Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare ..

Of course not, not when you can just ask Ken and he will tell you. To have mental health just ask Ken and he will tell you what you believe and then you will be fine. It's so easy.Ken exists therefor atheists don't exist because Ken says so and will interpret a handful of studies that back him up.lfen

You see, we don't have to read the studies or anything. God is speaking through Ken. Just listen and believe. Stop all this thinking! Don't read those studies you might find they don't support Ken's assertations and then you'd be wrong again! It's so easy. Ken is right, anything that disagrees with Ken is wrong. QEDlfen

quote:

---

First I cite what I, kendemyer, wrote above which you never addressed:

---

You are correct, I didn't see it. But you are clearly wholly unfamiliar with the Russian revolution which rather cripples your case.

quote:

---

You are not showing that the reason why the Communist soldiers killed themselves was because of atheism. It could have been nationalism or a belief that capitalism was inherently evil.

---

Seeing as communism is a materialist philosophy, "evil" is not in its lexicon. It uses terms like exploitative, for example, to indicate what they think is wrong, rather than hang an emotive sign on it.The RR was also not a national liberation struggle, because the country was not under foreign or colonial occupation. Furthermore, the Bolsheviks were heavily into doing things themselves rather than delegating it to others: even the work of the CHEKA was necessarily rotated through all party members.So, there is not basis to attributiong to them a position that capitalism is "evil", nor for national liberation. Andnit cannot be claimed that the7y wer e"just" using communist soldiers if the reasons those communists had taken up arms was precisely their materialist analysis of the situation.

quote:

---

I realize that you did make an effort to produce evidence and I appreciate this but I do not think it is of high or moderate degree of quality.

---

I suggest you practice what you preach - your whole argument about communists in this regard displays a huge degree of assumption, and no research. Liebknecht and Luxembourg were executed by the Nazis, and were not soldiers. Che gave up a western lifestyle to die in a muddy field.It is you who made the strong assertion that there are NO materialist marytyrs.

quote:

---

I think if you read Fox's book of martyrs and the account of early Roman martyrs it is self evident that Christian martyrs are Christians.

---

They probably were.However, that is not what I said you need to show.Just because they were Christians, and were killed, doesn't mean they were killed because they were Christians.They could have been killed for any number of reasons.I am not interested in being sent to some book. If you want to debeate here, you need to debate here. What kind of debate would it be if we all just sent each other to go read books instead of discussing the evidence directly?So, what is your specific evidence that Christian martyrs were actually killed because they were Christian and not for other reasons?

quote:

---

I would say the same for contempory Christian martyrs of which there are many.

---

Like who?Can you document these people, and show that they were killed for being Christians and not for another reason?When are you actually going to provide specific evidence to support your claim?

quote:

---

You've refuted a position I never held. I didn't say they are the same thing.

---

Sure you did.Let's review what you've said:(Emphasis added by me)

quote:

---

Oh come on Schraff. All the proclaiming unbelievers I know think that God has something to do with fairytales/delusions. EVERY proclaiming unbeliever I have met mentions naturalism and the irrational position of "belief".

---

You said the above in response to my comment that none of the atheists I know are athiests because of science.You are the one who then brought up Naturalism, as you can see.I then asked you the following: [qs]What does that have to do with science being the "reason" people don't believe in God?Naturalism and science are not the same thing.[/quote]You then made a sarcastic statement along the lines of, "Get out your bunsen burners, time for a supernatural experiment!", as if it was incredibly obvious that Naturalism and science were the same.It seemed quite clear to me, especially when this last statement is included, that you certainly did think that Naturalism and science went hand in hand and were interchangeable.Mike, it looks like you are trying to pretend you didn't think that in order to avoid having to admit that you maybe made a mistake, or perhaps didn't know that "Naturalism" had two meanings.

quote:

---

How is the complexity and obvious design of animals/universe laughable?

---

Because there is no reason to think that complexity equals design.Because there is no evidence at all that animals or the universe has been designed.

quote:

---

Or comparable to a flat earth?

---

The evidence is overwhelming that life on earth evolved. It is just as overwhelming as the evidence that the Earth is a sphere.Therefore, to reject evolution is laughable, just as it is laughable to reject a spherical Earth.

quote:

---

Why should we accept abiogenesis when there is no evidence?

---

Um, why are you bringing up Abiogenesis?While I would hardly say there is zero evidence for it (we have, after all, created organic molecules from inorganic molecules), the various abiogenesis theories are not at anywhere near as well-supported as the ToE.

quote:

---

There is design, and you know it.

---

I do? How do you know what I know?Can you show me this design?

quote:

---

If you were truly objective, why do you favour the "no God" position?

---

I don't.I favor the "I don't know if God exists or not, and if God/s exists, why do we think we could comprehend it/them?" position.The reason I favor that position is because I have never felt or seen anything which would indicate to me that God/gods exist, although I cannot completely rule out the possibility that they do exist.I think that's a pretty objective view, don't you?

quote:

---

I don't really know. Everyone I know is atheist.

---

Maybe you wouldn't be so angry with athiests if you found some church to belong to or something, mike.

quote:

---

So you seriously doubt a chance chemical evolution then?

---

I think it's possible, but how life began on Earth may be something we just never know enough about to know much about with any level of confidence.So, I don't know how life got here.Just because we don't know the answer to some question doesn't give me the license to insert Godidit into that gap, however.

quote:

---

Well, transparency exists - pretty easy. Pink is a colour, and unicorns are from books. How do you know they are pink it they are invisible? How do you know they are unicorns if they are invisible? I gues transparency exists though.

---

But do you believe that they exist?

quote:

---

Who said I ever did? Is it logical for you to assume my position through your own pre-conception?

---

While you are technically correct that I have made this assumption, I think it was a reasonable one, considering what I know of the history of your beliefs.Have you ever been uneasy in the contemplation of there being "nothing" after you die, mike?

[qs]Ken, do Theists ever waver in their Theism?
If so, can we then say that Theism is tenuous/nonexistent/rare?[/quote]

quote:

---

1. We have martyrs. Strong proof that theism exist.

---

That doesn't answer my question.Do Theists ever waver in their Theism, and does this indicate that Theism is tenuous/nonexitent/rare?

quote:

---

2. Faith is positively correlated with mental health.

---

That doesn't answer my question.Do Theists ever waver in their Theism, and does this indicate that Theism is tenuous/nonexitent/rare?

quote:

---

3. Our most vocal leaders do not seem to have the same issues as the militant atheist (Vitz study).

---

That doesn't answer my question.Do Theists ever waver in their Theism, and does this indicate that Theism is tenuous/nonexitent/rare?

quote:

---

4. We seem not to suffer with the same degree of self absorbtion which would cause us to repeatedly want to get our way despite the evidence. Utimately this causes wavering since the facts do not line up with reality.

---

That doesn't answer my question.Do Theists ever waver in their Theism, and does this indicate that Theism is tenuous/nonexitent/rare?

quote:

---

Do Theists ever waver in their Theism, and does this indicate that Theism is tenuous/nonexitent/rare?

---

Using his logic, "Yes, but there exists examples that shows that not all of them can. Hence we know Theism exists."The flaw of his logic is of course the two premises:- We can never be 100% sure of someone's faith based upon their actions and words.
- We can always be 100% sure of someone's faith based upon them performing the action of martyrdom.This message has been edited by Melchior, 09-03-2004 09:38 AM

Wow. Five pages since I asked, and still neither Ken nor Mike can tell us what this "God" thing is.But they're still telling us that we believe in it. Whatever it is.Which, really, is kind of stupid.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Whatever this God thing is, you believe in it.I know this, because I just read a Mayo Clinic editorial that says physicians should be considerate of their patients' spiritual needs. That pretty much proves it.

Mike,So sorry that my nonexistent atheism is such a bother to you. However, you've once again missed the point, whether inadvertently or through that precious guilelessness that so endears you to Dan Carroll and Brian.We're not arguing whether there is design in the universe or whether science is a reliable construct. We're not arguing whether atheism is a valid or logical philosophical position. What you and Krazy Ken are trying to establish is that atheism does not exist, and that everyone has faith in God.Dan has tried, to no avail, to get you to define exactly what it is that we're all supposed to believe in regardless of our stated positions on the subject. This is a crucial point. Since you're already claiming you know our minds better than we ourselves do, it should be no problem to tell us what we all agree the word "God" means and what significance it holds to our lives and beings.What offends me most about you and Ken is that you shift the burden of proof onto the people who are waiting for you to provide support for your claims. You both point to "evidence" and then complain when that evidence gets examined in a critical light. I don't really think either of you is equipped for a rational interchange of ideas, and you're only making believers look like immature dolts.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Dan, I'm quite sure, and I have no reason to doubt your disbelief. I said the same about Crashfrog aswell. I said I have no reason to doubt his atheism. All I'm doing is backing what Ken is saying concerning evidence. This has infuriated the few, or atleast, I seem to have annoyed your buddy Hambre, and maybe even you and Schraff. However, I admitt that my rant that Hambre objected to was a taunt.So I'd like to engage your question but it leads to a big Dan Frazier versus Mike Ali "super fight 12".

Um, mike , did you read Ken's post? Or my reply, pointed to the fact that entire diatribe not only failed to support his assertion, but was riddled with errors. Oh, Let us not forget the fact that most of his "evidence" didn't even address his proporsition that athiests and athiesm exists. Please read my reply to Ken's intial post.

And all I'm doing is asking "evidence of what?"That we don't believe in "God"? You won't even say what "God" is, and we're supposed to provide you with evidence of our opinions on the subject? My entire ass.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

What claims are those then? Have I not said that my belief in Christ is down to belief? Why should I prove that which is set in motion by Christ himself? "Those who believe". If it was provable, then he would have said; "Those who evidence me/prove me, shall never die".However, you have been a bit sensitive about my comments to Schraff. I don't know why you're offended, and so - I am sorry if I upset you. I promise it wasn't my intention. My intention was to get people to apreciate my own position, by putting them in it.And it seems there is logic to all this controversy. It seems that it annoyed you when I accused you of being similar to an emotional person, denying reality and wanting "comfort" etc.. (Not that I accused you personally of this).....And so you got annoyed, and can now empathize with me. I know. It's so annoying isn't it. Here we say that everything you take stock in doesn't exist. Think! (You're intelligent!).....what did this last sentence remind you of? Can I offer a clue? Everything I take stock in is said to me (everyday), to not exist. So I mean, yes - ofcourse I know what's happening here.I'd like to know if you have ever prayed. I'd like to know Dan's answer aswell, if he chooses to take part.

Actually, if you are refering to the discussion on this board, then you must be refering to the fact that many memeber don't accept the existance of any diety. However, I doubt you have had anyone tell you that YOU don't believe in christianity. They are two very different arguments. The first is debatable, the second isn't. You claim to be a chritian, and believe in christ, then you are a chritian who believes in christ. So what is happening here is that you are confusing these two arguements and refuse to admit the difference becuase you seem to be bitter about events outside the constraints of this thread. I don't care if you think atheism is a false proposition, but to claim that it doesn't even exist as a concept is moronic. Frankly, you have shown far more intelligence in past posts, so I can only assume you are be obstinate for emotional reasons.