Why Religious People Are Scared of Atheists

[AnimatedDirt]

If He is God as He suggests in the bible, then it matters not whether I agree or disagree. It is how it is. He affords all a choice. One leads to life and the other to death (not perpetual agony). The choice made is everlasting and forever. The consequence is death, complete separation.

Before you can even make this kind of argument you have to specifically define said deity and it's qualities. The bible for example doesn't do that and even contradicts itself. For example:

The bible states that your supposed GOD doesn't know everything, and does know everything. The rest of your argument is pure assumption without actually clarifying any of it from the actual supposed horses mouth. It's just like spreading rumors about someones character, will, or likeness while suggesting it's all facts without actually having to prove any of it. Hence, take the leap of faith that Joey down the street is a child rapist who's will is to enforce is ideological constructs of rape upon all your children without the requirement to prove it. Thus you expect people to actually just assume magical book called the bible or what you have to say as some sort of divine truth that ought not to be questioned.

If you ever read books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming you would actually understand the written structure of the bible, how many religious organizations advertise, or how much of the indoctrination processes found in religion operate and function. And it all starts with seeding conceptual ideas into beliefs through emotional manipulation and attachment that eventually generate social structure, ideological constructs, and psychological dogmas. The fear and salvation programming tools are most commonly used, but other methods are more discrete in their approach.

I must define said deity?  Since you seem to be an expert on the Bible, I'm sure you would know that this God is defined within the words of the collection of books.  By all means, question it.  Question God!  Nothing wrong in questioning.  Nothing "wrong" in choosing to say God is not or God's ways are not mine.  You have both sides.  Both have evidence (you dismiss evidence for not being scientifically provable, so be it)  You have a choice.

Love is emotional...it's not scientific.  Love drives social structures.  Fear and salvation is not the same as pure animal survival instinct?  To "fear" God is simply to give Him His due respect.  If you don't "fear" a lion and approach without any sense of danger, chances are you'll be killed or seriously maimed.  Fear is healthy in that sense.  Fear the lion and you live.

[TheJackel]

I didn't realize self-existence meant seeing oneself in the mirror (which many scientist dismiss) and you ironically dismiss the part about the who, what, where, when and why, not to mention the ability to scientifically test, ponder and reason, but if whales, dolphins and apes and a mirror is your argument to laugh at mine..., how many steps or years of evolution would you place between whales, dolphins, apes and humans in respect to JUST their cognitive differences?

Firstly you stated "Self-awareness".. Please define "Self-existence" since anything that exists technically has "self-existence". And the concept of who, what, and why or ponder is still applicable to other species even if they are not as complex, or on the same level as the human species. Also, who what and why had nothing to do with just "mirrors". This here is a clear display of your ignorance in the fields that study of said species. Being self-aware isn't just a matter of recognizing one's self in a mirror even though it's a very clear indication of it.. It seems you need to do some reading on that subject before you continue. And cognitive differences is rather irrelevant between the species, especially when such differences are also restricted to a variety of other things to which include physical abilities ectra. Your argument is unreasonable because you make wild assumptions in regards to a subject you do not comprehend. For example, what is consciousness and awareness without information to give it meaning, observability, structure, and process-ability. It's funny that you have to "Know" of your own existence in order to even know you exist isn't it. Minds don't create information, reality, existence, or anything for that matter. Minds can only observer, process, and manipulate what already exists. And that is because minds require and are slave to these things just like everything else is. It would be irrelevant if I could draw a picture, construct a house, or even build and make an entire universe. At best, all entities or things can only be material physical manipulators. And what you call GOD is matter of opinion. What is power, or the title of "GOD" without something to give it the title, and worship it? It's powerless and title less!

There is a funny fact about divinity and power.. The highest levels are actually the most reliant on cause. And this is because they can not exist or be of process without the lowest levels that make their existence, power, and divinity even possible. Hence, welcome to the complexity argument and the ultimate quagmire in the God argument.

Existence requires no entity to exist simply because existence exists, and simply because non-existence is literally impossible to be a person, place, object, or thing. There is no such thing as a "Creator". It's a logical fallacy at best. So if someone wanted to worship some advanced alien that lands on Earth because it's more advanced and powerful than Mankind, that is there problem. And it doesn't make such things into "GODS".

[AnimatedDirt]

I didn't realize self-existence meant seeing oneself in the mirror (which many scientist dismiss) and you ironically dismiss the part about the who, what, where, when and why, not to mention the ability to scientifically test, ponder and reason, but if whales, dolphins and apes and a mirror is your argument to laugh at mine..., how many steps or years of evolution would you place between whales, dolphins, apes and humans in respect to JUST their cognitive differences?

Firstly you stated "Self-awareness".. Please define "Self-existence" since anything that exists technically has "self-existence".  And the concept of who, what, and why or ponder is still applicable to other species even if they are not as complex, or on the same level as the human species. Also, who what and why had nothing to do with just "mirrors". This here is a clear display of your ignorance in the fields that study of said species. Being self-aware isn't just a matter of recognizing one's self in a mirror even though it's a very clear indication of it.. It seems you need to do some reading on that subject before you continue. And cognitive differences is rather irrelevant between the species, especially when such differences are also restricted to a variety of other things to which include physical abilities ectra. Your argument is unreasonable because you make wild assumptions in regards to a subject you do not comprehend. For example, what is consciousness and awareness without information to give it meaning, observability, structure, and process-ability. It's funny that you have to "Know" of your own existence in order to even know you exist isn't it. Minds don't create information, reality, existence, or anything for that matter. Minds can only observer, process, and manipulate what already exists. And that is because the require and are slave to these things just like everything else is. It would be irrelevant if I could draw a picture, construct a house, or even build and make an entire universe. At best, all entities or things can only be material physical manipulators. And what you call GOD is matter of opinion. What is power, or the title of "GOD" without something to give it the title, and worship it? It's powerless and title less!

There is a funny fact about divinity and power.. The highest levels are actually the most reliant on cause. And this is because they can not exist or be of process without the lowest levels that make their existence, power, and divinity even possible. Hence, welcome to the complexity argument and the ultimate quagmire in the God argument.

Existence requires no entity to exist simply because existence exists, and simply because non-existence is literally impossible to be a person, place, object, or thing. There is no such thing as a "Creator". It's a logical fallacy at best. So if someone wanted to worship some advanced alien that lands on Earth because it's more advanced and powerful than Mankind, that is there problem. And it doesn't make such things into "GODS".

I wrote self-existence meaning self-awareness.  My mistake.

Self`-ex`ist´ence
n. 1. Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause; - an attribute peculiar to God.

So in this respect you're wrong that anything that exists "technically" does not possess self-existence.  You cannot exist without your parents having existed before you and theirs before them... something had to be for something else to be.

[TheJackel]

I must define said deity?  Since you seem to be an expert on the Bible, I'm sure you would know that this God is defined within the words of the collection of books.  By all means, question it.  Question God!  Nothing wrong in questioning.  Nothing "wrong" in choosing to say God is not or God's ways are not mine.  You have both sides.  Both have evidence (you dismiss evidence for not being scientifically provable, so be it)  You have a choice.

Yes you must define what it is that you are claiming to actually exist. Professing the will, and knowledge of something without definition and evidence is dishonest. At best it's a false position to begin with. It's also irrelevant whether or not we think there is something wrong on either side of this coin. I never professed it was wrong or immoral to believe in X-deity. In fact I don't even make the argument against the possibility of our universe being constructed by some entity. This is strictly about the existence of a GOD.  And I have not dismissed any evidence you have provided. The problem is, your evidence is heavily reliant on opinion, assumption, unknown plausibility, and even sometimes assertions in regards to things that are impossible (such as lets say omnipotence). I've been a christian for most of my life. So there is no need to preach the bible at me when I know what's in it. And nobody is an "expert" on the bible since much of it is heavily reliant on subjective interpretation.

Love is emotional...it's not scientific.  Love drives social structures.  Fear and salvation is not the same as pure animal survival instinct?  To "fear" God is simply to give Him His due respect.  If you don't "fear" a lion and approach without any sense of danger, chances are you'll be killed or seriously maimed.  Fear is healthy in that sense.  Fear the lion and you live.

Emotions are not separate from science. Social structures are developed by simple attributes of natural selection that also sum up the very base of everything to which includes the very energy and matter we are all made of. And emotions are not made of nothing either, and that again is because nothing can not be a literal existing person, place, or thing. Emotions are material physical patterns that you have to actually physically observe, feel, and process into actual physical meanings, or structural meanings within a structure of developed language. Such meanings as love, anger, hate, festive, hungry ect. However this fact doesn't mean that Love, life, or our existence is somehow worthless or meaningless. It simply means things are not as fabricated as you think they are, and I find that more beautiful than me having been some doll on a construction line. To be truly unique is to emerge without fabrication.  So here are the these 3 things I am speaking of, and they are very simple:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These 3 things sum up everything from natural selection, evolution, matter, energy, and even consciousness with emotions. And that is because there can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral action, reaction, state of being, emotion, selection, choice, decision, position, process, ability, thought, pattern, or piece of information to which can all be subjectively vague (such as morality). All things are bound to these very simple rules regardless of the level of complexity or emergence of complexity that may arise from them. This is a system of chaos to where emergence of complexity, order, or anything above is the sheer result of positive, negative and neutral feedback. We may never fully grasp such a deeply complex system because it's probably and literally impossible to do. It's like trying to trace the ground state or beginning to every thought right down to it's very emergence. And for this theists like to assume something had to design and create it all without actually realizing the impossibility of that very conceptual idea.

So here is a fun exercise:

Try replying, or even feeling an emotion without information, energy, matter, material physicality, positive, negative, neutral, or from a state of being made of nothing. You will quickly realize the fallacy of GODS, or Creationism. Thee can not create that which one's own self requires to exist, feel, or do anything. Without these things, there is no power in the assumed to be powerful.

[TheJackel]

Self`-ex`ist´ence
n. 1. Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause; - an attribute peculiar to God.
So in this respect you're wrong that anything that exists "technically" does not possess self-existence.  You cannot exist without your parents having existed before you and theirs before them... something had to be for something else to be.

Kind of like capacity/empty space since a negative or non-existing capacity is impossible to exist? However, a god can not arguably fit that bill since it can be stated unable to represent a universal set of all sets, solve infinite regress, or  be argued the impossibility of it's non-existence unlike spacial capacity, or even a container to it's own existence to which it must rely on in order to exist. A god can not possibly be "self-existent" because it would rely on other things in order to exist. That includes being made of something, having a complex structure under the rules of complexity, a place to exist (to which it also could not create), or even information it is slave to in order to know itself actually exists (just like it is in regards to our own existence). It is not independent of cause or being, and saying so is a logical fallacy. Existence for example can be said to be independent of cause or being simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist.  Consciousness for example requires far more cause to exist than unconsciousness.

something had to be for something else to be.

This is very reliant on what you are talking about.. And btw, this rule applies to said diety. This is especially true when you talk about consciousness and self-awareness. This concept however doesn't apply to things where the opposites are literally impossible. Things such as existence itself, spatial capacity, or material physicality. What you really ought to be looking for is the ground state to everything, or the point to where complexity can not possibly regress any further. This is the state from which all things emerge from, and are made from. A conscious entity can not solve this since it's applicable to complexities higher than zero (ground state). hence the fabric of space isn't conscious, and neither is a rock.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes you must define what it is that you are claiming to actually exist. Professing the will, and knowledge of something without definition and evidence is dishonest. At best it's a false position to begin with.

Do you have a spouse, a child, a sibling, a parent? (of course you have a parent...)  Because you know them, if asked to define your mother or father, would you be able to fully define them?  All you know about them is what they've presented to you.  You'd probably even get their exact stature, weight, and waist size wrong, but you may be in the ballpark.  I gather you don't know their inner secrets and the answers to why or why not they do one thing and not the other.  Yet you've lived (presumably) a good portion of your life with them and (again, presumably) keep in touch with them.  However, I'm sure if you were given the task of defining them, you could not fully.  You'd, at best, give a good round description, but when defining their personality you wouldn't be quite accurate.  Your parent would say yes to somethings, no to others, and yes, at this but with this explanation...

Is that kind of definition acceptable to you?

It's also irrelevant whether or not we think there is something wrong on either side of this coin. I never professed it was wrong or immoral to believe in X-deity. In fact I don't even make the argument against the possibility of our universe being constructed by some entity. This is strictly about the existence of a GOD.  And I have not dismissed any evidence you have provided.

I've not really given any.  I'm not in the practice of proving God so my effort in doing so would be less than exciting.  I am not a person that has the knowledge of doing so both from the religious stand point nor the scientific...if there be one.

The problem is, your evidence is heavily reliant on opinion, assumption, unknown plausibility, and even sometimes assertions...

Are you suggesting opinions are always wrong, that something assumed is always wrong or that leaning to one side of a plausible unknown (if it's plausible, wouldn't an unknown plausibility be a type of oxymoron?) is going to be always wrong?  When one says they have an intuition based on [insert basis], it's always wrong?  If this be so then Las Vegas would cease to be the Las Vegas we know.  Gambling would be, in all respects, stupid, since guessing at chance, assuming and plausibility would always be wrong.

in regards to things that are impossible (such as lets say omnipotence).  I've been a christian for most of my life. So there is no need to preach the bible at me when I know what's in it. And nobody is an "expert" on the bible since much of it is heavily reliant on subjective interpretation.

An expert on the bible knows what the bible says, that is different from an expert on a certain interpretation of it...which would assume some expertise on what it says.  If you have been a Christian, then you must know what omnipotence is...it is not being able to make a square sphere or the like.  That is just silly drabble to throw in the mix and say, "See!  He's not omnipotent...therefore God does not exist.  There's proof..."

Try replying, or even feeling an emotion without information, energy, matter, material physicality, positive, negative, neutral, or from a state of being made of nothing. You will quickly realize the fallacy of GODS, or Creationism. Thee can not create that which one's own self requires to exist, feel, or do anything. Without these things, there is no power in the assumed to be powerful.

This from the mind as a result of trial and error?  These are finite thoughts, true of a finite being of which we both acknowledge we are.  God IS something.  What that something is, is simply unexplainable this side of life and only explainable if there is another side.  Because we cannot explain, define or see something does not make that something non-existent.  Can you see dark matter or dark energy?

[TheJackel]

Do you have a spouse, a child, a sibling, a parent? (of course you have a parent...

This from the mind as a result of trial and error?  These are finite thoughts, true of a finite being of which we both acknowledge we are.  God IS something.  What that something is, is simply unexplainable this side of life and only explainable if there is another side.  Because we cannot explain, define or see something does not make that something non-existent.  Can you see dark matter or dark energy?

I see you have failed to grasp the very concept of the argument you made this reply to, and  then resort to clinging to circular arguments in order not to actually address the argument. Saying something is simply unexplainable is nothing more than a cop-out as a means to just assume. Again, Carl Segan arguments are not arguments, they are logical fallacies that prove on has no base to argue with. It's the assuming of literal impossibilities as magically possible... This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy, nor does it have to do with if we can see it or not since I don't claim it's existence until it is proven to exist. My argument above was very specific, and you are doing a pretty good job ad trying to avoid it.

BTW, the separation of all conscious entities as individuals makes all entities finite. There is no such thing as an infinite being even if you tried to claim solipsism. So you again run into the argument that either everything is GOD or nothing is GOD. You can't have your cake and eat it too here.

[KebertX]

Who's logic? Logic from a species that has evolved from nothing? A fallacy in and of itself. A species that is the only species (you may claim "so far") that has evolved reason, self-awarness, thoughts of God, what am I, who am I, where am I, where did I come from? This species (as the scientific mind sees it) has come from (1) Nothing, (2) has evolved through trial and error, (3) says to itself that its own design is flawed (this from its own mind...yet it exists happily) at BEST our evolution is in the trial stage, more realistically we are in the error. So playing the odds, our "logic" is more than likely flawed. If we are honest with ourselves, we can't even be sure of our own logic if we truly are an evolved species. Our logic is only relevant to our knowledge and only of today's knowledge. If God is true, who's logic is skewed? Animated dirt has more knowledge and logic that that which animated it?

"Who's logic?" Nonsense question. Contrary to popular belief, logic is black and white.  It's a very specific school of thought.  And there aren't multiple versions of logic.  It's not my logic vs. your logic.  Our species doesn't have it's own logic.  There is only logic.  We didn't make it up, we discovered what rules an argument should follow in order for it to make sense.

Saying logic is a fallacy is like saying "A circle is a square in and of itself."

"a species that evolved from nothing?" You don't understand evolution, do you?  Not that the origin of our species has anything to do with how valid the concept of logic is.  I'll come back to this in a minute...

"only species so far to evolve self awareness." Not true.  'm getting sidetracked, but Neanderthals believed that the outcome of their hunts were determined by a god, and that there was an afterlife waiting for them.  Now they are extinct.  What does that say about the significance of our supernatural beliefs?  Furthermore, elephants and chimpanzees have seemingly religious rituals for the bodies of their dead.  Marine mammals and octopades are also exceedingly intelligent.  I'm not sure we're the only species on earth who thinks about that stuff.

"This species has come from nothing..." Okay, no we didn't.  Creationists are the ones who say we came from nothing.  First, learn the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. Second, educate yourself on both.
[youtube:2oe6xju4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube:2oe6xju4]

"... Evolved through trial and error." More misunderstandings of evolution.  It's not like Darwin's finches were born with small beaks, realized they weren't working, and went back to fix it.  It's not trial and error.  It's a matter of what traits are more likely to lead to reproduction in a population.  Statistically, if your environment only has big seeds, you are less likely to survive and reproduce if you have a big beak.  Over the course of generations, Big Beaks become more prevalent.  And it's these small changes in populations over billions of years, across every environment on earth, that brought about the species on the planet.  Individuals don't adapt to their environment (in a genetic way), populations do.  Evolution is not trial and error.

"says it's own design is flawed, even though it lives happily" First, the word design is completely wrong.  There is no conscious force designing us.  It's natural selection.  Second, our design is flawed.  The fact that we can breath and eat through the same hole guarantees that some people will choke and die every year.  The fact that we are only hard-wired to care for our own small hunter gatherer groups (People in our own small community) ensures that we don't treat every person on the planet equally, and millions of people die preventable deaths every week.  Our so-called 'design' is flawed.  Yes, some of us are happy, some of us are not. But some of us being happy sometimes doesn't prove that we were designed perfectly. Some of us are miserable.  Some of us are dying, or diseased, or heartbroken.  The human is flawed. Get over it.

"God is real. God is illogical. Therefore our logic is flawed." That may be the worst syllogism ever.  Once again, there is only one 'Logic,' and it is concrete and black and white.  We don't need to change the rules of reason to make god fit.  It's not our fault that an omnipotent Benevolent Creator of an imperfect universe doesn't make sense.  It contradicts itself!  And you are so deluded that you think it should be okay to ignore these contradictions, in the hope that God has some other logic that trumps our own.  2 + 2 will never equal 5.  It will not make sense for an all loving god to allow 38 million people to die preventable deaths this week.  It will not make sense that an all loving being created evil.  And it will not make sense that a perfect being designed something that is imperfect.  And because these things make no sense, you seriously think that sense is the idea that should be done away with.

You. Are. WRONG.  You can't escape logic.  If God doesn't make sense, it's indicative of God not existing, not sense being tainted.  Look at reality.  And deal with it.

[AnimatedDirt]

I can bring my mother over to your house and specifically define her, present her, and have her speak for herself.

Without proof, she is just a lady possibly posing as your mother.  DNA is only 99.9% accurate and is therefore not absolute.  Either way, I didn't ask, nor did you ask, for proof of her existence, but you asked for a definition.  I then asked if my definition of God need to be more accurate than your definition of a family member.

Her existence is not in question as it is easily demonstrable. You are seemingly trying to build a Carl Segan argument as if that has any relevance. Basically you are also making excuses to your inability to define your believed to be deity.

Not at all, you said I need to define God first.  To that, I say, His definition exists in a collection of books.

To be more specific, I didn't read about my mothers possible existence and then assume of her existence and will. Her life is not confined to txt, assumption, opinion, or assertion. Playing a Carl Segans Dragon card is not evidence of proof there of the existence of said deity.

So from what you're saying here is that there is less evidence for your mother's existence than that of the God in a collection of books around (some) for thousands of years.

But the biggest crux in your argument is opinion under the assumption such an entity exists. Labeling something a GOD is like telling a color blind person that a red truck is red when they clearly see it as green.

Did you say a color-blind person?  So is the truck red or is it green?  Technically it isn't a certain color, it reflects a portion of the spectrum of light.  For a person that sees "normal"...unless you're going to argue that normal vision is flawed vision...the truck is red.  Who is right and who is wrong?  Well, the one with normal vision is more right than the color-blind person.

Hence, it's only a GOD if you consider it one out of opinion. It's entirely a title of opinion and that is why you could never define a "GOD"since that goal post can be infinitely moved in any direction that would include considering myself or anything a GOD.

Yet a definition exists in the harmonizing of a collection of books

Thus you have not shown any sort of defined GOD that can be consider as such unarguably. And that is because you can't possibly do so. And much of the religious organization knows this, and that is why it's so wildly subjective and manipulative, and why there are thousands of GOD's currently being worshiped.

I have made no attempt as of yet to define God.

Is that kind of definition acceptable to you?

Vague subjective pleading arguments? No.

It's all I have to go on.  Much like your definition of a family member would be just as subjective and pleading even with the person standing in front of you as you make your definition known.

All opinions are subjectively vague since an opinion is merely one's own interpretation of something. That has nothing to do with facts or truths because neither of those will always rely on opinion since opinions can be provably wrong.  And that heavily weighs on what the opinion is, and what it's referring to. So, are red trucks really red? Popular opinion would say yes but a blind person or a color blind person would say you are incorrect. You cannot subject things of pure opinion as facts without something support it with. So the fact is, red trucks are red while possibly being green or visually color less. So does that mean red trucks magically are no longer red trucks in regards to your argument on Las Vegas? Funny how that works doesn't it.

It is funny especially since the color can be known.  It is not subjective.  A color-blind person is seeing it as green, but when the scientific value is thrown in, the truck is red (or reflects red) is now objective and true.  Who then is wrong and were they only wrong after science concluded it was red?  So then the validity of the Las Vegas example remains stupid if ALL opinion is always wrong.

Chaotic systems do not necessarily conform to your expectations, opinions, or views because not everything has concrete value. Some positives and negatives can be neutrals to others for example.  It's called the gray area, and things like morality represent that very example. But here your argument is irrelevant to the discussion because you are attempting to drag this into a Carl Segan's Dragon argument as evidence. Unknowable's don't magically get a pass from having to abide by the rules of existence. That is desperate clinging to concepts that are obviously logical fallacies.

I never said God is unknowable, unseen, unrecognizable, invisible...I've not made any claims to you yet other than to say that God has made Himself known through what the Bible says He is.  If He is God and the Bible is inspired by Him, then He has given enough of His characteristics to know and believe.  If He didn't, Christianity wouldn't be so big of an idea.

Incorrect. An expert would know what it says and know exactly the contextual meaning behind every word as exactly as it was intended. There are no experts on the bible sir, and that is why you have so many divisions, opinions, and assertions.

Would that, then, also be true of the world of science?

You are not fooling me here if that is your intent, I can literally list and even quote all kinds of different interpretations. For example that there is more than one interpretation of Genesis. And I don't think you want to go down that road with me, you won't like it. That is not an argument you are going to win here

I didn't realize I was trying to fool you into thinking there is only one interpretation to the Bible.  Who's arguing that point?  

I see you have failed to grasp the very concept and resort of clinging to fantasy and circular arguments in order not to actually address the argument. Saying something is simply unexplainable is nothing more than a cop-out as a means to just assume. Again, Carl Segan arguments are not arguments, they are logical fallacies that prove on has no base to argue with. It's the assuming of literal impossibilities as magically possible... This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy, nor does it have to do with if we can see it or not since I don't claim it's existence until it is proven to exist. My argument above was very specific, and you are doing a pretty good job ad trying to avoid it.

I haven't avoided anything.  I asked if a definition of God is as acceptable as your best definition of a family member.  You said, no.
Ok then, moving on.  

BTW, the separation of all conscious entities as individuals makes all entities finite. There is no such thing as an infinite being even if you tried to claim solipsism. So you again run into the argument that either everything is GOD or nothing is GOD. You can't have your cake and eat it too here.

A definition of God, again to you, is unacceptable so why would I try and answer this.  As a past Christian, I suspect you already know the answer, but choose to invalidate it because it can't be proven.  Again, nor can black matter or black energy, yet science THINKS it's plausible and has even given them names.

[AnimatedDirt]

"Who's logic?" Nonsense question. Contrary to popular belief, logic is black and white.  It's a very specific school of thought.  And there aren't multiple versions of logic.  It's not my logic vs. your logic.  Our species doesn't have it's own logic.  There is only logic.  We didn't make it up, we discovered what rules an argument should follow in order for it to make sense.

You. Are. WRONG.  You can't escape logic.  If God doesn't make sense, it's indicative of God not existing, not sense being tainted.  Look at reality.  And deal with it.

Ok.  I'm wrong.  Thanks KebertX.

[TheJackel]

Without proof, she is just a lady possibly posing as your mother.  DNA is only 99.9% accurate and is therefore not absolute.  Either way, I didn't ask, nor did you ask, for proof of her existence, but you asked for a definition.  I then asked if my definition of God need to be more accurate than your definition of a family member.

Pleading argument number 1.. And if this is your argument, you have already lost this discussion. You do not comprehend that you are dealing with someone who understands how circular manipulative arguments are used.  If you can't grasp the fact you can not define GOD because it's sheer opinion regardless of existence of said entity then you really can't grasp why you failed here today in every respect. I'll take this argument of yours as a yes, you can not define your supposed GOD to be even within 0% certainty or what exactly would make it a "GOD" since the definition of what defines a GOD is not defined what-so-ever. You may as well call me GOD at this juncture in this discussion.

To that, I say, His definition exists in a collection of books.

Along with magical unicorns, pixie fairies, and thousand of other supposed fairytale constructs written in txt. And the bible does not specifically define "GOD". In fact I can get more information on Unicorns than you could ever on your supposed contextualized deity. And all of that is irrelevant because this of course is a game of avoidance after all.

So from what you're saying here is that there is less evidence for your mother's existence than that of the God in a collection of books around (some) for thousands of years.

Incorrect. And again you are pleading for ignorance with circular arguments as if uncertainty value in regards to uncertainty principle would magically give you weight in your argument as if it were evidence and proof of a magical sky fairy to which you seem unable to define, validate, or even demonstrate at the most basic levels. If you can't address arguments without circular psychological manipulative tactics, you clearly can't handle this argument.

Did you say a color-blind person?  So is the truck red or is it green?  Technically it isn't a certain color, it reflects a portion of the spectrum of light.  For a person that sees "normal"...unless you're going to argue that normal vision is flawed vision...the truck is red.

Really please try grasping a concept before you go into technical details of light refraction.. Some animals can not even see color, and this does not make them flawed in vision. Here again you fail at your own certainty argument. Normal vision is only based on statistical value, and common/current physiological structure of the average eyesight of the human species. The human eye is actually in nature standards is very poor in comparison to other animals like Bald Eagles, cats, or Owls ect.. Also, many factors can change the color of the truck to which includes atmospheric conditions, and light propagation through different mediums. However the argument had nothing to do specifically in regards to electromagnetic wavelengths or frequencies of light, it had to do with the subjective matter of opinion based on individual perception and interpretation! Either stick to the subject matter or really cease to argue in circular nonsensical arguments that deflect away from what is being discussed.

Who is right and who is wrong?  Well, the one with normal vision is more right than the color-blind person.

Incorrect, colors of objects are dependent on light propagation. Hence under different kind of star and atmosphere, a red truck on Earth may no longer reflect the red wavelength and frequency.. It's like how much does a Rock weigh? On Earth it weighs this much on the equator, but weighs 3% more at the poles while being weightless in the vacuum of space. I don't think you really grasp the problems with your illogical arguments, and I say this constructively and not as an intended insult in hopes you will engage in more honest discourse..

Yet a definition exists in the harmonizing of a collection of books

Yep, just like in so many books that also don't include your definition of GOD.. GJ, you have just proven your argument irrelevant. You have yet to define GOD in any real tangible sense that would even remotely make it factual. Again you don't grasp why such titles are nothing more than opinion and are thus moot to the point of irrelevance.

I have made no attempt as of yet to define God.

Then you can make no such attempt to suggest one can or would exist. You may as well be arguing for magical tooth fairies. Maybe the bible popup books will give this supposed GOD more dimension?  

It's all I have to go on.

That's exactly the point. The vagueness of the concept of a god allows by virtue for anything to be GOD. That includes me, the dirt I walk on, you, ants, birds, bees, or the sum total of existence itself. It's color is green, red, blue, yellow..It's definition is so subject to opinion that either all things are GODS or there are no GODS.

Much like your definition of a family member would be just as subjective and pleading even with the person standing in front of you as you make your definition known.

Incorrect

It is funny especially since the color can be known.  It is not subjective.  A color-blind person is seeing it as green, but when the scientific value is thrown in, the truck is red (or reflects red) is now objective and true.  Who then is wrong and were they only wrong after science concluded it was red?

Incorrect.

I never said God is unknowable, unseen, unrecognizable, invisible...I've not made any claims to you yet other than to say that God has made Himself known through what the Bible says He is.  If He is God and the Bible is inspired by Him, then He has given enough of His characteristics to know and believe.  If He didn't, Christianity wouldn't be so big of an idea.

I suggest you go back and read your arguments. They completely suggested from a Carl Segan position. The concept is not whether or not something is visible, or even perceivable. It's whether or not it's actually real, plausible, or even possible as a fact without opinion that nullifies it. Since no possible clear definition can be given, there is nothing plausible about the conceptual notions of a GOD. Especially true when theists start babbling about creationism or impossible powers of ability like omnipotence, infinity, boundless, non-material, outside of existence ect.

Would that, then, also be true of the world of science?

Most scientists understand their work and the context of their work. That is an expert in the field of study, and they don't ever proclaim 100% certainties accept for in the cases of the obvious (some of which I have already gone over with you). The world of science actually seeks to prove itself wrong, and that intellectually makes it more honest. It's not faith based without question because it demands as much proof it can acquire to make things more certain than they already are. So 2+2=4 is a scientific basis of argument where context is clear without being vague to the point of sheer opinion and individual interpretation of the facts within honest discourse.

I haven't avoided anything.  I asked if a definition of God is as acceptable as your best definition of a family member.  You said, no.
Ok then, moving on.

Actually you did, and still are.. So let's recap what this reply was to:

So here is a fun exercise:

Try replying, or even feeling an emotion without information, energy, matter, material physicality, positive, negative, neutral, or from a state of being made of nothing. You will quickly realize the fallacy of GODS, or Creationism. Thee can not create that which one's own self requires to exist, feel, or do anything. Without these things, there is no power in the assumed to be powerful.

Please try again.
 

A definition of God, again to you, is unacceptable so why would I try and answer this.  As a past Christian, I suspect you already know the answer, but choose to invalidate it because it can't be proven.  Again, nor can black matter or black energy, yet science THINKS it's plausible and has even given them names.

Eh? The plausibility of higher entities than the human race was never the argument.. Gods are what I am expecting you to prove, especially when it's so vaguely undefinable and open to opinions. It's a moving goal post, and I don't think you understand that. My arguments show creationism to be false, and GODs to be subject of pure opinion and nothing more. Minds can't create reality, and any mind that has the power to manipulate reality is nothing more than another entity. Hence, ants, birds, people can all manipulate reality. And there is no entity that is not bound to the rules of existence. Entities can not create the rules, they can only use and manipulate them in a strict and limited fashion because they are equally bound to them. Technically there is no difference between a man building cities and cultivations of man made life forms than some entity in another universe building a star system (as an example). Power and ability is subjective and irrelevant. All powers, entities, objects, or things higher than point zero (ground state)are irrelevant to existence as a whole because they are merely products of existence and reliant on complexities greater than ground state. Thus the goal post can be moved via opinion, expectations, and requirements to any level one could desire when it comes to calling something a "GOD"..  Gods are thus logical fallacies.

[AnimatedDirt]

Without proof, she is just a lady possibly posing as your mother.  DNA is only 99.9% accurate and is therefore not absolute.  Either way, I didn't ask, nor did you ask, for proof of her existence, but you asked for a definition.  I then asked if my definition of God need to be more accurate than your definition of a family member.

Pleading argument number 1.. And if this is your argument, you have already lost this discussion.

So which is it, an argument or a discussion?  Did you want a definition or an absolute?  If the latter, then I lost.

Is the truck red or what color is it.  Are you asking (I assumed) what color it is in plain light, sunlight or were you always ready to throw the, "well, it's not red in the dark, or under ultraviolet light...to a bald eagle...to a mouse...in space, on Mars..." argument?  Talk about circular.

[TheJackel]

If the latter, then I lost.

You are indeed completely lost and clueless.. I would say this plane flew well over your head son. In fact the best argument you have even managed to make is the common circular argument, and I think you don't even comprehend this. When you can comprehend the arguments, or engage without circular arguments, avoidance, and deflection, you may just make yourself relevant and worth having this discussion/argument with. There is nothing worse than intentional stupidity, or ignorance as a position within an argument or discussion (which btw this is little of both).  :shake:

[AnimatedDirt]

Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

[Sophus]

Back to the topic then.

Once again I'll state.  I'm not afraid of Atheists.  I rather enjoy the circular chit-chat.  The Atheist will always win every debate because he/she has logic and science on their side.

I'm growing suspicious of your flattery.