What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[possibletarian]

Your testimony is why God is Holy and we are not. Thanks!

People can be spiritually touched and experience love that transcends the cave man five senses of Uga Bunga style attitude to the question of human consciousness.

If it was all Uga Bunga and dragging our partners by the feet to our cave like dwelling, then we should deny our humanity.

The comparison I have drawn is so right on ALL levels of our conscious beings and our meaning making of what is beyond the realm of the five senses. Our being uses our five senses 3% of the time, as compared to the 97% of the time, where our mind is continually constructing rules and possibilities outside of what is being electrically sensed from the five senses.

Humans don't interpret poetry, art, science through the electrical hard wires, rather humanity throughout the ages has been continually using head space to construct meaning making and new rules of interpretation of those things which are externally measured.

A science teachers gathers data from the physical world and the write up of the research takes 95% longer than the physical experiment itself in data gathering. I was an Engineer for 20 years and I know how data isn't the be all end all of human research and development, rather how new interpretative ideas can be gathered with existing data that will allow a more efficient and cheaper alternative to the function of usage.

Athiests, when asserting their views to the lacking of their belief to the existence of God, solely rely on data to interpret itself, that is 100% of the evidence must be interpreted by the data itself, without human meaning making. This is not possible and if we take this approach then we are not sincere with ourselves and choose a path towards ignorance and this is why I called it a cognitive dissonance, because Athiests.......

Appeal to Evidence of absence when relying on the data to interpret itself 100% of the time repeatedly. This is a logical fallacy that is.....

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence, because Athiests dismiss human cognitive constructs attributed by insurmountable Christian witnesses, that accounts for 95% of the interpreted data.

So Athiests say prove something is 100%, by using only 5% data and 0% human meaning making. This becomes a foolish man's erande to begin with.

That's just gobbledygook, how do you know it's not all in your head ?
Sure people can have experiences and over many centuries but how does that make it true?

So Athiests say prove something is 100%, by using only 5% data and 0% human meaning making. This becomes a foolish man's erande to begin with.

5% data of what ? And i believe it's errand not erande.

 

[Belk]

Very good photo to demonstrate how Athieism peddles on that high stool, whilst not getting anywhere, a case of many misses.

By the way that is a nice peddle bike and very nice stool to go with it.

So you claim. Yet the words you type convey your lack of understanding of our position. If you wish to evangelize to atheists it would behoove you to not continually misrepresent our position. No one is going to bother listening to someone who proves he has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You consider relying on someone else when you can instead test it yourself a good answer?

I said test it for yourself, just use someone else' eyes. It's the norm for blind people to get help when they need it.

What are you doing???

 

[keith99]

I said test it for yourself, just use someone else' eyes. It's the norm for blind people to get help when they need it.

What are you doing???

No it is the norm for a certain kind of Christian to avoid anything that even resembles actually using objective tests.

I've illustrated in detail how a blind person can verify that those claiming to be able to see, i.e. to have some sense a blind person does not, really do see more.

You continue to want to avoid seeing the value of such testing because it comes to a very different result when applied to what you claim to see that I do not. You claim to see more, but unlike those with site compared to a blind man you keep wanting to avoid any such test.

NOTE: Those Christians who claim their God seldom directly reveals Himself to believers should note that their claim is not analogous to the case of a man who can see and a blind man. It is only those who claim God is so obviously revealed that anyone should see it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No it is the norm for a certain kind of Christian to avoid anything that even resembles actually using objective tests.

You just pulled a switcharoo on me, we were talking blind people.

This is too weird, I'm going to leave it with you now, what ever "it" is.

 

[Gene2memE]

Your argument is from a position of ignorance and this is a logical fallacy.

The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy that claims that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true by the individual's personal experience. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The dishonesty here is BREATHTAKING.

Nowhere does the fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' contain the phrase "by the individual's personal experience". That's your own insertion, made purely and dishonestly to bolster your own argument.

I know the webpage where you pulled (and then altered) that definition from - it's a RationalWiki logical fallacies page.

The Argument from Ignorance webpage and entry actually states:

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.​

If I was still marking history papers, you'd have some serious explaining to do about plagiarism. You were too lazy to even take the links out.

Tsk, tsk.

Note also the second paragraph and most carefully the final sentence - this is what you've been doing through this entire thread. Attempting to shift the burden of proof from yourself to others.

Doesn't your holy book have some words in it about honesty?

 

[The Times]

The dishonesty here is BREATHTAKING

You can say that again! But I don't take offense.

Nowhere does the fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' contain the phrase "by the individual's personal experience". That's your own insertion, made purely and dishonestly to bolster your own argument.

My statement is charitable. I am giving Athiests who say repeatedly that they are LACKING the personal repeatable experience. So I intuitively incorporated your lacking of personal experience into the definition of the term and I believe that I was charitable in doing so.

I know the webpage where you pulled (and then altered) that definition from - it's a RationalWiki logical fallacies page.

The Argument from Ignorance webpage and entry actually states:

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Notice how I ingeniously incorporated evidence of a personal experience of a witness in place of a mere premise, that is a suggestion or a claim .

Christians claim a real and tangible life long experience and this is not a mere premise that doesn't need to be proven, rather the living proof is the first hand testimony of the witness of Jesus Christ. So in a court of law a witness can testify of their personal experience, whereas other parties who try to refute it are doing so on grounds of heresay opinions.

So the way I reworded it by replacing premise/claim with the testimony of a living witness that tangibly has a personal experiences attached to it.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Here lies the crunch.... that Christians as far as their personal life long experience with Jesus is concerned is more real and tangible than the primal electrical signals that are gathered from the 5 senses that accounts for only 5% of human cognitive meaning making and interpretative judgement. We as humand use 95% internal constructs and rules, along with the 5% of actual data gathered through senses, in order to verify the evidence and we call this experience.

If I was still marking history papers, you'd have some serious explaining to do about plagiarism. You were too lazy to even take the links out.

Well it isn't about firmal essay writing, more so about using language and terms as tools in a constructive ways to serve the purpose of the argument for or against.

You see the argument from ignorance only really applies to the hearsayers who are Athiests who have yet to experience the evidence that Christians have throughout the last 2000 years and counting.

Note also the second paragraph and most carefully the final sentence - this is what you've been doing through this entire thread. Attempting to shift the burden of proof from yourself to others.

The burden of proof has to be shifted to the hearsayers who have not experienced what Christians have throughout the last 2000 years and counting.

For example, if a person experiences distress from say an accident, then the judge takes the testimony of the first hand eye witness into evidence because it is counted as real and tangible witness of fact. The evidence provided by a witness of fact is not just a premise, if we refer to the definition of argument from ignorance, but is counted as fact. The only way that the evidence that a witness of fact provides can be contested, is if there is another witness of fact that refutes the witness of fact testimony by stating that he saw them laughing and carrying on as if nothing had happened. If there is no other witness of fact and a person opines in refutation of the witness of fact, then the judge will silence the opinion as deem it hearsay. It is this hearsay premise that is postulated by Athiests that leads to the conclusion that they argue from a position of ignorance because they themselves say that they lack evidence because they are not witnesss of fact.

The second approach an Athiest can take is to prove the lack of credibility of a witness of fact by showing evidence that they are lying. This would mean that the Christian who says they have experienced Jesus have in fact not experienced Jesus when they are caught sending a message on facebook for example that contradicts their claim.

Doesn't your holy book have some words in it about honesty?

Absolutely and then some more!

 

[The Times]

So you claim. Yet the words you type convey your lack of understanding of our position. If you wish to evangelize to atheists it would behoove you to not continually misrepresent our position. No one is going to bother listening to someone who proves he has no idea what he is talking about.

That is one method that I see Athiests use many times, that is they try to purge the witness of fact. Mind you this attempt is a miserable failure, because there isn't enough Athiests to purge billions of Christian witness of fact, throughout the last 2000 years and counting.

 

[The Times]

That's just gobbledygook, how do you know it's not all in your head ?
Sure people can have experiences and over many centuries but how does that make it true?

If one person testified then I will agree 100% with your premise.

If 1000 peoples testified then I will agree 100% with your premise.

If 100,000,000 people testified then I will need to establish how they spread out across 2000 years and if they were independent witnesses? I would still be pesamistic, yet would not make a conclusive decision one way or another.

If billions of people testified then I will need to establish a data gathering proforma to take into evidence all these independent witnesses encompassing the globe and all nationalities, across the last 2000 years. This means I will agree 100% that these independent witnesses have had a real and tangible experience.
If I didn't do this and still thought that I had lacking of convincing evidence, then I must consider my own sanity and consider myself unfit to discern light from dark or black from white. In essence I would need psychiatric treatment for my cognitive dissonance.

Athiests need help because there is no rational or logic to argue from a position of ignorance against insurmountable witnesses of fact.

For Athiests to question evidence is quite disconcerting to say the least. A psychological study is required to be done on the cognitive dissonance exhibited by Athiests.

5% data of what ? And i believe it's errand not erande.

Ok minor detail missed on erande, I will give you that one, thankyou.

 

[Skreeper]

That is one method that I see Athiests use many times, that is they try to purge the witness of fact. Mind you this attempt is a miserable failure, because there isn't enough Athiests to purge billions of Christian witness of fact, throughout the last 2000 years and counting.

Billions of people can be wrong about something. The number of people who believe something or how devoutly they believe has no impact on it's truthfulness.

 

[The Times]

Billions of people can be wrong about something. The number of people who believe something or how devoutly they believe has no impact on it's truthfulness.

That is where Athiests need psychiatric evaluation to determine why they continue with their cognitive dissonance. It seems the term having your blinders on is an aptitude exhibited by Athiests. I see it as an urgency to help people in this crippling situation. I truly believe that when statements expressed along the lines that billions of witnesses of fact spanning the last 2000 years and counting need to be discounted.

My question to you friend is, on what grounds are you discounting billions of witnesses of fact?

Is it your lacking of evidence that is associated with your own personal experience?

If so, then you are committing a logical fallacy by arguing from a position of ignorance, when you argue that insurmountable Christian witnesses of fact are not credible based on your what?

Your hearsay? The Athiests hearsay?

You obviously don't humanly function like this, when embracing evidence over media and books when you weren't there and did not experience the event, rather you accept the witness accounts, right?

Well it seems your built in bias against Christian witnesses of facts about God's existence is a deep seated problem that is highlighting major inconsistencies and double standards in your methadological approach in establishing truth from billions of Christian witnesses of fact.

I feel for you friend, I really do. I do however believe that Athiesm has been much burdensome for you and your trying to argue from a position of ignorance against the existence of God.

Athiesm therefore profits you nothing, more so it has become your chains of bondage preventing you from living a Godly inspired and fulfilled life in Christ Jesus.

 

[Larniavc]

Is there a way i can prove h2o is water on my own or do i have to accept it as fact?

You could freeze it and observe it becomes solid at zero Celsius. Then float it in it's liquid form.

That's two lines of evidence to support it being water that can be examined at home.

 

[Skreeper]

My question to you friend is, on what grounds are you discounting billions of witnesses of fact?

I am not discounting that they had an experience. I reject the claim that this experience had something to do with a god. Every time I ask a theist about the personal experience it ends with: I cannot explain event x, therefore it must have been a god or a supernatural event.

You obviously don't humanly function like this, when embracing evidence over media and books when you weren't there and did not experience the event, rather you accept the witness accounts, right?

That depends on the claim. When someone claims that he has seen a giant dragon, then I'm not just gonna take his word for it.

Well it seems your built in bias against Christian witnesses of facts about God's existence is a deep seated problem that is highlighting major inconsistencies and double standards in your methadological approach in establishing truth from billions of Christian witnesses of fact.

I reject your claim that the explanation for the personal experiences is a fact. Please demonstrate that the explanation is true with supporting evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Any thoughts?

Not really. If you want to see how a theological viewpoint can benefit people, look at the mega churches passing around the collection plate.

 

[The Times]

You mean "role models" right? Were you home schooled or something?

I'm serious...what's going on with you?

Yes role models.
No, I was schooled by the state.
I am sincerely trying to establish the Athiestic thought processes, through back and forth probing questions and responses.
I am fine, thanks.

I'm gonna disagree on that. I've asked a lot of christians about their experiences with god...absolutely none ever claimed to touch him physically.

Touch is a word that has both physical aspects and spiritual aspects. For example a person isn't going to donate to a person in need because they have been physically touched by that person, rather one will donate to the needy person because they are touched by their plight and their harrowing story of survival.

This spiritual touch is intangible more so than a physical tangible touch. A carnal person minds the things of the flesh, tangible stuff ok, however a spiritual person looks inwardly within their hearts towards intangible gifts to help others who have been intangibly touched by their harrowing stories of survival and overcoming of life's adversities.

Whether tangible or intangible they have a real aspect.

Not tangible...I can start a thread if you like asking if people ever touched Jesus Christ...I don't think many christians will claim that. I don't think you understand what tangible means. The dictionary is your friend.

This is where many Christians have been touched by the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus christ.

Real and Intangible ok. Are you happy that I corrected my usage of terms. Why do I get the feeling you knew all along what I meant.

Even if I were to say that I was "touched" by them...I wouldn't say that "my experiences with them are tangible" because I can't physically touch them. That's what tangible means.

Tangible or intangible. In my usage of term intangible applies. Thanks for correcting me, I appreciate it.

I see....are you Russian or something? It would explain a lot.

No, I am not, my nationality is 3500 BC and is no more. We are the first Semitic outcasts of the world, want to join us?

I tried it...nothing happened...do you feel better now?

No, I don't feel better. I care to ask you for your full testimony.

Do you know that a broken and contrite heart is what allows Jesus to come into our hearts.

May I share with you a video. Please do watch it and let me know what you think, I would be interested.

Well here is the video.....enjoy

 

[possibletarian]

If one person testified then I will agree 100% with your premise.

If 1000 peoples testified then I will agree 100% with your premise.

If 100,000,000 people testified then I will need to establish how they spread out across 2000 years and if they were independent witnesses? I would still be pesamistic, yet would not make a conclusive decision one way or another.

If billions of people testified then I will need to establish a data gathering proforma to take into evidence all these independent witnesses encompassing the globe and all nationalities, across the last 2000 years. This means I will agree 100% that these independent witnesses have had a real and tangible experience.
If I didn't do this and still thought that I had lacking of convincing evidence, then I must consider my own sanity and consider myself unfit to discern light from dark or black from white. In essence I would need psychiatric treatment for my cognitive dissonance.

Athiests need help because there is no rational or logic to argue from a position of ignorance against insurmountable witnesses of fact.

For Athiests to question evidence is quite disconcerting to say the least. A psychological study is required to be done on the cognitive dissonance exhibited by Athiests.



Ok minor detail missed on erande, I will give you that one, thankyou.

Really, then why are all other religions wrong that have the same number of 'witnesses' ?

 

[The Times]

Really, then why are all other religions wrong that have the same number of 'witnesses' ?

Once you come on board as a Christian, you will discern. For now, you need the love of Jesus working in you to really see from a perspective that transcends the five senses. You need loving bliss of Jesus to help you overcome your fears and have no care for tommorrow.

You know what is funny, some day you will thank Jesus he sent me to show you the way to the lost love you were always looking for.

I want to share with you a touching story of one of those billions of Christians. Please do watch, I sincerely hope that you are touched and come to Jesus quickly, because he is not far from you.

Here is the video.....enjoy

 

[possibletarian]

Once you come on board as a Christian, you will discern. For now, you need the love of Jesus working in you to really see from a perspective that transcends the five senses. You need loving bliss of Jesus to help you overcome your fears and have no care for tommorrow.

You know what is funny, some day you will thank Jesus he sent me to show you the way to the lost love you were always looking for.

I want to share with you a touching story of one of those billions of Christians. Please do watch, I sincerely hope that you are touched and come to Jesus quickly, because he is not far from you.

Here is the video.....enjoy

How does that answer my question ?

If it's madness to discredit the experience of millions why do you not also believe in all other gods ?

A video..really, I'm sure it has a very powerful testimony, but I'm sure with a bit of googling I could show a few the other way around. And could show you many who de-converted from Christianity, (and many other controlling organisations) realising it was false.

Again, how do you know it's not all just a feeling? and if you don't know then how can you expect others to believe it ?

 

[ximmix]

It clears our brains from the clutter of religion...

Edit: Sorry, blind post

 

[possibletarian]

It clears our brains from the clutter of religion...

Edit: Sorry, blind post

And yet, no matter where it appears in the thread will be oddly appropriate