(October 21, 2015 at 10:01 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(October 21, 2015 at 2:15 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I may use "adragonistic" as an internet handle, or a password, or something, in the future. I wonder if I'm more of an atheist or an adragonist. Tough call.

I'd still go with atheist over adragonist.
At least with dragons, you could try and form one out of dinosaur bones. So there'd at least be some type of actual physical evidence (however twisted and manipulated) of their existence, as opposed to deities which so far have left no direct physical evidence of themselves.

Or, just get a pet comodo

(October 21, 2015 at 10:52 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: MK, you've seen indisputable proofs of what exactly?

For example, the Shia-Sunni issue. I've seen clear proofs regarding divine leadership after the Messenger both in Quran and well established hadiths. However, I've seen most humans turn away from such clear proofs when presented to them because they rather follow what they want to follow.

(October 21, 2015 at 10:52 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: MK, you've seen indisputable proofs of what exactly?

And if people don't accept it then surely it's not indisputable ...

Ok MK, maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying people, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, will continue to maintain their position?

(October 21, 2015 at 11:06 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: Ok MK, maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying people, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, will continue to maintain their position?

Yes. Not all, but a lot of people and probably because of our mindset to follow what we want to follow and grow up with that, with little emphasis on sincerity to the truth, most of us.

And I'm not saying this is necessarily true of you guys. 

And aside from that, is to expect a concrete argument to become popular. It maybe there is concrete arguments, but it's another thing for it to become popular and well known.

(October 21, 2015 at 11:15 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 21, 2015 at 11:06 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: Ok MK, maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying people, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, will continue to maintain their position?

Yes. Not all, but a lot of people and probably because of our mindset to follow what we want to follow and grow up with that, with little emphasis on sincerity to the truth, most of us.

And I'm not saying this is necessarily true of you guys. 

And aside from that, is to expect a concrete argument to become popular. It maybe there is concrete arguments, but it's another thing for it to become popular and well known.

Now only if we had a mirror in here...

Arguments are not evidence.

Hence, using the scientific method for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

It works spectacularly well at delivering results.

(October 21, 2015 at 11:01 am)I_am_not_mafia Wrote: And if people don't accept it then surely it's not indisputable ...

This, in spades.

Mystic, I don't know how much simpler I can make this and still retain bladder control. Picture: "God" comes down and proves beyond all doubt that "he" is exactly what it says on the tin. Scientists test "him" exhaustively and announce publicly that yes, "God" is absolutely real. Now everyone knows with total certainty, there is no longer any room for belief. Now the only question on the table is "will you worship this god or not?" Undoubtedly there are going to be many people, myself included, who will refuse to bend the knee to the creature for any number of reasons; but continuing to profess disbelief in the damn thing's existence at that point wouldn't be an issue. Or shouldn't be, at least. Atheism isn't a doctrine of contrariness; it's a position waiting to be falsified.

How clear am I being for you?

The problem with any theological arguments, is they DO NOT deliver results. For example, "results" would include delivering increasing knowledge about the nature of reality.

What are the processes, procedures, data, knowledge that theologians have given us over the centuries? And why don't theologians of different stripes arrive at the same conclusions?

Answer -- because they are pulling it all out of their respective, mutual asses. Making it up, if you will.

What have they told us about "God"? God is mysterious, unknowable, blah, blah, blah. Not particularly useful, is it?