Do you doubt that your God exists?

yet another religion thread ... sorry .. :P hear me out though

This is a question directed to anyone Religious

Do you doubt your God exists? or have you ever doubted the existence of God?

Kierkegaard wrote something interesting about the "leap of faith"

The "leap of faith" is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love.

It is not a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt.

So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning.

In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having.

your thoughts?

soren008

I'm getting into this topic a little late but I'm putting my two cents in. I disagree with what Kierkegaard said. Here is an exert from Evidence for Christianity: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell that explains why: "'Faith in Christianity,' Paul Little justifiably writes, 'is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.' Faith is the assurance of teh heart in the adequacy of the evidence. Often the Christian is accused of taking a leap into the dark. This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard. For me, Christianity was not a leap into the dark but rather a step into the light. I took the evidence that I could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead. The evidence so overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that, when I became a Christian, I was stepping into the light rather than leaping into the darkness." I agree with McDowell's stand rather than that of Kierkegaard.

But to the question itself, I do not have doubts my God exists. Sure there have been times in my life that I have doubted whether he exists but that was when I was ignorant about many things, one being that I thought Evolution could not be questioned in the slightest. I no longer doubt whether the Judio-Christian God exists based off of the evidence as McDowell says which range from personal experiences to believing it simply makes more sense than the alternatives. I do realize not all Christians never doubt but, you see, each Christian is given spiritual gifts and my strongest one is that of faith. I do not doubt that things can be done when Christ is involved in the situation.

[QUOTE="soren008"]

yet another religion thread ... sorry .. :P hear me out though

This is a question directed to anyone Religious

Do you doubt your God exists? or have you ever doubted the existence of God?

Kierkegaard wrote something interesting about the "leap of faith"

The "leap of faith" is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love.

It is not a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt.

So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning.

In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having.

your thoughts?

mindstorm

I'm getting into this topic a little late but I'm putting my two cents in. I disagree with what Kierkegaard said. Here is an exert from Evidence for Christianity: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell that explains why: "'Faith in Christianity,' Paul Little justifiably writes, 'is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.' Faith is the assurance of teh heart in the adequacy of the evidence. Often the Christian is accused of taking a leap into the dark. This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard. For me, Christianity was not a leap into the dark but rather a step into the light. I took the evidence that I could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead. The evidence so overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that, when I became a Christian, I was stepping into the light rather than leaping into the darkness." I agree with McDowell's stand rather than that of Kierkegaard.

But to the question itself, I do not have doubts my God exists. Sure there have been times in my life that I have doubted whether he exists but that was when I was ignorant about many things, one being that I thought Evolution could not be questioned in the slightest. I no longer doubt whether the Judio-Christian God exists based off of the evidence as McDowell says which range from personal experiences to believing it simply makes more sense than the alternatives. I do realize not all Christians never doubt but, you see, each Christian is given spiritual gifts and my strongest one is that of faith. I do not doubt that things can be done when Christ is involved in the situation.

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."

James Tour, Nanoscientist

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

Take A look at my blog, got some preatty neat stuff. Click on my sig!

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."

James Tour, Nanoscientist

Shortbob

I'm getting into this topic a little late but I'm putting my two cents in. I disagree with what Kierkegaard said. Here is an exert from Evidence for Christianity: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell that explains why: "'Faith in Christianity,' Paul Little justifiably writes, 'is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.' Faith is the assurance of teh heart in the adequacy of the evidence. Often the Christian is accused of taking a leap into the dark. This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard. For me, Christianity was not a leap into the dark but rather a step into the light. I took the evidence that I could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead. The evidence so overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that, when I became a Christian, I was stepping into the light rather than leaping into the darkness." I agree with McDowell's stand rather than that of Kierkegaard.

But to the question itself, I do not have doubts my God exists. Sure there have been times in my life that I have doubted whether he exists but that was when I was ignorant about many things, one being that I thought Evolution could not be questioned in the slightest. I no longer doubt whether the Judio-Christian God exists based off of the evidence as McDowell says which range from personal experiences to believing it simply makes more sense than the alternatives. I do realize not all Christians never doubt but, you see, each Christian is given spiritual gifts and my strongest one is that of faith. I do not doubt that things can be done when Christ is involved in the situation.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I'm getting into this topic a little late but I'm putting my two cents in. I disagree with what Kierkegaard said. Here is an exert from Evidence for Christianity: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell that explains why: "'Faith in Christianity,' Paul Little justifiably writes, 'is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.' Faith is the assurance of teh heart in the adequacy of the evidence. Often the Christian is accused of taking a leap into the dark. This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard. For me, Christianity was not a leap into the dark but rather a step into the light. I took the evidence that I could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead. The evidence so overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that, when I became a Christian, I was stepping into the light rather than leaping into the darkness." I agree with McDowell's stand rather than that of Kierkegaard.

But to the question itself, I do not have doubts my God exists. Sure there have been times in my life that I have doubted whether he exists but that was when I was ignorant about many things, one being that I thought Evolution could not be questioned in the slightest. I no longer doubt whether the Judio-Christian God exists based off of the evidence as McDowell says which range from personal experiences to believing it simply makes more sense than the alternatives. I do realize not all Christians never doubt but, you see, each Christian is given spiritual gifts and my strongest one is that of faith. I do not doubt that things can be done when Christ is involved in the situation.

C_Town_Soul

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I'm getting into this topic a little late but I'm putting my two cents in. I disagree with what Kierkegaard said. Here is an exert from Evidence for Christianity: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell that explains why: "'Faith in Christianity,' Paul Little justifiably writes, 'is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it.' Faith is the assurance of teh heart in the adequacy of the evidence. Often the Christian is accused of taking a leap into the dark. This idea often finds itself rooted in Kierkegaard. For me, Christianity was not a leap into the dark but rather a step into the light. I took the evidence that I could gather and placed it on the scales. The scales tipped in favor of Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead. The evidence so overwhelmingly leans toward Christ that, when I became a Christian, I was stepping into the light rather than leaping into the darkness." I agree with McDowell's stand rather than that of Kierkegaard.

But to the question itself, I do not have doubts my God exists. Sure there have been times in my life that I have doubted whether he exists but that was when I was ignorant about many things, one being that I thought Evolution could not be questioned in the slightest. I no longer doubt whether the Judio-Christian God exists based off of the evidence as McDowell says which range from personal experiences to believing it simply makes more sense than the alternatives. I do realize not all Christians never doubt but, you see, each Christian is given spiritual gifts and my strongest one is that of faith. I do not doubt that things can be done when Christ is involved in the situation.

fanofazrienoch

Quotes taken from this page:

"All parts of all early gospels were likely written after the death of Jesus... Although so few Christian writings have survived from this time period, nothing is more certain than that traditions about Jesus were subject to constant revision. The lists of Jesus' teachings that circulated during this time period[44]were revised easily and often. For example, the few extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas[45]illustrate clearly[46] how sayings were undoubtedly rearranged,[47]expanded,[48]contracted,[49] or placed in interpretive contexts.[50]Narratives gospels also were frequently, thoroughly reworked. Consider Mark. The material in this gospel[51]was placed in at least seven radically different arrangements.[52]

http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm

I said they are narrow minded in this specific case because they can't conceive of something they don't see/have proof for.LJS9502_basic

Incorrect again. Atheists can easily conceive of all the same wackiness that any theist can...it's just that after we conceive of it, we immediately recognize how far-fetched these supernatural ideas are, and we decide to hold off on attaching ourselves to it, until we get some legitimate confirmation that it's a real thing. To put it simply, atheists are realists. We wait for something to be proven before we go babbling about to the world how real and wonderful it is. It's just not wise.

The problem here is that you don't understand an atheists' mindstate...BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ONE, and have never been one, apparently. An atheist like myself however (actually, many atheists), have been on the theists' side before, so we know good and well what it's all about. We know both sides; we understand both mindsets.

I couldn't be one of those closed-minded atheists you're talking about, because I was a believer - to the fullest extent - and eventually common sense crept into my head and made me see things otherwise. But I have not forgotten what I was like back then. I was open to both sides (something you claim an athiest can not be) and I naturally gravitated to the side that appeared to be the most reasonable - Atheism. In fact, if you would have been paying attention, you would have noticed that I myself am actually evidence against what you claim is impossible for an atheist - to be open-minded. I had an open mind to that way of thinking, it just eventually grew stale on me. It's not my fault that I evolved beyond the need for fairy tales. But I definately believed in them at one time, absolutely.

Ironically, it takes an open mind to be open to the possibility that everything your church feeds you is horsecrap. Are you open to that possibility? The possibility that atheists bring up all the time, which is that god, heaven, and all that stuff...is just made up? Are you open to that? I was open to it as a believer, and I went back and forth, back and forth...until I finally realized one side was a ridiculous hoax designed for monetary gain and thought control. In fact, I represent what a true open mind actually is. I gave both sides an equal chance - for a long time as well, and I've just reached the point that until theists can show me proof for the numerous wacky, unfounded claims they are making, I simply cannot allow myself to follow it. Not because my mind has closed up, but because at some point, you have to draw a line where things are not making sense.

I am open-minded because I will believe if you give me proof. But otherwise, it would just feel like I'm being taken advantage of, and being made a fool of, for following things told to me by people who can't even verify what they are saying with solid evidence. What a tool I would be, to blindly agree to anything.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I said they are narrow minded in this specific case because they can't conceive of something they don't see/have proof for.Deity_Slapper

Incorrect again. Atheists can easily conceive of all the same wackiness that any theist can...it's just that after we conceive of it, we immediately recognize how far-fetched these supernatural ideas are, and we decide to hold off on attaching ourselves to it, until we get some legitimate confirmation that it's a real thing. To put it simply, atheists are realists. We wait for something to be proven before we go babbling about to the world how real and wonderful it is. It's just not wise.

The problem here is that you don't understand an atheists' mindstate...BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ONE, and have never been one, apparently. An atheist like myself however (actually, many atheists), have been on the theists' side before, so we know good and well what it's all about. We know both sides; we understand both mindsets.

I couldn't be one of those closed-minded atheists you're talking about, because I was a believer - to the fullest extent - and eventually common sense crept into my head and made me see things otherwise. But I have not forgotten what I was like back then. I was open to both sides (something you claim an athiest can not be) and I naturally gravitated to the side that appeared to be the most reasonable - Atheism. In fact, if you would have been paying attention, you would have noticed that I myself am actually evidence against what you claim is impossible for an atheist - to be open-minded. I had an open mind to that way of thinking, it just eventually grew stale on me. It's not my fault that I evolved beyond the need for fairy tales. But I definately believed in them at one time, absolutely.

Ironically, it takes an open mind to be open to the possibility that everything your church feeds you is horsecrap. Are you open to that possibility? The possibility that atheists bring up all the time, which is that god, heaven, and all that stuff...is just made up? Are you open to that? I was open to it as a believer, and I went back and forth, back and forth...until I finally realized one side was a ridiculous hoax designed for monetary gain and thought control. In fact, I represent what a true open mind actually is. I gave both sides an equal chance - for a long time as well, and I've just reached the point that until theists can show me proof for the numerous wacky, unfounded claims they are making, I simply cannot allow myself to follow it. Not because my mind has closed up, but because at some point, you have to draw a line where things are not making sense.

I am open-minded because I will believe if you give me proof. But otherwise, it would just feel like I'm being taken advantage of, and being made a fool of, for following things told to me by people who can't even verify what they are saying with solid evidence. What a tool I would be, to blindly agree to anything.

Your first paragraph nicely underscores my point. Thank you for agreeing.

You don't know what I understand or don't understand so don't bother to tell me what I understand or don't understand though for the record...you are incorrect.

If you had been a believer than you would understand...but you don't.;)

Now as I stated.....I'm not particularly interested in further discussion.

And for the record...narrow minded is not close minded.

To put it simply, atheists are realists.

Deity_Slapper

:lol:

Man, you're one of the best new posters in a long time. Everything you say makes a person just laugh his giddy little ass off.:lol:

Have to say....I've never had anyone pay such attention to everything I posted before.

Your first paragraph nicely underscores my point. Thank you for agreeing.

You don't know what I understand or don't understand so don't bother to tell me what I understand or don't understand though for the record...you are incorrect.

If you had been a believer than you would understand...but you don't.;)

Now as I stated.....I'm not particularly interested in further discussion.

LJS9502_basic

There you go running and hiding again. :roll:

And don't tell me I'm just incorrect...and then not say why. It just looks like elementary school tactics for not submitting to defeat. Like, "You're wrong, you just are! But I'm not telling you why! You just are! So there!" What else can I say to that, other than, "Oh, really?" :roll:

But most disturbingly, look how your third and fourth sentences clash with each other. It's almost depressing how unaware you are of your own hypocracy. You don't see it? Look closely. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you in a few minutes, but I'd rather that you admit this glaring mistake on your own. Just to see if you can handle the act of humbling yourself. We'll see. Although I'm not holding my breath. Your past behavior doesn't give me much hope that you'll make the righteous decision.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

To put it simply, atheists are realists.

Dracargen

:lol:

Man, you're one of the best new posters in a long time. Everything you say makes a person just laugh his giddy little ass off.:lol:

Well, as long as I'm good for something.

YAY! ... :roll:

There you go running and hiding again. :roll:

And don't tell me I'm just incorrect...and then not say why. It just looks like elementary school tactics for not submitting to defeat. Like, "You're wrong, you just are! But I'm not telling you why! You just are! So there!" What else can I say to that, other than, "Oh, really?" :roll:

But most disturbingly, look how your third and forth sentences clash with each other. It's almost depressing how unaware you are of your own hypocracy. You don't see it? Look closely. If you can't figure it out, I'll tell you in a few minutes, but I'd rather that you admit this glaring mistake on your own. Just to see if you can handle the act of humbling yourself. We'll see. Although I'm not holding my breath. Your past behavior doesn't give me much hope that you'll make the righteous decision.

Deity_Slapper

Oh...and no contradiction in the two sentences. One is in response to your post toward my thinking...the other a generic statement about believers. Loss of life. Restart game.

You're speaking for me in your post. You don't know me. You can't speak for me...and yes I can tell you that youare wrong in doing so. I'm bored with debates with you. As I stated before it leads to ad hominem attackes. TThat is the only way I see you debate. That's not what I'm interested in. I don't care if you agree WITH MY OPINIIONS. It's rather strange to even argue it.

Oh...and no contradiction in the two sentences. One is in response to your post toward my thinking...the other a generic statement about believers. Loss of life. Restart game.

LJS9502_basic

Yeah I should have known you wouldn't be able to say, "ok, I was wrong". So sad. :(

So anyway, here we go.

You don't know what I understand or don't understand so don't bother to tell me what I understand or don't understand though for the record...you are incorrect.

If you had been a believer than you would understand...but you don't.;)

LJS9502_basic

What's truly embarrassing, is that you actually said one right after the other. You chastize me for whatever (and in this case, it's true, you couldn't understand the atheist mindstate if you're not one), and then immediately follow up by doing the exact same thing you just complained about, by TELLING ME WHAT I DO OR DON'T UNDERSTAND, which you wouldn't be aware of, since you're not me, and haven't been where I've been in regards to having faith. This is beyond silly now. :lol:

Just admit a mistake already! It's not so hard! You don't have to be perfect!

[What's truly embarrassing, is that you actually said one right after the other. You chastize me for whatever (and in this case, it's true, you couldn't understand the atheist mindstate if you're not one), and then immediately follow up by doing the exact same thing you just complained about, by TELLING ME WHAT I DO OR DON'T UNDERSTAND, which you wouldn't be aware of, since you're not me, and haven't been where I've been in regards to having faith. This is beyond silly now. :lol:

Just admit a mistake already! It's not so hard! You don't have to be perfect!

Deity_Slapper

By the way,

You're speaking for me in your post. You don't know me. You can't speak for me. LJS9502_basic

Yet you're in the clear to speak for atheists when you claim they can't understand faith, even though we've had it, and therefore understand it. Losing it doesn't mean you don't understand it. I get what it's all about. It's just not necessary for me anymore. THIS is what YOU can't understand...or maybe you don't WANT to understand.

You also say all atheists believe in science. You're speaking for atheists who don't believe in science when you say that. If you have a problem with people speaking for others, then why are you doing it yourself?

I'm bored with debates with you.LJS9502_basic

Because you can't win, or because I don't let you get away with all this nonsense that you try to slip by me? Which?

That is the only way I see you debate.

LJS9502_basic

The way you debate is to never admit wrong. If someone calls you out, you change the rules of the debate so that you can always be right. It's impossible to win a debate against you because you constantly change the rules to fit whatever you're saying at the time. That's why it's pointless. You will never humble yourself. Forget it. Trying to communicate with you is a waste of time.

Sorry DS...but you inferred what I could or could not understand...the difference is I'm using YOUR WORDS to come to a conclusion regarding your ideas. YOUR WORDS. Unfortunately for you...you aren't using mine.:lol:

And for the record....a one time believer would know the answers to the questions you ask. Your lack of knowledge on the matter is why I question your statements.....and going to service with mommy and daddy doesn't count.

I've got the strangest feeling you are the reincarnation of Feyre and his other alt.

Edit: Karayan was the alt. Came to me.

By the way,

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You're speaking for me in your post. You don't know me. You can't speak for me. Deity_Slapper

Yet you're in the clear to speak for atheists when you claim they can't understand faith, even though we've had it, and therefore understand it. Losing it doesn't mean you don't understand it. I get what it's all about. It's just not necessary for me anymore. THIS is what YOU can't understand...or maybe you don't WANT to understand.

You also say all atheists believe in science. You're speaking for atheists who don't believe in science when you say that. If you have a problem with people speaking for others, then why are you doing it yourself?

I'm bored with debates with you.LJS9502_basic

Because you can't win, or because I don't let you get away with all this nonsense that you try to slip by me? Which?

That is the only way I see you debate.

LJS9502_basic

The way you debate is to never admit wrong. If someone calls you out, you change the rules of the debate so that you can always be right. It's impossible to win a debate against you because you constantly change the rules to fit whatever you're saying at the time. That's why it's pointless. You will never humble yourself. Forget it. Trying to communicate with you is a waste of time.

I'm bored because you don't debate ideas. You push your opinion.....insult those who don't agree with you and call that a debate. It's not.

You won't win against me...you only attack the person yet come up with no points to counter an argument....which is the reason I'm bored with debating you. It's not interesting. It doesn't give me anything new to think about. It's meh.

I never spoke for atheists. Falsehood.

I'm bored because you don't debate ideas. You push your opinion.....insult those who don't agree with you and call that a debate. It's not.

You won't win against me...you only attack the person yet come up with no points to counter an argument....which is the reason I'm bored with debating you. It's not interesting. It doesn't give me anything new to think about. It's meh.

LJS9502_basic

See what I'm saying? Do you honestly think nobody notices that you constantly backpeddle? Like, what's with the "it was a generic statement" comment? Generic statement? That doesn't even make any sense! You said what you said, and it doesn't make sense, so you try and shroud it in mystery by saying it was a generic statement, in hopes of causing enough confusion that no one will notice that you were wrong. But too late. Most people here are aware of your game. I'm done with you because I can't see any reason to continue talking to a brick wall. I just hope one day that all the seeds the atheists have planted, will one day sprout in your mind and create an enlightening awakening.

Good luck, you'll need it.

See what I'm saying? Do you honestly think nobody notices that you constantly backpeddle? Like, what's with the "it was a generic statement" comment? Generic statement? That doesn't even make any sense! You said what you said, and it doesn't make sense, so you try and shroud it in mystery by saying it was a generic statement, in hopes of causing enough confusion that no one will notice that you were wrong. But too late. Most people here are aware of your game. I'm done with you because I can't see any reason to continue talking to a brick wall. I just hope one day that all the seeds the atheists have planted, will one day sprout in your mind and create an enlightening awakening.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Deity_Slapper

Generic because it fits the idea that anyone that used to be a believer would have more knowledge than you display about religious matters. I've discussed religion with atheists that used to be a religious and NOT ONE has ever continually asked and reasked the same basic questions as you do. They understand where belief comes from. Perhaps it's you that is contradicting himself in these threads.

And then you attack because you think it makes you look like you scored a point. It doesn't. The last page or two of this thread has ONLY BEEN YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME. Not once have you contributed to the topic discussion? Why?...you should have much to say if you are correct about your background.

Good....I've been trying to get you to stop....guess I finally succeeded.

LJ add me to msn: swizzplanet @ hotmail . co . uk (no spaces)

no particular reason :lol:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Deity_Slapper

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Godly_Cure

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Godly_Cure

You must not be paying attention, which is good I guess, I wouldn't want people following me around.

Unless all the other people I've debated with are LJ's alternate accounts, then no, it's not just him I discuss things with. Seems he is most often the one I speak with, but someone has to be, right? It just happens to be him. What's the problem?

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Deity_Slapper

You must not be paying attention, which is good I guess, I wouldn't want people following me around.

Unless all the other people I've debated with are LJ's alternate accounts, then no, it's not just him I discuss things with. Seems he is most often the one I speak with, but someone has to be, right? It just happens to be him. What's the problem?

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Godly_Cure

You must not be paying attention, which is good I guess, I wouldn't want people following me around.

Unless all the other people I've debated with are LJ's alternate accounts, then no, it's not just him I discuss things with. Seems he is most often the one I speak with, but someone has to be, right? It just happens to be him. What's the problem?

Well if you look at from the other angle, it looks like he's always arguing with me. It takes 2 to argue. If you like, you could do some digging and see where he's jumped into threads where I already was, and he particularly quoted me to get into it with me. Not that I mind, because I like the debates, but still...if it means THAT much to you, you can go check for yourself.

Well if you look at from the other angle, it looks like he's always arguing with me. It takes 2 to argue. If you like, you could do some digging and see where he's jumped into threads where I already was, and he particularly quoted me to get into it with me. Not that I mind, because I like the debates, but still...if it means THAT much to you, you can go check for yourself.

Deity_Slapper

Nope. I have no doubt what-so-ever. Thank you :)Napster06

Wow... that brilliant... blind faith, having no doubt whatsoever. You can't be sure of something if you have never doubted it, its human nature to doubt, especially when you can't see physical proof. You may not doubt now, but you have in the past, everyone has.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Well if you look at from the other angle, it looks like he's always arguing with me. It takes 2 to argue. If you like, you could do some digging and see where he's jumped into threads where I already was, and he particularly quoted me to get into it with me. Not that I mind, because I like the debates, but still...if it means THAT much to you, you can go check for yourself.

Godly_Cure

Nah, his posts just tend to irritate me more than others, and I have to say something. But you really checked? :lol: Stalker.

And no, I was neither of those alternate accounts. I only had one other account in the past, and it was neither of those, and I wasn't banned.

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Well if you look at from the other angle, it looks like he's always arguing with me. It takes 2 to argue. If you like, you could do some digging and see where he's jumped into threads where I already was, and he particularly quoted me to get into it with me. Not that I mind, because I like the debates, but still...if it means THAT much to you, you can go check for yourself.

Deity_Slapper

Nah, his posts just tend to irritate me more than others, and I have to say something. But you really checked? :lol: Stalker.

And no, I was neither of those alternate accounts. I only had one other account in the past, and it was neither of those, and I wasn't banned.

But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?sonicare

They (we) do. We just decide against it after wondering.

But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?Deity_Slapper

They (we) do. We just decide against it after wondering.

I haven't decided either way. There's no definitive method for me to know one way or the other. Only conjecture.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Well if you look at from the other angle, it looks like he's always arguing with me. It takes 2 to argue. If you like, you could do some digging and see where he's jumped into threads where I already was, and he particularly quoted me to get into it with me. Not that I mind, because I like the debates, but still...if it means THAT much to you, you can go check for yourself.

Godly_Cure

Nah, his posts just tend to irritate me more than others, and I have to say something. But you really checked? :lol: Stalker.

And no, I was neither of those alternate accounts. I only had one other account in the past, and it was neither of those, and I wasn't banned.

LJ thought I was 2 other people. Top of the page.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?LJS9502_basic

I'm just saying, that if atheists are true intellectuals, than they must always harbor that possibility. Just as many sane minded religous people can entertain strong doubts.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?sonicare

They (we) do. We just decide against it after wondering.

I haven't decided either way. There's no definitive method for me to know one way or the other. Only conjecture.

That's everybody. But that's why we keep wondering. And keep coming back to "not likely". Even though most atheists always end up settling for non-existence, they always keep re-visiting the possibility. It just still doesn't make sense every time we check, and check again. It's still illogical to say you believe in what has never been proven.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sonicare"]But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?sonicare

I'm just saying, that if atheists are true intellectuals, than they must always harbor that possibility. Just as many sane minded religous people can entertain strong doubts.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

To put it simply, atheists are realists.

Deity_Slapper

:lol:

Man, you're one of the best new posters in a long time. Everything you say makes a person just laugh his giddy little ass off.:lol:

Well, as long as I'm good for something.

YAY! ... :roll:

Tell me something: When you were a Christian, were you one of the fundies?

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?Deity_Slapper

They (we) do. We just decide against it after wondering.

I haven't decided either way. There's no definitive method for me to know one way or the other. Only conjecture.

That's everybody. But that's why we keep wondering. And keep coming back to "not likely". Even though most atheists always end up settling for non-existence, they always keep re-visiting the possibility. It just still doesn't make sense every time we check, and check again. It's still illogical to say you believe in what has never been proven.

I believe in the existence of gravity.

Whoops! There goes logic.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]But likewise, shouldn't atheists wonder if a god does exist?Dracargen

They (we) do. We just decide against it after wondering.

I haven't decided either way. There's no definitive method for me to know one way or the other. Only conjecture.

That's everybody. But that's why we keep wondering. And keep coming back to "not likely". Even though most atheists always end up settling for non-existence, they always keep re-visiting the possibility. It just still doesn't make sense every time we check, and check again. It's still illogical to say you believe in what has never been proven.

I believe in the existence of gravity.

Whoops! There goes logic.

We all do, because we all experience it. What was the point of that? :?

No I was not a "fundie". If I was, wouldn't I still be? Would a fundie be open to the possibility of god not existing to begin with? Can you guys come up with better questions?

We all do, because we all experience it. What was the point of that? :?

No I was not a "fundie". If I was, wouldn't I still be? Would a fundie be open to the possibility of god not existing to begin with? Can you guys come up with better questions?

Deity_Slapper

There are people who don't believe gravity exists.;) The point of that was to show that nothing is "proven." Not gravity, not evolution, nothing. Unless you count mathematics.

Some fundies change.;) The only reason I asked was because I know that old habits die hard. And it would make you make more sense.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

We all do, because we all experience it. What was the point of that? :?

No I was not a "fundie". If I was, wouldn't I still be? Would a fundie be open to the possibility of god not existing to begin with? Can you guys come up with better questions?

Dracargen

There are people who don't believe gravity exists.;) The point of that was to show that nothing is "proven." Not gravity, not evolution, nothing. Unless you count mathematics.

Some fundies change.;) The only reason I asked was because I know that old habits die hard. And it would make you make more sense.