Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

[PaulSacramento]

Ken,
You are being intellectually lazy.
There is no evidence that leads us to believe that material things are unchangeable, unmovable and eternal and there is abundant evidence AND facts that tell us otherwise.

There is no evidence that leads us to believe that the spiritual world even exists; let alone is unchangeable, unmovable, and eternal.

Who mentioned "spiritual world"?

I did because I know you believe in the spiritual world, even though you have no empirical proof that it exist. You want to insist on proof for what I find reasonable, but not for what you find reasonable.

There is as much empirical evidence of the "spiritual world" as there is of parallel universes, multiple universes and quantum realms, yet...

[PaulSacramento]

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

[Kenny]

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

Really? Care to provide the evidence AND facts that support this claim?

[Kenny]

So can you explain what you mean exactly about the difference between true and real?

Actually in the context of what I was speaking, the difference was between "and" vs "or". A and B vs A or B. The person I was discussing with was implying they were the same.

No I didn't imply that "true and real" is the same thing as "true or real". In the definition of "believe in", one of the definitions is, "to regard as true or real".

I was saying that in that definition, the words "true" and "real" are synonymous. In other words, the word "or" can link two words that are synonyms.

But in this context, "true or real" does not address existence or not.

We were talking about believing in the existence of something. When someone says that they believe in God, they are saying that they believe God exists. In the same way, when I ask someone if they believe in aliens, I'm asking if they believe aliens exist.

It takes a basic understanding of the English language, to grasp this. It's not rocket surgery.

There is a consensus of what constitutes an Alien, there is not when it comes to God; so you cannot compare the two. The definition you are trying to pin on Atheists is a definition that applies to nobody.
Consider the scenario; a theist tells an atheist what he is supposed to believe and not believe, and the atheist tells him he is wrong. Now instead of the theist questioning his information source, he sticks to his guns and insist on what the atheist is supposed to believe and not believe. Do you see anything wrong with this scenario? It is better to get your information from the source rather than second hand information.

[RickD]

Actually in the context of what I was speaking, the difference was between "and" vs "or". A and B vs A or B. The person I was discussing with was implying they were the same.

No I didn't imply that "true and real" is the same thing as "true or real". In the definition of "believe in", one of the definitions is, "to regard as true or real".

I was saying that in that definition, the words "true" and "real" are synonymous. In other words, the word "or" can link two words that are synonyms.

But in this context, "true or real" does not address existence or not.

We were talking about believing in the existence of something. When someone says that they believe in God, they are saying that they believe God exists. In the same way, when I ask someone if they believe in aliens, I'm asking if they believe aliens exist.

It takes a basic understanding of the English language, to grasp this. It's not rocket surgery.

There is a consensus of what constitutes an Alien, there is not when it comes to God; so you cannot compare the two. The definition you are trying to pin on Atheists is a definition that applies to nobody.
Consider the scenario; a theist tells an atheist what he is supposed to believe and not believe, and the atheist tells him he is wrong. Now instead of the theist questioning his information source, he sticks to his guns and insist on what the atheist is supposed to believe and not believe. Do you see anything wrong with this scenario? It is better to get your information from the source rather than second hand information.

Kenny,

You're delusional if you think that because I take dictionary definitions of atheist, and think I'm "pinning" that definition on atheists.

With your logic, a theist is someone who doesn't believe that God doesn't exist.

[PaulSacramento]

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

Really? Care to provide the evidence AND facts that support this claim?

Physics 101

[Kenny]

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

Really? Care to provide the evidence AND facts that support this claim?

Physics 101

Care to list the part of physics 101 that supports your claim?

[RickD]

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

Really? Care to provide the evidence AND facts that support this claim?

Physics 101

Care to list the part of physics 101 that supports your claim?

[Kenny]

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

Really? Care to provide the evidence AND facts that support this claim?

Physics 101

Care to list the part of physics 101 that supports your claim?

Your image cannot be seen

[Philip]

Ken: Your image cannot be seen.

And yet, it's REAL. But is is also true?

[RickD]

Really? Care to provide the evidence AND facts that support this claim?

Physics 101

Care to list the part of physics 101 that supports your claim?

Your image cannot be seen

Looks pretty clear to me. Why is it that you're the only one who can't see clearly?

[Kenny]

Physics 101

Care to list the part of physics 101 that supports your claim?

Your image cannot be seen

Looks pretty clear to me. Why is it that you're the only one who can't see clearly?

If it were really as clear as you guys say it is, I'm sure somebody would have provided an answer by now.

[RickD]

Care to list the part of physics 101 that supports your claim?

Your image cannot be seen

Looks pretty clear to me. Why is it that you're the only one who can't see clearly?

If it were really as clear as you guys say it is, I'm sure somebody would have provided an answer by now.

That's the thing Kenny, the answer was provided, in past discussions. But as is your modus operandi, you either ignore it, or just don't care.

[Kenny]

Your image cannot be seen

Looks pretty clear to me. Why is it that you're the only one who can't see clearly?

If it were really as clear as you guys say it is, I'm sure somebody would have provided an answer by now.

That's the thing Kenny, the answer was provided, in past discussions. But as is your modus operandi, you either ignore it, or just don't care.

No it was not. I've asked that question a million times already and I never get a straight answer from you guys. Again; provide the FACTS that prove material cannot be eternally existing.

[RickD]

Your image cannot be seen

Looks pretty clear to me. Why is it that you're the only one who can't see clearly?

If it were really as clear as you guys say it is, I'm sure somebody would have provided an answer by now.

That's the thing Kenny, the answer was provided, in past discussions. But as is your modus operandi, you either ignore it, or just don't care.

No it was not. I've asked that question a million times already and I never get a straight answer from you guys. Again; provide the FACTS that prove material cannot be eternally existing.

Kenny,

That's not what Paul said. He said:

And the difference is that there is evidence AND facts that material things are NOT unchanging, unmovable and eternal.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Do you see the difference?

There is no way to prove that material/matter isn't eternally existing. But even if it is, it still must be contingent, as Byblos has already explained to you in this thread.

But, material things, the things made up of matter, are changing, and cannot be eternal.

See the difference?