Is the translation that bad? That's not what I said.
What I said is more like...
If you think that there is no God, in the face of nobody knowing for sure that there is no God, then you are setting yourself up as God above God if God exists. But if there is no God, you are setting yourself up as God, because we have a lot of evidence that suggests that God exists, and no proof that He doesn't.
Thank you for the information.
Either way, you are making yourself out to be God by your decision to be an atheist. Maybe you don't know it, but you are. So, as an atheist, you are formally saying that there is no God, but by saying this, you are setting yourself up as God.
So... we have a new problem: atheists that think they are G-d?
EDIT: You use the term "G-d" on a regular basis. What's a G-d?
You got distracted:
We are not supposed to use God's name in vain. The word "God" is not His name. He told the Hebrew people, the Israelites, that He had one name for them to call Him by. It is listed in the Torah. Then they invented all kinds of other names for Him. God and G-d are not His names.
G-d is an English word indicating deity.
This word is derived first from Latin which, in its turn, derived from Greek as well. This word "
God" was first invented in the greek version of the Bible "
The Septuagint" from where the Latin and the English version are derived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeptuagintIn the hebrew version of the Bible (Tanakh) the term G-d is translated with: Elohim, Adonai, El and YHWH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TanakhEvery God's name has it own different meaning. As I think we have lost a lot by incorporating all his names in one word (
God) I think it is better to use the word
G-d when needed instead using the uncensored version
God.
I understand, now, that for you this is not the God's name but you'll never know who will be reading your thoughts so it is better to use the censored version (G-d) to respect the reader.
Hope this is clear enough.
Thank You
No, BADecker simply shows aspects of faith laws that most other people don't think of.
Be careful,
popcorn1. Beliathon mocked God. Then he went to Hell and found out it wasn't so much fun. He came back and told us about it a little. Check his posts
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/beliathon-182576. He isn't happy.
The point? God is not mocked. His patience lasts only for a while. Beliathon is locked into his anti-God position, now. It's too late for him. Don't push God so far that He does the same to you.
You are wrong.
Atheists don't believe in a God. You're thinking of agnostics.
Agnosticism means you don't know if there is a god or not, and want proof.
"A theist, or believer in God, will tell you that he ABSOLUTELY exists. An atheist (non-believer) will say he ABSOLUTELY doesn't. " (
link)
That is correct.
Answering you is not the point. Coming up with an answer for you on these issues, I feel, is pointless because you won't change your mind. And you won't change mine on this issue. So we can just agree to disagree.
We can agree on this, though:
You have no evidence that my beliefs are demonic and have not taken responsibility upon yourself to rationally evaluate ANY of the writings, so your "belief" is made in total ignorance.So, we can agree that you are not using reason, and that you know nothing about my beliefs.
I hope that by my use of reason, I can convince others that these three beliefs are actually
big lies that have yet to be proven:
1) "Jesus" is the savior of humanity and you only need to accept him to "enter heaven".
2) Darwin's theory, since it is based on three fallacious “gaps” in reasoning that were pointed out in 1873 and remain unchanged to this day, as explained here:
http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm3) Integrity of the Bible.
Before discussing about Satana you should listen to the Pope before which is the vicary of Jesus Christ on Earth.
But like my belief that there is a God who created us, I can not prove it to others.
I prove my belief in God by pointing to the evidence that refutes humanism (
link); when others refuse to rationally evaluate it, I conclude that I have proven it to them. Thus far, nobody has engaged me in serious discussion of the evidence and/or the reasoning that strongly suggests (and in my opinion
demonstrates) the proof of God, so I end up proving God every time!
Reason is the tool that humans use to prove a thing to another. On the other hand,
Cognitive Dissonance is a tool used by the ignorant to maintain faith in their illusion of knowledge. Likewise,
Scapegoating is a tool used by the wicked who want to hide the evidence of their own imperfection instead of acknowledging the need to grow (e.g. learn). You attack these authors, but your claims are made in ignorance (which books did you read??), and you will not use reason to explain your understanding. To me, it seems that you are just as ignorant as those who fail to read the evidence supporting life-after-death.
You won't see it. I know that.
Try me; I am
reasonable. Perhaps when you have some spare "time"...
Even the ones who CLAIM to hear regularly from God and speak FOR and in the NAME-OF this Christ and pronounce HIS edicts on your heads cannot abide the POSSIBILITY that God may well have sent MESSENGERS JUST AS PROMISED. Why do they object? Because they are going to find that "our presentation" is TRUTH and that means THEIRS IS NOT and IF YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THEM--THEY LOSE ALL POWER OVER YOUR BEINGS AND THIS IS NO SMALL LOSS TO "MAN"' ON YOUR PLANET GEARED TO "POWER" OF PHYSICAL EGO EXPRESSION. WE WANT NO CONTROL OVER ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY YOUR BEINGS. I simply ask you to take note at how many people pronounce edicts regarding our work and word and how many of YOU labor long and hard in trying to change perceptions--when the persons involved have not, nor have any intentions of so much as reading the work and word in point. I am continually amused at how many tell me to "go back to Christ!" How so--I TRAVEL WITH YOUR "CHRIST"!! AND, FURTHERMORE, IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ MY WRITINGS--IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED. So, WHO is the fool? Well, perhaps "me" for wasting your time with it for, after all, I have all the "time" in the Universe--and you are VERY LIMITED IN THAT COMMODITY. I would ask you, however, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DOING THAT TAKES SO MUCH "TIME"?
What's wrong with Americans and Authority?
Look at the Pope than you may speak: listen, learn, think and then speak if you can.
NO YOU JUST PUT GOD TO EVERYTHING
Not true; I have a concise logical proof based on definitions; please tell me which step of the proof you disagree with.
My proof defines God sufficiently, and yes it is based on external (observable, scientific) evidence; if my definition is missing something, you can point it out explicitly, hopefully after reading the proof carefully to understand the logic.
My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300You don't need to proof to that.
You need to listen.
On Earth there is the vicar of Jesur Christ which is the Pope:
you need to listen to Jesus Christ to find G-d. You cannot find God yourself.
Thank You.
And from this sentence can be clearly understood that atheists don't hate religion. They only don't believe in gods or supernatural beings. Period.
That is the point since page 71.
...omissis...
...omissis...
Yes and I did agree with you with the definition of atheism being the one in the Oxford dictionary:
Definition of atheism in English:
noun
[mass noun]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Ref:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism...omissis...
...omissis...
Please keep to the subject of atheism that we already come to an agreement that is the Oxford dictionary definition:
Definition of atheism in English:
noun
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheismI understand your Faith.
Thank You.
I don't know why it is so difficult to understand a definition.
Thank You.
