Athiests

[justvisiting]

Like I stated that's enough for me. True science doesn't deny God. It supports His existence.
You totally twisted what I previously stated anyway. Paul spoke of false science. There are creationist scientists with just as many degrees. I am not against higher education. I am against denial of the evident truth...that there is a creator...a designer.
Everything in the universe speaks of design. That's all I want to write on the matter.
Like it says...he gives them over to there own perverse ways, because they reject Him.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Like I stated that's enough for me. True science doesn't deny God. It supports His existence.
You totally twisted what I previously stated anyway. Paul spoke of false science. There are creationist scientists with just as many degrees. I am not against higher education. I am against denial of the evident truth...that there is a creator...a designer.
Everything in the universe speaks of design. That's all I want to write on the matter.
Like it says...he gives them over to there own perverse ways, because they reject Him.

Paul couldn't have been talking about false science. The schools of science didn't even come to be until around the Renaissance. Before that it was mathematics, Alchemy, and Metaphysics/philosophy. The Scientific Method didn't come to be until the likes of Galileo and Newton.

 

[Edouard]

Interesting turn this has taken.

A couple of observations.

Ultimately, what we believe comes by faith.

If you are an aethist or agnostic you cannot disprove the existence of God.
If you are a christian you cannot prove the existence of God.

There is no solid current eye witness facts to prove either points above.
There is only Faith.

Now, creationism is a whole other ball game.

My wife gave birth to my son. Science has shown us how children come into the world just like other liveing creatures. So in effect my wife and I created my son. But the process gives proof of that.

What we are unable to prove is where did the first man and woman come from?
To say evolution? Ultimate question. If you believe in evolution where did the very first micro-organism come from?

We cannot prove that. Science has been able to sudy the traces of atoms and light. Very intriguing stuff. But where did it originate? how was it created. In all things there is a beginning and an end.

How was the beginning created and how does it end? Not even metaphysicis can provide physical scientific evidence.

So this conversation continues in a loop does it not?

As an aethist or agnostic, have you considered the historical evidence of the Bible?'
There is one thing that cannot be denied by any scientist and that is the history of the Bible both old and new are 100% accurate. Are there questions still lingering absolutely. Historically everything is aligned.

Now - over how many centuries there is not one piece of literature as old as the scriptures of the talmud that have survived and are still practiced to this day. So you say that is Judaism.. ok.. Christianity is less than 2000 yrs old and Homer's Odyssey is older than that. Other than Islam..all other mythologies have faded. If they were truth would they have succeeded. Absolutely.

I am not sure how to end my point of view other than if you look at the evidence. I feel based on my Faith that you will find enough to support christianity over any other belief system. By evidence alone.

A book a recommend more old school.. "kingdom of the cults."
This is also an excellent book filled with.. oh Facts!

Edouard
May the Holy Spirit soften your heart and give you an ear to hear His never failing love.

 

[AskTheA]

Sorry for long absence.
strobel: Just because a friend of yours who is smart is convinced does not mean that he is right. This is an argument from authority. I wonder if a Christian is more likely to be blind to another Christians dishonesty when he reads a defense of Chrstianity. When I get to together with other atheist and people like dawkins/barker come up, we discuss where they are wrong and why we don't agree with them. I am not going to make a point for point rebuttal of Strobel because A: they exist and B: it's a lot of work and C: I'm not here to convince people.
"I was once an atheist" - this sort of statement is a "plain folks fallacy". Again, the author is saying that he understands the reader in a certain way. No two atheists are the same and are likely atheists for different reasons. Atheism is not an "ism". It's a rejection of other "ism". "I once was a Christian" does hold more water, but still not enough. Christians would have a handful of certain beleifs that other Christians would share, when atheists do not really have all that much common ground with eachother.
"Church" - Roman Catholic. Only the best experiences with it, still go for fun on the occasional sunday. Again, having fun does not result in being convinced in the resurrection.
justvisiting - I am familiar with the bible, I know those verses. Even if I subscribe to some complexity/intelligent design business. Why Yahweh? Why not Zeus or the Great JuJu up the mountain. You don't think I've heard creationism arguments? Why can your god not have created the process of evolution? Do YOU, a man choose to place limitations on what your god can and can't do? Sorry for the fiery rehtoric. I'd like to note you can't CHOOSE to be an athiest or not. You are simply not convinced by aruments put foreward. I think changing minds and asking questions is admirable. I don't want an academic who has the "perfect" answer. The universe is a majestic and complicated place and it is likely that science will never understand 1% of it, but we're always learning more.
justvisiting post 2 - I'm not sure you understand what evolution is. You are getting confused with other scientific theories. Evolution is simply "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." TalkOrigins may be a helpful starter. I agree with quite a bit of MR. Iguana's rebuttals. Do note that to convince an atheist, Bible verses are not advisable. Neither is creationism. Try to start with deism and work from there?
Ed - There is a difference between proving there is a god and proving there is not. Faith can be used, but to keep the word from being meaningless we have to discuss futher. The way most skeptics operate is denial until convinced otherwise. If you say "oh dear, god exists vs does not are both equally filled with faith" then what about the tooth fairy? Read up on Russel's Teapot.
"Evolution -> where did the first micro organism come from?" I dunno, maybe god did it? But I'm perfectly happy with "I don't know", because, well, I don't!
"all things have a beginning and an end" - how do you know for sure? Fine, I'll bite. All things have a beginning and an end. I agree. Even god?
Historicity. I'm just gonna point you the the skeptics annotated bible. I don't agree with everything posed, but for sure lots of it. The bible doesn't always agree with the bible. I have yet to see evidence of the flood, creation (the story itself), wandering the desert, etc. Even if I accept that all of these events happened, how can I be sure it's not for example, powerful aliens, satan acted as god to trick us, God is mean and really wants us to break all the commandments and just wrote that book to be mean...
Thanks for the understanding folks. Again, I kinda don't want this thread to be an apologetic vs counter thread. There's enough of that. I'm hoping for some more personal discussion. I'll answer ANYTHING you ask to the utmost honesty. It's not a Christianity/Yahwehism/Deism vs Atheism thing, I'd rather just give you the opportunity to dig into my skull and find out what ticks.
Holy Spirit - if the holy spirit was real and did whisper to me, my first guess would be some sort of hallucination and phone up the mental hospital. Cheers Christians!

 

[JoJo]

I wonder if a Christian is more likely to be blind to another Christians dishonesty when he reads a defense of Chrstianity. When I get to together with other atheist and people like dawkins/barker come up, we discuss where they are wrong and why we don't agree with them.

Perhaps you haven't had time to look around the boards here much. I'm sure you'll find enough disagreement to squash the notion that Christians blindly agree with one another. Not that it's a good thing to find so much disagreement among Christians.

Holy Spirit - if the holy spirit was real and did whisper to me, my first guess would be some sort of hallucination and phone up the mental hospital.

I think that if the Holy Spirit spoke to you, you would immediately know who He was. Have you read Acts 22 in the Bible? When the persecutor of Christians, Saul (later the apostle Paul), was confronted with a bright light and the voice of Jesus, Saul immediately fell to the ground and asked, "Who are you, Lord?"

AsktheA, I have a question: Why do atheists gather together? Is there some sort of fellowship among unbelievers?

 

[AskTheA]

I am sorry I should have been more clear. I didn't mean agreement, but skepticism. For example, I love music, so if someone makes an argument for Beethoven being a nice guy, I am more likely to be less critical of the argument. Beethoven was a mean guy, but hey.

Atheists gather - There is a bit of fellowship, only in the sense that anyone who has common ground has some fellowship. Also, minority opinions tend to make people gravitate together in the way that "It seems like everyone else is insane!" and you find some sane people to chat with. They also tend to be interested in things like science, religion, philosophy, skepticism, logic, etc. The main reason is so they can discuss and debate atheism related issues. We tend to think very independantly of eachother so we argue and debate endlessly.
I'll walk you through the last Atheist club meeting I was at.
We walk in and chat/eat. The discussion starts with some video. The topic of the week is Atheism in the media. We talk about how it's protrayed and how atheists make atheism look. We all agreed that someone like Christopher Hitchens, while funny, is not really helpful to the portrayl of all of us. We then got into a heated debate about the adage "you win more flies with honey than vinegar". The parties were "I don't even want to convert people to atheism" "honey is better" "vinegar is better". We then clarified that "winning flies" does not mean conversion, it means convincing people that we aren't baby eating satan worshippers. We then got into the distintions of skepticism atheism agnosticism theism gnosticism , pantheism, deism and all of those. We got into what religions we were brought up in, mostly RC, 2 baptist, 1 penacostal, 1 buddhist, 3 islam, 2 Wiccan, 1 Satanist, 1 secular jew and 3 more who weren't brought up religious. Oh, and actually a few more protestants but they didn't get specific. We also planned a joint even with a christian club, probably a movie/pizza social event. We then asked if anyone wanted to join a skeptics club that would tackle non-religous issues such as ghosts, homeopathy, eastern medicine, holocaust denial, 9/11 turthers etc. A good rundown of skeptical topics is that show, Penn and Teller's BullS**t.

 

[JoJo]

Okay, that pretty much quenched my curiosity. One thing, though:

We then got into a heated debate about the adage "you win more flies with honey than vinegar". The parties were "I don't even want to convert people to atheism" "honey is better" "vinegar is better". We then clarified that "winning flies" does not mean conversion, it means convincing people that we aren't baby eating satan worshippers.

Do many of your atheist pals actually think most Christians think most atheists are "baby eating satan worshippers?" I mean, we're not totally ignorant. And I don't think your group is that ignorant of us either. No, I think that "winning flies" is exactly as it sounds (for those parties that debated honey vs. vinegar, at least).

 

[AskTheA]

That is just the standard evil atheist joke, we don't take it seriously. We are very very mistrusted in polls and whatnot.

I am unsure about your "winning flies" comment. can you rephrase/expand?

 

[JoJo]

Well, the very fact that anyone at the group brought up the term, "winning flies," shows that they just may be in the business of winning converts, especially those who debated whether it was easier to catch flies with honey or vinegar. What I'm getting at is this: I believe many (not all, of course) atheists who gather together really do harbor the desire to convert believers into unbelievers, especially Christians.

 

[AskTheA]

Well, the very fact that anyone at the group brought up the term, "winning flies," shows that they just may be in the business of winning converts, especially those who debated whether it was easier to catch flies with honey or vinegar. What I'm getting at is this: I believe many (not all, of course) atheists who gather together really do harbor the desire to convert believers into unbelievers, especially Christians.

As an insider, I do have quite a bit of insight. It's not so much at "scoring conversion points". It's more if Atheist Steve explains why he is is an atheist to Questioning Frank, and Frank does change his mind and agree with Steve, this shows Steve that he makes a good logical argument ONLY if he regards Frank as a logical smart guy. I suppose I should have given more context. One guy was confused about deconversion. We were all talking about atheists being portrayed as evil in the media, and he was off track. Winning a fly would be like getting a christian to change his mind about whether or not we are nice guys.

I (as well as most atheists) are not out there for deconversion, and it's demonstrable. Most atheists tend to be skeptical and anti-dogmatic. If someone was convinced by a conversation with one guy, that's not very good skepticism. I think people should examine all their beleifs and learn all sorts of things. Then like a slow painful process of this may lead to atheism. Again, atheism is not a club you can join, it's jsut not being in any of the other clubs.

 

[JoJo]

Winning a fly would be like getting a christian to change his mind about whether or not we are nice guys.

Whether or not someone is a nice guy isn't the issue with most Christians. Christians are largely concerned with where our fellow beings will spend eternity. Joe Atheist can be a really nice guy, give to charity, treat his wife and family well, show kindness to animals or respect to the elderly, but if he rejects God and His Son, Jesus, then he is without hope for eternity. That's our belief and our concern. We don't think of atheists in general as murderous thugs or creepy perverts or evil terrorists, so you can go back and tell your group that if they think they need to convince Christians that they are "nice guys," then their view of us is faulty.

Again, atheism is not a club you can join, it's jsut not being in any of the other clubs.

Of course. So do you feel like misfits in the world?

 

[JoJo]

AsktheA, I just realized that I haven't been speaking to you in a very loving manner. This is hypocritical of me and I apologize.

 

[AskTheA]

Don't worry about it. You haven't said anything that bothered me in the least.

 

[dadof10]

I have a good friend who is a Christian Reform which is similar to Presbyterian/Calvinism I beleive. I, however am an Athiest. I've read Christian forums before where there is an "Ask the Athiest" thread. Most ofen it's the athiest trying to A: deconvert the Christians, or B: act rudely or make the look silly so the Athiest can say "look how smart I am".

I intend to do neither of those things; I think that's a waste of time. I just want to foster some understanding. I don't use rude language nor will I say mean things about your beleifs or your god. Feel free to ask me any question, whether or not it is even diretly related to religion. I'm knowledgable about athiesm and have a decent understanding of religions of the world.

I have a question that has never been answered by Atheists and I have been asking for years. Maybe you could give it a shot.

The burden of proof, it's said, is on the person who believes in a Creator. The Atheist equates unicorns, bigfoot, ufo's, etc. with belief in God. That's all well and good, because the default position, the one without the burden of proof, should be the most reasonable one. In the case of fictional characters, the more reasonable position is that they DON'T exist, until proved otherwise.

My question for you is, which is the more reasonable position, that the universe was created by a Divine Cause, or that it it was due to a random set of events?

It seem to me that the odds are higher for the "Divine Cause" theory, so, therefore, should be the default position. What do you think?

I am pressed for time and will respond when time permits, thanks.

 

[AskTheA]

I don't really make a distinction there. I'd say "I don't know" with regard to the divine cause theory and whatnot. Maybe a godlike being did start off the big bang or something, but as a non cosmologist, I can't begin to speculate, heck, even cosmologists really don't know. That would be more of a deistic approach I suppose. A first cause or a un movable mover. I am inclined to say I don't beleive in that simply because to me, "where did the creator come from" is a bigger question than "how did the universe start". To say random occurence is probably the wrong choice of words. There are alternatives between random occurence and a divine cause. It seems like a bit of the good old "god of the gaps" to me, really. Because I don't know something, I don't just say "therefore god". When I don't know something, I say "I don't know". Maybe with further scientific advancment, perhaps we will know, and maybe it will be a divine cause but right now I have no idea.

 

[JoJo]

If God wanted to provide scientific evidence of His existence, He would. But God honors faith:

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

 

[AskTheA]

If God wanted to provide scientific evidence of His existence, He would. But God honors faith:

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Now hold it. You are assuming your conclusion. If you say "the reason why you can't find evidence for god is because god does not want you to" I can say the reason you don't find evidence for Aliens is because Aliens don't want you to. You are admitting that "the world looks as a world with no god would look".

 

[JoJo]

If God is withholding evidence of His existence, who am I to question His motives? I follow the Bible and the Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please him."

If aliens are withholding evidence of their existence, I just don't care. Is my eternity in their hands?

You are admitting that "the world looks as a world with no god would look".

Not so. Because God has spoken to His people, those who recorded their experiences in the Bible, and in our lives today. Also, a world with no God would have no good in it.

Look, I don't base my beliefs solely on scientific evidence. I base them largely on faith, and that is a personal decision. We can debate this round and round all day, but it will always come down to me saying, "I have faith in God's existence."

 

[AskTheA]

I think we are completely off the topic at hand hahaha. I don't think I'll ever really understand that sort of faith unless I get some of it. My mind can be changed by evidence as easy as pie. Richard dawkins story about the Golgi Aparatus from his colledge years resonates with me.

 

[dadof10]

I don't really make a distinction there. I'd say "I don't know" with regard to the divine cause theory and whatnot. Maybe a godlike being did start off the big bang or something, but as a non cosmologist, I can't begin to speculate, heck, even cosmologists really don't know. That would be more of a deistic approach I suppose. A first cause or a un movable mover. I am inclined to say I don't beleive in that simply because to me, "where did the creator come from" is a bigger question than "how did the universe start". To say random occurence is probably the wrong choice of words. There are alternatives between random occurence and a divine cause. It seems like a bit of the good old "god of the gaps" to me, really. Because I don't know something, I don't just say "therefore god". When I don't know something, I say "I don't know". Maybe with further scientific advancment, perhaps we will know, and maybe it will be a divine cause but right now I have no idea.

I'm really not asking which you think is true. I'm asking which theory seems more reasonable to you, and which side has the burden of proof. Take everything you know of the origins of life into consideration and decide which seems more reasonable, that's all I'm asking. If there is a third theory that I haven't considered, what is it? I'll consider it.

If you say "I don't know" doesn't that make you technically an Agnostic?