Atheist question

[zacchaeus]

Sounds cute. I've also heard of the lame "god of gaps" expression and I dismiss it out of hand. With God, there are no gaps. We're watching science spend thousands of years trying to figure out what God knows. For one to assume that Christianity is absent of knowledge is absurd and biased. Science absolutely consists of people using observation and experimentation but religion isn't void of observation and experimentation. Also, to limit "science" to fields that are only observable and experimental even does science an injustice. Science is very broad in itself and things that weren't observable yesterday may become observable tomorrow.

Why are scientists accepted as if they have no motive but the believer is dismissed as biased?

[zacchaeus]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

[Kenny]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

[RickD]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

That's asinine Kenny.

[Kenny]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

That's asinine Kenny.

please explain.

[RickD]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

That's asinine Kenny.

please explain.

What we call God, is an Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, good, etc. being.
So, you're saying, "I never claimed an Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, good, etc. God isn't real. I just don't call it God."

[Kenny]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

That's asinine Kenny.

please explain.

What we call God, is an Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, good, etc. being.
So, you're saying, "I never claimed an Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, good, etc. God isn't real. I just don't call it God."

He didn’t describe the God he or his sources claim as real. There are religions that worship people and things that are real, but as an atheist I don’t call them God. Yeah I could assume he is referring to the Christian God, but even then, I have no proof it is real or not I recognize it could be something else; like an evolved being from another planet that that visited earth centuries ago and primitive man proclaimed as God; and over the years the myth evolved to what we have now.
At the end of the day, as an atheist I am not required to prove whatever it is you call God doesn’t exist, whatever it is, if I don’t call it God I am atheist towards that religion. Does this make sense to you? If not explain why.

[RickD]

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

That's asinine Kenny.

please explain.

What we call God, is an Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, good, etc. being.
So, you're saying, "I never claimed an Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, good, etc. God isn't real. I just don't call it God."

He didn’t describe the God he or his sources claim as real. There are religions that worship people and things that are real, but as an atheist I don’t call them God. Yeah I could assume he is referring to the Christian God, but even then, I have no proof it is real or not I recognize it could be something else; like an evolved being from another planet that that visited earth centuries ago and primitive man proclaimed as God; and over the years the myth evolved to what we have now.
At the end of the day, as an atheist I am not required to prove whatever it is you call God doesn’t exist, whatever it is, if I don’t call it God I am atheist towards that religion. Does this make sense to you? If not explain why.

That's nonsensical. This kind of nonsense just proves that you are unable to have a rational conversation.

I've already explained to you why this is nonsense, the last time you posted this garbage.

[Storyteller]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

So you don't claim that what he calls God isn't real you just don't call it God?

How you define real?

[zacchaeus]

Makes perfect sense. As a seer I am not required to explain to the blind what I see or how I see. We're in agreement on that. But you should know that there can be no debate if we decide we are finished answering each other's questions. The burden of proof shouldn't fall against one claim and not the other. Finding truth should be a journey that we take together in a healthy fashion without trying to win but rather trying to grow-even if it means growing in what we already believe to be truth.

[Storyteller]

Yeah I could assume he is referring to the Christian God, but even then, I have no proof it is real or not I recognize it could be something else; like an evolved being from another planet that that visited earth centuries ago and primitive man proclaimed as God; and over the years the myth evolved to what we have now.
At the end of the day, as an atheist I am not required to prove whatever it is you call God doesn’t exist, whatever it is, if I don’t call it God I am atheist towards that religion. Does this make sense to you? If not explain why.

You have no proof the Christian God is real or not yet you claim God doesn't exist?
So aliens are possible yet God isn't?

Atheism isn't connected to particular religions. If you believe in any God you are not an atheist.

[DBowling]

I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago.

Here is where you are wrong. I provided 2 links that shows the Big Bang theory does NOT claim energy/matter ever came into being. The Theory starts with energy and matter already in place in the form of the singularity. How or if the singularity ever came into being will be a different theory all together; one that has not been established yet.

That is not what your links say.
The reason I didn't respond to your links and quotes is I didn't disagree with either the links you posted or the quotes you posted and I could find nothing in your links that conflicts with my assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Some quotes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."[45]

Your own link uses the following descriptions of the Big Bang
an original single point for an expanding universe
colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe
where and when the fabric of space and time came into existence
and all the matter in the universe was created
and where the laws of physics as we understand them work

Here is the rhetorical slight of hand you attempted earlier

DB - So science tells us when the matter/energy of our universe came into being.

Kenny - No. The Big Bang theory does not tell us how the Universe came into being. Hence the links below;

I made the assertion that science provides a "when" for the matter/energy of the universe coming into being.
I never made any statement regarding scientific claims about "how" the matter/universe being, because I don't believe the laws of science are even capable of describing 'how" the universe came into being.

So if you can find have a quote that contradicts what I have actually said, I will be happy to take a look.
But you are going to have to do better than strawman arguments and misrepresentations of your own source material.

[Kenny]

Kenny.

That's actually a weak argument that fails. I propose something-prove it's wrong or accept your argument has failed? I have sources that proclaim God is real. Prove He isn't or accept that your argument has failed.

Then bow down to Him and confess. If you don't now you will later anyway because my sources declared that as well.

I never claimed what you call God isn't real. My claim as an atheist is; whatever it is you call God, I don't call it God.

So you don't claim that what he calls God isn't real you just don't call it God?

Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

How you define real?

I would define real as anything that can be experienced using one or more of my 5 senses (even if tools and/or machines are required)

[Kenny]

Yeah I could assume he is referring to the Christian God, but even then, I have no proof it is real or not I recognize it could be something else; like an evolved being from another planet that that visited earth centuries ago and primitive man proclaimed as God; and over the years the myth evolved to what we have now.
At the end of the day, as an atheist I am not required to prove whatever it is you call God doesn’t exist, whatever it is, if I don’t call it God I am atheist towards that religion. Does this make sense to you? If not explain why.

You have no proof the Christian God is real or not yet you claim God doesn't exist?

The Christian God is defined in a way that makes it literally impossible to prove he doesn’t exist thus I am unable to make such a claim.

So aliens are possible yet God isn't?

IMO Yes.

Atheism isn't connected to particular religions. If you believe in any God you are not an atheist.

I agree!

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

Now I've heard it all!

In one single post, Kenny claims without any doubt, that God doesn't exist, AND he denies he's making the claim!



Edit:
And also notice how intellectually dishonest he is. Any honest person who doesn't believe God exists, would never claim with 100% certainty, that God doesn't exist. Since Kenny admits there's no way to disprove God exists, there's no way he should be 100% certain that He doesn't exist.