Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Nope, we will likely never escape that question. Where you and I disagree, though, is on your last claim. I am perfectly comfortable leaving the question unanswered. There is no shame in an honest "I don't know".

You believe that the mystery of the universe's origins demand a supernatural creator, but really all you've done is taken one mysterious entity (the universe) and replaced it with another one that's even MORE mysterious (God). You may be more comfortable with mysteries that have names and faces, but I find them unnecessary and unlikely.

To each their own, though. If your belief gives you strength and comfort, you are welcome to it!

 

You have an excellent point. I agree with this.

 

And I'm sure you'd rather have the goat than a shiny new sports car, so long as the goat shits gold...

 

Be fair. We've given you MANY answers. It's when you reject them out of hand that we tell you you don't understand. Do you know how long I spent on post #99? And I teach this stuff for money -- you were getting a free lesson!

 

Because it doesn't? I dunno. Not to many. But to some it does, as, I think Trip?, said above, you are free to answer it with a belief in god, and I respect that. Some need that questioned answered, and some don't. I don't think something many don't necessarily care about demands an answer.

 

I told you I would try to answer that question; which I told you I thought I already did. Did I ignore it or just didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear? I think I've done my best to try and answer.

And RR7 hasn't said a damn thing. Sorry but its the truth.

 

You still haven't really responded to the points I made, but that's ok. I was just using that post as an example of the effort some of us are putting in to provide you with the answers you seek.

 

Initially, I mainly pointed out that you choose to ignore, intentionally or not, when others tell you why you can't really use something as evidence for something else. Mainly having to do with the science you used. Others more educated in the field than you or I know how it is applied, and inform you of this, and you seemingly ignore it. Again, intentionally or not, it is what I ahve observed here and the other threads. Do I have answers to you rhypotheticals? No. I don't. The matchstick hypothetical is not evidence of a lack of atheism, thus proof of god. It's a hypothetical. Same way you and others, rightfully, chose to ignore hypotheticals in the other thread about, what if god told you to do this or that, contrary to what the bible states.
It's a silly exercise. And if you're going to give PROOF(evidence) of why atheism is wrong(god exists), then accept that the criticism that others have of it. The science you use as evidence doesn't apply, so that kind of kills those, regardless of the hypothesis you use from that theory.

And hypotheticals are just that, hypotheticals. Just saying hey, what's MORE logical isn't evidence. I mean, you're trying OJ. You don't turn to the jury and say my evidence is...come on! Think about it! Someone random?! Or her jealous ex husband? Come on! what makes more sense. Think logically.
That isn't EVIDENCE. Which is what you said you were providing to us here.

 

Really? So you are disputing science then. Ask Trip what science truly is, then get back to me.

And I will tell you again. I have proven that I am open to learn. I didn't believe that evolution was possible, and now I am open to it. I didn't believe the universe was 17 billion years old; but now believe it is. I didn't think the earth was no more than 10k years, but now open to the possibility of it being older. So tell me again I am ignoring what people are telling me.

 

Dude I'm trying, but I was bombarded by you guys. I promise I will get to it. LOL! And don't tell me I didn't try and answer it; because I saw the long reply back to #99. It just wasn't to your liking.

 

see, all the time you make these odd leaps from you aren't listneing to posts against your "evidence" to you are a close minded individual not open to change and take it to an extreme. I am glad William Craig was able to get you to believe the world is older than 10,000 years.

I would imagine science is proposing a hypothetical, and then PROVING that hypothetical through a series of tests. This isn't really the same. Maybe you see it that way. That's fair.

 

When it boiled right down to it, yes. Goats' milk is awesome....and they're relatively inexpensive to insure.

 

Change the "PROVING" to "SUPPORTING or DISPROVING", and I think you've got it. One of the key limitations inherent to the scientific method is that there is no gospel. There are only theories that have yet to be disproven.

 

That I believe. And now I know what I can bring to your next Blazer party!

 

And theories evolve very frequently. There really isn't a "right answer"; there is only theories and support for those theories.

 

Is it truly your intention to goad me into humiliation?

 

Well, I think "right answer" is a loaded term... We were able to get a man to the moon using little more than 18th century Newtonian mechanics. Did it matter that our answers were slightly off, according to miniscule corrections that could be applied thanks to more recent discoveries? In that context, we may not have had a perfect answer, but it still turned out to be good enough to perform a pretty remarkable feat of science and technology. (Unless you're one of those moonlanding-deniers? Please say no...)

So we are able to find some pretty good answers for certain questions using science, and we are also able to fairly efficiently eliminate some bad answers as well. But there's a whole slew of questions for which we get no solid answers at all, which somewhat explains the thousands of posts we have in threads like this one...

 

FTFY. And yes.

 

ASSIST...ABM!