Out of curiousity, why should an atheist feel compelled to act this way? I mean, sure it'd be cool if we all did, but in the end it comes down to preference, and as the OP has so boisterously demonstrated, some people prefer being a dick. It's annoying, but it's not like there are any consequences (or, if there are, the value of being a dick outweighs the consequences, apparently).

No doubt. Atheists like him give all atheists a bad name. Just like there are a lot of christians who give christians a bad name. We all have PR problems...

in my religion-less world, everyone would just be a good person who doesn't negatively affect others. that being said, "being a dick" is most likely going to be negatively affecting others.

Yeah, I guess I'm being a bit of a dick by pointing out that it's occasionally +EV to be a dick.

actually, i agree. ex: +EV time to be a dick: someone is a dick to you first.

my mentor used to say, "when you fcuk with the bull, you get the horns"

cheers-

no matter what you say about me or me being a dick or whatever......
5 pages and still not the smallest, tinyest, smidgen of proof for your sick **** of a god.....

In the end say what you want but I win. *cool sunglasses*

i'm totally grunching the last half of this thread, but i think its important to point out that theists are failing to make an important distinction between "belief" and "trust".

In biblical times, God used large, impersonal miracles to prove His existence. Yes, of course this didnt guarantee that the people trusted or believed everything He said, but they, without a doubt, believed that this God existed.

In today's world, it appears God mostly works in personal ways (or in ways that effect a few people ... let's ignore Prax's lame examples that are clearly ridiculous). Why is that? And why are atheists blamed for not having the same "personal experience" that leads them to believe that God exists? On top of that, why should we use *your* personal experience as evidence to believe in God, when you refused to use *our* personal experience as evidence that God probably doesnt exist or doesnt care?

Biblically the word Trust used in the old testament is synonymous with Believe, Believing, Belief in the new testament.

Synonymous:
1 : alike in meaning or significance
2 : having the same connotations, implications, or reference


To trust God is to believe God, to believe God is to trust God. They are the same thing.

Trust is a word that seems to be understood better than the word believe, people make the word believe hard to understand, they squeeze it, its simply trusting God.

I believe God.
I trust God.
I believe God will do what He says He will do in His word.
I trust God will do what He says in His word.
I believe God will protect me.
I trust God will protect me.

These all mean the same thing but trust seems to register in the mind better, it comunicates better to the understanding, either way they are the same things.

Israel as a nation or as individuals at times trusted God to take care of them, they believed God would protect them, these are interchangeable words.

Christians are to Trust God, we are to Believe God, we trust His word to be true, we believe His word to be true, its all the same.

There's no God. The God is used to describe all the ****ing unknown bull**** these stupid puppets don't understand or are uncertain of....

E.g. in old age a lightning from the sky was sent by gods..well today we know it isn't so.

People were stupid back then, people remain stupid today, that's not gonna change for the whole eternity.

Stupidity and fear of people is what GOD represents.

Thank you sir....and as you'll notice STILL NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE

This is not a unique situation.

For example, what evidence can you provide to me that establishes that you possess the same quality of consciousness that I perceive for myself?

i would not make the claim that i do

Didn't read the thread, just the OP.

What the hell is wrong with you, man? Get a grip of yourself.

OP is prolly mad he cant play pokers like Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

An excellent point. But if you don't, why should I worry about your opinion on the existence of God? You now create the possibility that you are different from me in a way that makes understanding God impossible for you. Of course you could say you are something more, but that is also not demonstrable. I could argue you are something less and we are at the same impass.

This is relevant to the OP. He has demanded evidence for the existence of God when I and others have already agreed that external physical evidence is not available. He is proving nothing. Further, he makes this point like it is some brilliant intellectual challenge, when in fact it is a line of argument that was old when I was young.

If he wants to make a point that aspects of religion are inconsistent or illogical then the discussion has value. His OP is childish and pointless.

OP is on RGTtilt. I find it rather amusing.

So do you yourself claim to have an understanding of God?

ignoring the childishness, OP is also asking for tests of Gods existence amongst other things, I'm sure the argument is old but its one I would like to understand (not the abusive bit). I guess what I am asking is, if there is no evidence and no way of testing you are correct, why do you believe that the God you have chosen is real?

Isn't everyone?

I dont think all theists would agree with you that there is no external physical evidence for God. Its why we get so many watchmaker threads.

A fair question. It is somewhat involved. I created a thread a month or so back and tried to start to step through my thought process, but I only got to the first step of my reasoning. The response from the atheists alone ranged from:

"This is almost self-evident"

to

"How do you even tie your shoes"

It was taking so much energy trying to communicate the first concept that I lost interest in the effort.

You were trying to compete in a race with those who were learning how to walk.

Your thread was basically just a restated pascal's wager which most atheists tend to find unconvincing as a reason to not only believe in God, but then to pick a particular religion as the "right" way to behave. I'm not sure why you are surprised at the reaction to it.

fyp

your thread was a very thinly veiled Pascal's Wager, a line of reasoning that has been refuted over and over and over again to the point that when someone invokes Pascal's Wager, they have basically officially admitted defeat


eh...too late lol

I agree that there is a similarity to Pascal's wager, but I specifically avoided the use of the premise to select any specific religion. Given that restriction, state your understanding of a logical refutation to the premise, because I am not aware of it.

I dont remember the thread that well so i dont know if belief was a part of it. But once God demands belief you do invoke religious conditions.