2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
The challenge is yours.
Please explain how owning another human being as an inheritable possession, infanticide and forced marriage are perfect acts of goodness.
See the OP of this thread for more on genocide and infanticide and compare Number 31, Joshua 8 and 1 Samuel 15.
You still have all your work ahead of you.
so it was discovered in 2007 that there's a bacteria that's now eating plastic.
of course many years ago they found a bacteria that eats nylon.
also not to long again they discovered a fungi i believe that eats styrofoam.
so it was discovered in 2007 that there's a bacteria that's now eating plastic.
of course many years ago they found a bacteria that eats nylon.
also not to long again they discovered a fungi i believe that eats styrofoam.
So use hydrogen carefully to generate clean electricity.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Sadly I doubt that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it. - Cofty
I was right.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Towerwatchman You have discovered a forum where you can frenetically reiterate all your carefully rehearsed apologetics and copy-paste your favourite apologists.
The thing is we have heard all of this a thousand times year after year. Some of us used to preach exactly the same stuff.
You have a style that makes conversation impossible and unfruitful. I don't believe you are as incapable of following a simple argument as you appear. I think you are trying to do far too much at once. You totally miss the point of every single thing people say to you and come back with smart-arse comments that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Is it possible for you to stop that and actually engage in a meaningful conversation?
Let's go back to your OP.
You claimed that in order to assert that god does not exist an atheist would need perfect knowledge. Lots of people have explained why you are wrong.
1 - To be an atheist simply means to not be persuaded that god exists. Literally means "without god". It is not necessary to make a positive claim that god does not exist. Some atheists would go that far - I do - but not all atheists do. If you are going to have a useful conversation with people who disagree with you, you need to try hard to properly represent their actual views.
2 - You have failed to define what you mean by god. If you leave god undefined so that it might include a very vague version of deism then of course nobody can prove you are wrong. But we both know that is not your position. Once you are honest enough to define god then it does become perfectly possible for atheists to show that the specific god you are preaching does not, or cannot, exist.
That was the point of my illustration of the unicorn in the toilet which you deliberately misrepresented.
I am willing to assert that I can prove god does not exist but with two conditions...
1 - By "god" I mean the god and father of Jesus, the god of christian theism. I mean an all-powerful being who made all things, who is the epitome of goodness and love, who is active in the physical world and who desires a relationship with humans.
2- By "prove" I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.
This god does not exist. I am more than willing to back that claim up but in the context of this thread my only aim to show that your assertion about atheism being self-refuting is wrong.
Sadly I doubt that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
TWM - Your intellectual dishonesty makes conversation impossible.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
atheism - I can use logic and reason to show God does not exist (why should human rationality be relied upon if it is purely the result of selection for survival?)
That is not self-refuting statement.
It is just a way of saying you can't work out how rationality contributes to human survival or perhaps was a side-effect of other evolutionary changes.
so it was discovered in 2007 that there's a bacteria that's now eating plastic.
of course many years ago they found a bacteria that eats nylon.
also not to long again they discovered a fungi i believe that eats styrofoam.
Or split water to extract hydrogen just as photosynthesis does effortlessly.
Molecular biologists are studying the enzyme down to the level of atoms. If we can replicate that we have unlimited, free, clean energy.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God also.
Yes.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belief
How can it be illogical to fail to believe irrational claims about invisible supernatural beings?
Nobody makes a "conscious decision not to believe". I just find christian theism to be on a par with all other superstitions and I don't believe it. If evidence is ever presented to support it I am listening.
