatric conditions. Moreover, a substantial minority of otherwise normal individuals report hallucinatory experiences. The purpose of this article is to review the considerable research into the cognitive mechanisms underlying (particularly psychotic) hallucinations that has been carried out and to integrate this research within a general framework. The available evidence suggests that hallucinations result from a failure of the metacognitive skills involved in discriminating between self-generated and external sources of information. It is likely that different aspects of these skills are implicated in different types of hallucinatory experiences. Further research should focus on specific metacognitive deficits associated with different types of hallucinations and on treatment strategies designed to train hallucinators to reattribute thoughts to themselves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

 

Someone who has no answer and won't
listen to those who do?

Observer

You imply that you have an answer ? I must ask you, then, what is the question ?

 

Someone who doesn't see the brokenness of this
world and admit that they have no answer to fix it.? Someone who
easily overlooks all the available evidence and blindly goes forward
with the same worn out rhetoric? Someone who claims that they are
great thinkers and debaters but they cannnot see past there nose to
see that the Spiritual world is real? Someone who responds with slurs
of hate and bitterness because they don't like the message and don't
want to be accountable for their actions? Someone who thinks that they
don't need God and that nothing will happen to them if they just deny?

The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
you. We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

I think there is a whole lot of hallucinating going on and it's
atheist's who are doing it.

He is Risen!!!

Boaz

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, body thoroughly used up,totally worn out,screaming "WOOHOO What A Ride"

[Duke of Omnium]

On Apr 8, 10:18 am, Boaz <rwsystemsp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
> see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
> that is true.

Not really. There are important distinctions between hallucinations
and delusions.

>
> Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
> direction except denial. And they always want someone else to prove
> their argument for them. The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
> to those who choose to deny Him.

Congratulations. You've just reduced god to autosuggestive
horseshit.

> It's up to the individual to realize
> a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
> relationship with  Him. We can't and won't do it for you.
>

And let's not forget, having a "personal relationship" with "someone"
who is invisible, inaudible, and intangible is called "having an
imaginary friend". And no, you cannot conjure imaginary friends for
us.

> In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
> that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
> response is always the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.
>

Yes, we know. So much evidence that you can't present any. Doesn't
it bother you that christianity requires so many lies?

> In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
> earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance and that
> the only logical answer has to be a Creator. The response is always
> the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.
>

Actually, stupid, I submit that the complexity is exactly what would
happen if life arose by itself. Designers eschew complexity. I don't
expect a deluded liar to grasp that -- or to know what "eschew" means
-- but it is certainly the case.

> So who's really hallucinating? Someone who has no answer and won't
> listen to those who do? Someone who doesn't see the brokenness of this
> world and admit that they have no answer to fix it.?

The brokenness of the world? Gee. You make the putative designer
seem like a real screw-up.

> Someone who
> easily overlooks all the available evidence

Yeah, we know. So much evidence that you can't provide any. Turd.

> and blindly goes forward
> with the same worn out rhetoric? Someone who claims that they are
> great thinkers and debaters but they cannnot see past there nose to
> see that the Spiritual world is real?

As real as your delusions and imagination can make it. But no realer.

> Someone who responds with slurs
> of hate and bitterness because they don't like the message and don't
> want to be accountable for their actions?

Or, we see people pandering their religions like so much intellectual
syphilis as the whores that they are. It's not our fault that you're
a trollop.

> Someone who thinks that they
> don't need God and that nothing will happen to them if they just deny?
>

Lots of things will happen. No god is required for stuff to happen.

> The problem is that christians cannot lead you to God or reveal God to
> you.

Which is entirely consistent with god not being real.

> We can only tell you the message and what YOU have to do to find
> Him. The choice is your's and your's alone.

The problem is that you make it all sound like autosuggestive
horseshit. Like the sort of crap that only an imbecile or a liar
could profess to believe.

>
> I think there is a whole lot of hallucinating going on and it's
> atheist's who are doing it.
>

See above. You should learn the distinction between hallucination and
delusion. And get your head out of your ass.


> He is Risen!!!

"He" is YOUR imaginary friend. "He" can do whatever you want "him" to
do.

[Marc]

Apprently we have to find God ourself: so either God is lost, or we
are lost.

a) Whilst the idea of God being lost would make for a great story, or
series of Jokes I think we will just move to the second prop.
b) When I am lost what should I: Ask for directions or wonder around
randomly picking a new direction whenever I am forced to pick? Who
should I ask for directions? Well as an atheist I cannot ask God
because 'I have lost God' which means I am left with people who
believe. Question (a) What have I lost? (b) How do I regain what I
have lost?

Before answering question b, I will need an answer to question a
because, basically: In order to find something I need to know what I
am looking for - hence the first question with respect to knowledge is
'what is God'. In this I have never heard an answer that makes any
sense... This is a problem as I do not know what to look for - which
is problem that exists prior to where to look. Why? If I do not know
what to look for then I might overlook exactly that which I am
supposed to be seeing.

[Timbo]

You must take your brain out and play with it. That is where God is.
To find out where something is, you must take things apart. Take all
the things apart from your brain that defines reason and whallah! you
find God, Allah, the great Phallus.

[Ma-who?]

On Apr 8, 12:26 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:18 am, Boaz <rwsystemsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
> > see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
> > that is true.
>
> We don't think you're hallucinating, we just think that you believe
> things that aren't actually true.
>
>
>
> > Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
> > direction except denial. And they always want someone else to prove
> > their argument for them.
>
> It is impossible to prove a negative, and most atheists (unlike you)
> already know that.

Sadly, many atheists do believe you cannot prove a negative - and all
of them wrongly so. All claims bear a burden of proof - including
negative claims. Atheist Peter Kirby has an excellent piece refuting
this common myth - as does infidels.org.

Many atheists, including yourself it appears - do not merely lack
belief, but actively deny the existence of a God. That is a claim like
any other - and it bears the burden of proof.

If you cannot meet that burden, then perhaps you should reconsider
your mockery and disdain for others who , like you, have faith in an
idea; and - unlike you, are informed and honest enough to call that
faith by it's proper name.

>
> >  The fact is that God does not reveal Himself
> > to those who choose to deny Him. It's up to the individual to realize
> > a need for God and to individually ask to have that personal
> > relationship with  Him. We can't and won't do it for you.
>
> Ah, yes, Christian rationalization #1 - you can't see God unless you
> already believe in Him.

(Your) Rhetoric and spin aside - many religions claim that God is not
begging you to recognize him - it's your free choice. And if you take
one step towards God, God will take two steps toward you (Islam also
has this idea).

There is nothing inherently unreasonable or impossible about this idea
- and in fact I believe it coincides quite nicely with the conception
of God expressed through most religions - as a God of love and mercy,
and therefore a God who desires you have an entirely free choice.

If you believe there is something irrational about the idea - I'm
interested to hear what.

>
>
> > In spite of the ever increasing evidence uncovered virtually every day
> > that Jesus Christ was crucified and arose on the third day the
> > response is always the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.
>
> Show us some of this "evidence" and maybe we'll believe it.
>
>
>
> > In spite of the increasing overwhelming evidence that life on this
> > earth is much to complex for it to have happened by chance and that
> > the only logical answer has to be a Creator. The response is always
> > the same. Your hallucinating and prove it to me.
>
> No, that's not a hallucination, that's simply denial.  You prefer not
> to believe in evolution because it contradicts your mythological
> assumptions.

I dont know what the original poster believes, but the above comments
are not necessarily denying evolution.

>
>
>
> > So who's really hallucinating?
>
> You, obviously.

You've said twice before this , in this same post - that the original
poster was not hallucinating. So which is it?

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:26 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

>
> > Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
> > direction except denial. And they always want someone else to prove
> > their argument for them.
>
> It is impossible to prove a negative, and most atheists (unlike you)
> already know that.

Sadly, many atheists do believe you cannot prove a negative - and all
of them wrongly so.

I would have to agree to a point. You can prove a negative where things that are known to exist are concerned.

I don't have an elephant in my living room is demonstrable therefore provable, as is having one in my living room.

That said, if you can't demonstrate the existence of something, you can't demonstrate it's non-existence either.

So, in that way Bob is right and I'm pretty sure that was his intent.

 

All claims bear a burden of proof - including
negative claims.

Well, a claim like "gods do not exist" is a positive claim. A claim like "I don't believe you" is a negative claim.

Negative claims don't hold any burden of proof.

 

Atheist Peter Kirby has an excellent piece refuting
this common myth - as does infidels.org.

I haven't read the Kirby piece but infidels.org is a great site.

-- 

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Marc <mjhr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Apprently we have to find God ourself: so either God is lost, or we
are lost.

a) Whilst the idea of God being lost would make for a great story, or
series of Jokes I think we will just move to the second prop.
b) When I am lost what should I: Ask for directions or wonder around
randomly picking a new direction whenever I am forced to pick? Who
should I ask for directions? Well as an atheist I cannot ask God
because 'I have lost God' which means I am left with people who
believe. Question (a) What have I lost? (b) How do I regain what I
have lost?

Before answering question b, I will need an answer to question a
because, basically: In order to find something I need to know what I
am looking for - hence the first question with respect to knowledge is
'what is God'.

Yes and it's a question we frequently forget to ask theists because we make assumptions.

Agreed that it should be our first question.

 

In this I have never heard an answer that makes any
sense... This is a problem as I do not know what to look for - which
is problem that exists prior to where to look.  Why? If I do not know
what to look for then I might overlook exactly that which I am
supposed to be seeing.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Steve in Virginia]

We haven't been stuck in denial for 2000 years, we've been patiently
waiting for any proof of the outrageous claims that the religious have
made through the centuries. Now please note, I said proof. Not
belief; not faith; not threats of hell; not being publicly burned
alive by the Inquisition; not apocryphal stories from the Bronze Age;
not magical gardens and talking snakes or angels and demons. Actual ,
objective, verifiable proof.

If nothing else you have to give use heather atheists credit for
staying power. We've given you guys 20 centuries to come up with
something and still we got bupkis!

Steve

[Ian Betts]

I've given them 78 years of my life to prove it to me and no one has as yet. I've heard tons of scriptural from the bible and been told to pray and believe in a spirit, but not one shred of tangible evidence.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[LL]

LL. Excellent writing, David. I agree with everything you've said
here. All atheists should use this in any argument with theists,
especially when they challenge the atheist to prove there is no god.
This one paragraph says it all (though it certainly won't be the end
of the argument for theists):

"This alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays

no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any
events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been
detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its
presence is either required, productive, or useful."

.....

On Apr 8, 8:36 pm, David Koester <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Boaz <rwsystemsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Atheist's always accuse Christians of halliucinating and not able to
> > see the real picture. I submit to you that it is the exact reversal
> > that is true.
>
> Observer
>
> We have no hallucinations about the nothingness of a god peculiar only to
> christian ideologues. We do however (that is most of us) independently rely
> on  the tools of the cognoscenti , namely reason logic, scientific method ,
> a reasonable reliance on the produce thereof and the rules of critical
> thought in determining what is worthy of an investment of belief therein.
>
>  Since such as this fictive god thing , peculiar only to christian
> ideologues , can not be substantiated using such cognitive  tools we eschew
> such as meaningless
> .
>
>
>
> > Atheist's have  been stuck in neutral for over 2000 years with no
> > direction except denial.
>
> Observer
>
> Consider the following
>
> [quote]
>
> A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to

> insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven — indeed, that science *
> itself* is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends

> In *God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not
> Exist*<http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/GodFailed.htm>,

> Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of
> God:
>

>    1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
>    2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective
>    evidence for his existence.
>    3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
>    4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
>    5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable

>    doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
>
> This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged
> entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God,
> as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that
> evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of
> evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific

> method<http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/a/ScientificMethod.htm>
> .

>
> Certainty & Doubt in Science
>
> Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible
> doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a
> weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart,
> pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when
> we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window
> through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not
> a valid move.
>
> In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new
> information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in
> order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described
> in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a
> rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It
> wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though,
> because belief would still have to be provisional.
>
> By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true
> of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things
> which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies
> to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for

> whatever god *they* happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing

> combined<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis> to

> form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it
> would take thousands of years for electrons tocombine with

> them<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)> and

> create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was

> hydrogen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen>,
> along with traces of helium <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium> and
> lithium <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium>. Giant clouds of these
> primordial elements would coalesce
> throughgravity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity> to
> form stars <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star> and
> galaxies<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy>,
> and the heavier elements <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table> would
> be synthesized either within ...
>
> read more »

[Brock]

On Apr 8, 1:18 pm, Boaz <rwsystemsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> He is Risen!!!
>
> Boaz

He is risen indeed! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Steve in Virginia]

I said the same thing about the bread dough I made last Saturday!

Steve

[Steve in Virginia]

Something tells me we still have a long wait ahead of us.

Steve

On Apr 11, 12:30 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've given them 78 years of my life to prove it to me and no one has as
> yet. I've heard tons of scriptural from the bible and been told to pray and
> believe in a spirit, but not one shred of tangible evidence.
>

[Brock Organ]

On Apr 12, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Steve in Virginia wrote:

I said the same thing about the bread dough I made last Saturday!

On Apr 12, 1:27 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 8, 1:18 pm, Boaz <rwsystemsp...@gmail.com> wrote:

He is Risen!!!

Boaz

He is risen indeed! :)

I consider the difference between the two:

"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and a willing mind."

http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XX.html

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Apr 12, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Steve in Virginia wrote:

Something tells me we still have a long wait ahead of us.

On Apr 11, 12:30 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've given them 78 years of my life to prove it to me and no one has as

yet. I've heard tons of scriptural from the bible and been told to pray and

believe in a spirit, but not one shred of tangible evidence.

I consider the bible has provided such "tangible" evidence:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Duke of Omnium]

On Apr 12, 11:23 am, Steve in Virginia <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I said the same thing about the bread dough I made last Saturday!
>
> Steve
>

The difference being that your bread dough was in the kitchen, not in
your imagination.