I find it hard to believe you question everything else but not science. Where do you draw the line ? Science lied to you for years and said pluto was a planet.
Science didn't lie. It simply changed its opinion based on new information. And it will continue to change its opinion based on information yet to be revealed. That's actually something theists should take heart in. They may come to a conclusion that there is a higher order/power responsible for the order of the universe and life itself. A lie is a deliberate misstating of what is verified as true. In the case of Pluto, it was a planet based on all known information at the time. But with the advent of more powerful observation devices, the definition of what constitutes a planet had to be revised as new "bodies" were found. As a side note: Christianity would continue to evolve had it not been for eschatological notions and passages which fix events and prevents further revelations. However, with new information, Christians can reinterpret certain passages which may have had one understanding before, but with new information, have another. For instance, 6 days of creation. Some hold it as 6 actual days. Others, given the scientific understanding that the Earth is very old, have interpreted the 6 days as 6 time periods. I think the latter would be the correct interpretation given that how we keep time was created in the third day. Plus how our day begins and ends and how creation days begin and end are different for a reason. Our days, morning then evening. Creation days, evening then morning. It appears a deliberate differentiation.
Please believe my sincerity in what I am about to tell you. After the exchanges we had in this thread and for you to write what you have just written, I can only surmise that you must be borderline retarded. Please be assured that I do not mean to be offensive. Your apparent inability to either understand or present a cogent argument is sad and disheartening, particularly since I know you are trying your best. I know that you are not intentionally ignoring what I wrote and just repeating yourself. I suppose it comes down to a matter of comprehension. It just doesn't seem fair anymore. I will continue to debate with those people who present reasoned arguments and who acknowledge the validity, where it exists, in the arguments of others. However, I think that our exchanges have gone as far as they are going to go. Therefore, going forward, I will endeavor to stop showing you the flaws in your logic and arguments. I wish you well. God bless.
Yes that's right. It's all you are doing. Look at your post above. You recommend word play. The bible doesn't any longer stack up to what can be proved or has become known in science, so you re-interpret its meaning. The words don't change in the Bible. It is attempted in the different versions but it doesn't work , so the meanings get played around with. Word play. Apparently don't even realize you are doing it even when you are demonstrating it. Same with the "atheist's definitions" you link. Atheism Yes. Will you be playing semantics with 'ism and 'ist? (Yes?) Neither is directly to do with my argument but anyway - what exactly is your question to which I am to agree yes ?? There are two contrary definitions you offer but want me to give one single yes. For babies it is this.. "... inability to believe .. " period. Yes? My argument has been consistent. Simple inability to believe. Yes? So no more questions, just a jump to conclusion under a different incompletely defined set of circumstances. Word Play ddunbar! It obviously is that. Babies are totally void of any religious teachings. They are subject to a Simple ignorance of religious teachings by default. So are you now to try and change meaning to suit another set of circumstances like you would do with the Bible??!! Word play ddunbar. You may not be doing it intentionally but you certainly aren't realizing you're doing it if it's not intentional. Also generally, don't you think the condition of a baby is in anyway different to people with cognizance? Do you think these links are referring specifically to those whose cognizance is limited to the extent of babies? "But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?" Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not Simply - they have inability to believe. One may also have no idea, Then as it has no idea of theism it is without theism. There is a word for that. Play around all you will. Ignore the fact of etymology all you will. The primary definition and meaning of atheist describes the state in which babies are born.
"My argument has been consistent. Simple inability to believe." Poppycock. Your atheism is not a function of inability to believe. You are able to believe in God, you opt not to...you are unwilling to believe, not lacking the capacity or inability to believe. It is a choice, a willing, conscious, and derived though a thought process for you, not a condition of no choice. You are actively, willingly rejecting belief in God. In fact you opt to believe in non God.
Stu, I must laugh and here's why? There are atheists that disagree with you! And they've laid out why! Yet you don't seem to want to address that. I laid out my case. It's solid. It's also confirmed by atheists, explicitly. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But as I said which you seem to be unable to address, "take it up with your atheist brethren who ardently disagree with you." Since, as it seems there is no general concensus among atheists, given that on the web you see some seemingly unskilled atheists trying to run with the idea that babies are atheists without any sound discourse as to why this is valid, all the while there are atheists who reject such a notion as ridiculous and illogical and have addressed why in a logical and prudent manner, arguing with me is pointless as I'm not the one who needs convincing. Start a web page or blog and let atheists debate it with you. You won't be able to cry "theists are stupid or block headed." Wordplay demonstration on my part? LOL. Seriously. LOL. The interpretation of a sentence, paragraph, and conceptualization in the bible is not wordplay. It's a mode of interpretation. It could be allegorical, literal, or contextual. You see my fine fellow, there is enough ambiguity in the creation story to allow for further interpretation than the one which was prominent millenia ago. Wordplay, which you are clearly doing and was shown by an atheist's site, is assigning a meaning to a word for which there is no sound logical grounds for doing so. Bye bye now.
I dunno. Most people I have met who believe in god, are if anything less secure and happy with life, existence, and the struggles of living than the atheists and agnostics of my acquaintance. I have yet to meet any "happy idiots" who find life simple and pleasant, trusting 100% in god and their religion. As for muslims, I know a fair few and they are if anything even worse off, because their human frailties are condemned by the religion they genuinely believe in. Only Irish, Polish, or Italian catholics can approach their level of guilt, contradiction & self-loathing. I have to say, "jolly chap" simple hedonists seem to be the least troubled out of all the people I have encountered.
The opening statement caught me off guard, but I have not been able to keep up with the entire thread. The opening statement is circular reasoning ala St. Anselm (google it, I don't remember the manifest but it is St. Anselm's only famous one). Second, people that claim to be athiests but cannot disprove the existence of God or are open to the possibility of God are not athiests. They are agnostics. Really, no one can definitively disprove the existence of God so most doubters are agnostics. Thanks, bye.