Does Athiesm have valid claims? Please advise

[ForeverTrue]

I've recently found religion again, and have been studying regularly. However, as I study, I do come across a lot of contradictions or road blocks. I have some things that I am unsure about, and because of this, my obsessiveness led me to explore Athiest viewpoints. I came across "50 proofs that God is imaginary", and some did make sense...

A few things that concerned me particularly were

http://godisimaginary.com/i3.htm "Proof #3 - Look at historical gods"

and http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm "Proof #7 - Understanding religious delusion"

Can anyone respond to these thoughts?
I am not trying to prove Christianity wrong, but in my mind, seeing the views of Athiesm, and learning of why they're incorrect will help build my faith. I am just extremely overwhelmed at this point and need guidance.

Another question I have is: If Jesus was actually God in the flesh, how did He sit at the right hand of God in heaven?

I would also appreciate any very informative sites regarding evolution vs creation, evidence of the great flood, etc.

Thank you so much. Responses are greatly appreciated, and I know I will come back with many questions, but it's not due to be being stubborn, but attempting to learn. Thank you.

 

[jasoncran]

Jesus was both man and God. He is able to sit on the right hand of the Father as he assumed his diety that he choose to put aside when he came to the earth. If he wasnt the hyperstatic union, why then did he say i lay my life down and i will pick it back up in three days.

 

[prough91]

Read any of Lee Strobel's "Case for..." books. They really helped me.

 

[Jed]

Wow, where do I begin. First, it has to be understood that man is bent on suppressing the truth of the existence of God. God confronts him in all the avenues of his folly. This has been said before but it is usually summed up in one word; accountability. Man does not want to be accountable to a perfect and holy God. He desires to be his own God. Not Thine will be done but My will be done.On top of all of man's pride God lays down the hammer. There is nothing you can do before me to show your righteousness. As a matter of fact, All your righteousness is like filthy rags! It is usually at this point that man unprompted by the Holy Spirit outright rejects his Creator.
The probability of the universe coming into existence purely by what is called "natural processes" is astronomical. If we stay with the same delineation, Statistical Probability, the probability of Jesus NOT being the Christ is astronomical. The Bible foretold the year he was born. Where he would be born. Who he would be born to. What his lineage would be. What he would do.If I told you to get a hold of Mike Smith, it would be a pretty tough task. But if I told you Mike Smith lives in America,in the sate of CT.in Litchfield County, in the town of Torrington, on B street, you would be pretty sure you had the Mike Smith you were looking for.That is what the Bible does with Christ. It leaves us with no doubt, of who he is, what he has done, and what he is going to do.
Do not find religion again. It will fail you. Find Jesus Christ, and He will never fail you. Trust in his work on the cross to fully reconcile you to your Creator, and you will watch the wisdom of men slowly fade away. I know, I was once where you are.

 

[AAA]

Read on both sides of the debate.

Learn about how to think critically and not be swayed by fallacious arguments (we have terms like "wishful thinking" and "self deception" for good reasons).

Try to take into account as much as you can of the full 21st century understanding of biology and physics.

Make up your own mind.

Enjoy the journey.

 

[Physicist]

Wow, where do I begin. First, it has to be understood that man is bent on suppressing the truth of the existence of God. God confronts him in all the avenues of his folly. This has been said before but it is usually summed up in one word; accountability. Man does not want to be accountable to a perfect and holy God. He desires to be his own God. Not Thine will be done but My will be done.On top of all of man's pride God lays down the hammer. There is nothing you can do before me to show your righteousness. As a matter of fact, All your righteousness is like filthy rags! It is usually at this point that man unprompted by the Holy Spirit outright rejects his Creator.

Your description of YHWH makes him sound like the worst sort of tyrant. Do you think it proper to worship a tyrant, even if he is powerful? Does might make right in your ethical viewpoint?

The probability of the universe coming into existence purely by what is called "natural processes" is astronomical.

A most curious statement. Usually, statistical statements require a sample space. Our sample space for the Universe is exactly one. I wonder how you calculate your probability.

If we stay with the same delineation, Statistical Probability, the probability of Jesus NOT being the Christ is astronomical. The Bible foretold the year he was born. Where he would be born. Who he would be born to. What his lineage would be. What he would do.If I told you to get a hold of Mike Smith, it would be a pretty tough task. But if I told you Mike Smith lives in America,in the sate of CT.in Litchfield County, in the town of Torrington, on B street, you would be pretty sure you had the Mike Smith you were looking for.That is what the Bible does with Christ. It leaves us with no doubt, of who he is, what he has done, and what he is going to do.

I could be very accurate in predicting facts about Mike Smith if

a) I am allowed to make them up
or
b) I write after the fact.

The NT authors were guilty of both these ploys. THe Matthew and Luke gospels give conflicting tales of the birth of Jesus ( Location of family home, date of birth, name of grandfather, actions after birth, to name just a few)

However, there was one quite clear prediction that Jesus made:

“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.â€
29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Did not happen

Regards,
Physicist

 

[Packrat]

Read on both sides of the debate.

Learn about how to think critically and not be swayed by fallacious arguments (we have terms like "wishful thinking" and "self deception" for good reasons).

Agreed. I did quite a bit of online debating with atheists. Many times I nearly lost my faith. Through it all I had my moments of despair and my moments of triumph. I've never read any books on the matter and only have my own experience and knowledge to go on. In the end I learned 1. atheists who try to explain away the existence of a creator-God often rely upon the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis when they think they are reliant upon the Theory of Evolution (in other words, they base their lack of faith on an educated guess at best), 2. whatever belief system makes the most sense to me is the one I choose to follow. I believe in the merits of God's teaching as found in the Scriptures. I choose to reject the notion of the moon or sun or stars as being cognitive beings deserving of worship (paganism). I choose to reject the idea that life spontaneously arose in spite of a lack of sufficient evidence (atheism). I choose to reject the philosophical gymnastics and sometimes out-right deception of Buddhism. Believe me when I say I've studied different forms of Buddhism and some doctrines just come right out and say that previous forms of Buddhism were deception on the Buddha's part for the sake of all creatures' expedient enlightenment (even though it is accepted as fact that every creature is guaranteed enlightenment somewhere down the road, thus rendering the Buddha's deception fundamentally unnecessary; and who would believe in a belief system that admits to deception?).

Christianity is one of the oldest religions, most well-explained, most sensible once studied and is what I've been raised in more or less. If no other belief system can compete with it and even if they are on level ground with it, then why would I change my beliefs? An important point to remember also is that one can overcompensate for the truth when pursuing it (I found this to be true of myself). If you are skeptical of Christianity then you better well be skeptical of an opposing belief system if you want to find the truth. When you're searching for the truth let reason be your guide. All beliefs are fair game, but the only one truth will lead you to is Christ.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

You are confusing Atheism with Naturalism.

Naturalism is the idea that the world is explained through our observations and the rejection of the supernatural, while Atheism is just the rejection of theistic doctorine.

I would sugest you sit down and read literature from both sides of the isle and do as AAA said and learn how to spot mental traps.


I'm guessing the Buhhdism you are talking about, "deception", sound like an oxymoron since all pantheistic religions don't even acknowledge the idea of deception or dualisms in spiritual forms. So I think you might be talking about the sect that actually worships the buhhda, wich is also a big no no, since the Buhhda himself told others not to worship him and to try and reach their own enlightenment and possbly wait for the next avitar ( wich possibly could have been Jesus).

 

[Packrat]

You are confusing Atheism with Naturalism.

Not at all, Lance. I'm saying that Naturalistic Atheists are confusing the Theory of Evolution with the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis. And it is Abiogenesis that many of them use to discredit the need for a creator-God and perpetuate their lack of faith. Not a very firm foundation in my opinion though.

I would sugest you sit down and read literature from both sides of the isle and do as AAA said and learn how to spot mental traps.

If that was directed at me I'd like to assure you that I have extensive participation points when it comes to online debating with other atheists - many who already had read this literature as you suggest. I'd also like to point out that I have already read online literature from both atheistic sites and Christian sites.

I'm guessing the Buhhdism you are talking about, "deception", sound like an oxymoron since all pantheistic religions don't even acknowledge the idea of deception or dualisms in spiritual forms.

I'm not familiar with the idea that Buddhism is a religion. It's more of a philosophy which can include religions or pantheons of gods but is not a religion per se. I am however very familiar with the idea that there are seemingly numerous oxymorons in Buddhism (since, it is argued by some that enlightenment cannot be attained through words; hence all of the meditation practices). There are also many sects of Buddhism which teach different things. When I spoke of the doctrine of Buddhism that taught that past sects were deception on the part of the Buddha I may have been talking about Mahayana Buddhism. I had a debate with my Buddhist Professor on the issue since I originally thought that the Buddha was portrayed as out-right lying. He later corrected me, saying that the Buddha was only deceiving for the sake of all creatures' enlightenment through "expedient means." The Buddha was "dangling the proverbial carrot" in front of their eyes to keep them on the right path when in reality if they knew the truth of enlightenment they would probably've given up in this life time. However, all creatures are guaranteed enlightenment (regardless of what sect you follow), so the proverbial carrot is unnecessary and did in fact end up to be deception. Interestingly enough later sects of Buddhism use this same "carrot" excuse or at least something similar to explain the validity and superiority of their doctrines over those of previous sects'.

 

[Packrat]

http://godisimaginary.com/i3.htm "Proof #3 - Look at historical gods"

and http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm "Proof #7 - Understanding religious delusion"

Can anyone respond to these thoughts?

Me! Me! Well, the article isn't anything really new. To be candid, it actually almost made me laugh. :D Concerning their Proof #3:

1. I don't discount belief in a god because it isn't worshipped any more but rather because belief in it is not as logical as the one true God. See Pastafarianism on this point.
2. I've read the atheists' articles about God being an amalgam of previous gods and there is always some flaw in the story or in their reasoning. For example, there are two versions of Mithra; there is an Iranian version and a Roman version. The Iranian version appeared before Christ's apparent coming to this world and the Roman version appeared after. The Roman version is used to show that Christ is a copy of Mithra. However the Roman version of Mithra appeared after Christ. So who was a copy of whom? Some atheists will have you believe that Christianity has copied from nearly every religion on the planet. I'm not going to go through them all one-by-one unless someone here confronts me with them again.
3. A lot of the examples they use to discredit Christianity are based on the Catholic faith which I've never approved of. I don't believe in Christmas as being Christ's birthday. I don't believe in Sunday as being "the Lord's Day" or the Sabbath but rather Saturday (i.e. the Seventh Day as it was honored in the days of the Scriptures).

Concerning Proof #7:

1. My biological father was telling me Santa wasn't real even before I was born.
2. Santa's origins can be traced to a historical figure which did not exhibit such magical attributes.
3. In the end my belief in God and therefore his teachings is more logical, so I choose to reject Santa.
4. I have not researched Mormonism and cannot say anything for or against it. However, there have been DNA tests done on Native Americans and Jews which supposedly discount a common biological heritage.
5. I am not a Muslim. The Qur'an is incredibly difficult to read because of its apparent lack of a coherent continuity. I have, however, heard of a possible connection between Allah and a Syrian moon goddess. The fact that Muslims today use moon and star symbolism does nothing to persuade me from my skepticism.
6. The author didn't quite hit the nail on the head with regard to my beliefs concerning Christ and God. And I wouldn't call the dismissal of a belief system based on preconceived biases "see[ing] reality clearly."
7. As for Jesus' absence, an understanding of the ancient Jewish marriage ceremony will answer this. A man would present a woman with a cup of wine which symbolized his life's blood (Mark 14:23-24). If she drank from the cup they were married. The man would pay a bridal price - not to buy her but to show her how much he valued her at. The man would then leave his bride to prepare a place for her while she learned how to be a suitable bride in his absence (John 14:2). When the father of the groom had approved of the groom's preparations the groom would come to get his bride though she knew not when (Revelation 3:3).
8. There was a statistical analysis on http://www.GodandScience.org of the effectiveness of prayer. A friend of mine did some research not long ago on how to pray effectively. Keep in mind that no prayer apart from God's heart will be answered. Read James 4:3, 1 Peter 3:12, 1 John 5:14, 1 John 3:22, John 9:31, Psalm 34:15, Psalm 66:18, Proverbs 15:29 and Proverbs 28:29.
9. I have examined the contradictions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are some that appear to be contradictions such as the genealogy of Christ or how many days and nights Christ spent in the tomb, but the answers to these supposed problems become apparent once thorough study is done on the subject. As for any remaining accusations I have yet to solve concerning the Gospels I'm sure there are quite a few, but I wouldn't mind taking a shot at them.
10. The accusation that there is no physical evidence of Jesus' existence is completely wrong. I once did research into the historicity of Jesus and found archaelogical and anthropological evidence dating back as far as 20-50 years after his crucifixion and even implying an earlier date as well. Some of the supposed evidence appears to be fabrication (whether modern or ancient fabrication), but I do not include it in my assessment.
11. Unless you can predict an individual's behavior (such as God's) you cannot subject that behavior to statistical analysis as you can dumb, natural phenomena. And from what I've seen of their knowledge of God it is quite limited.
12. They assume my way of thought, quite probably based on their own, and therefore end up missing the mark completely. But I will give them this: I probably could provide answers to every one of their questions if they spent hours asking them. :D

 

[Physicist]

9. I have examined the contradictions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are some that appear to be contradictions such as the genealogy of Christ or how many days and nights Christ spent in the tomb, but the answers to these supposed problems become apparent once thorough study is done on the subject. As for any remaining accusations I have yet to solve concerning the Gospels I'm sure there are quite a few, but I wouldn't mind taking a shot at them.

Excuse my extraction of only this one point from your previous post but I would like to explore your argument here. You say you have reconciled the conflicting genealogies. I am curious how you achieved that. The only way I have seen people do it thus far involved using completely arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions that are only made to patch the discrepancies. For example, it is sometimes claimed that one or the other genealogy belongs to Mary although neither says Mary and both say Joseph. To see how arbitrary this assumption is, ask yourself if we had only one of the genealogies, would anybody say it was Mary, not Joseph? Also, this one arbitrary assumption by itself is not sufficient to reconcile the two lists as further difficulties arise with Zerrubabel's grandfather and further 'assuming' is required. Give me enough assumptions and any discrepancy can be patched.

 

[Packrat]

9. I have examined the contradictions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are some that appear to be contradictions such as the genealogy of Christ or how many days and nights Christ spent in the tomb, but the answers to these supposed problems become apparent once thorough study is done on the subject. As for any remaining accusations I have yet to solve concerning the Gospels I'm sure there are quite a few, but I wouldn't mind taking a shot at them.

Excuse my extraction of only this one point from your previous post but I would like to explore your argument here. You say you have reconciled the conflicting genealogies. I am curious how you achieved that. The only way I have seen people do it thus far involved using completely arbitrary assumptions, i.e. assumptions that are only made to patch the discrepancies. For example, it is sometimes claimed that one or the other genealogy belongs to Mary although neither says Mary and both say Joseph. To see how arbitrary this assumption is, ask yourself if we had only one of the genealogies, would anybody say it was Mary, not Joseph? Also, this one arbitrary assumption by itself is not sufficient to reconcile the two lists as further difficulties arise with Zerrubabel's grandfather and further 'assuming' is required. Give me enough assumptions and any discrepancy can be patched.

Hello, Physicist! I look forward to examining this point thoroughly with you. However, I am leaving on a short vacation for 10-15 days tomorrow. It will be some time before I can respond with a post worthy of your concerns. In the mean time I leave the floor open for anyone who believes they have found the correct answer. I'll enjoy reading any posts upon my return. Best of wishes to you all!

 

[Physicist]

Hello, Physicist! I look forward to examining this point thoroughly with you. However, I am leaving on a short vacation for 10-15 days tomorrow. It will be some time before I can respond with a post worthy of your concerns. In the mean time I leave the floor open for anyone who believes they have found the correct answer. I'll enjoy reading any posts upon my return. Best of wishes to you all!

Have a safe and fun vacation.

 

[francisdesales]

I've recently found religion again, and have been studying regularly. However, as I study, I do come across a lot of contradictions or road blocks. I have some things that I am unsure about, and because of this, my obsessiveness led me to explore Athiest viewpoints. I came across "50 proofs that God is imaginary", and some did make sense...

A few things that concerned me particularly were

http://godisimaginary.com/i3.htm "Proof #3 - Look at historical gods"

and http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm "Proof #7 - Understanding religious delusion"

Can anyone respond to these thoughts?
I am not trying to prove Christianity wrong, but in my mind, seeing the views of Athiesm, and learning of why they're incorrect will help build my faith. I am just extremely overwhelmed at this point and need guidance.

Another question I have is: If Jesus was actually God in the flesh, how did He sit at the right hand of God in heaven?

I would also appreciate any very informative sites regarding evolution vs creation, evidence of the great flood, etc.

Thank you so much. Responses are greatly appreciated, and I know I will come back with many questions, but it's not due to be being stubborn, but attempting to learn. Thank you.

ForeverTrue,

Your journey sounds like mine 10 years ago. God will open up windows for you as you explore both sides of the aisle, so to speak. I look back and find it amazing how God placed before me particular things I never would have read otherwise that began to open my eyes to the possibility that "yes, God loves me and sent His Son for my sake".

While keeping your mind open, I found the more I read the atheist points of view, the more I saw through the inherent problems they contained, (although they pretend their arguments are fool proof) and the more Christian arguments began to make sense and the "difficulties" fell away. The arguments became coherent and enticingly more true. It is difficult to explain the "AH HA" moments until you have them...

All I can add, I suppose, is to be consistent. There is no need to "raise the bar" to accept Christian beliefs while lowering the bar of "proof" required for material atheistic beliefs. Evolution is as much a leap of faith as, perhaps more than, believing that a man rose from the dead...

Regards

 

[Physicist]

All I can add, I suppose, is to be consistent. There is no need to "raise the bar" to accept Christian beliefs while lowering the bar of "proof" required for material atheistic beliefs. Evolution is as much a leap of faith as, perhaps more than, believing that a man rose from the dead...

Science operates on skepticism, not faith. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection to explain the observed phenomena of species evolution does not rest on blind belief. Rather, better than a century of careful scientific observation supports its predictions. The Resurrection, on the other hand, contradicts the every day observation that dead people stay dead, and hence requires a large leap of faith from the believer

 

[francisdesales]

All I can add, I suppose, is to be consistent. There is no need to "raise the bar" to accept Christian beliefs while lowering the bar of "proof" required for material atheistic beliefs. Evolution is as much a leap of faith as, perhaps more than, believing that a man rose from the dead...

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection to explain the observed phenomena of species evolution does not rest on blind belief.

Who said anything about "blind"?

NO ONE has observed single cell creatures decide to form into an unrelated mammal, directly or indirectly. It is all based upon presumption. As such, it is indeed a leap of faith.

Rather, better than a century of careful scientific observation supports its predictions. The Resurrection, on the other hand, contradicts the every day observation that dead people stay dead, and hence requires a large leap of faith from the believer

Many unique things contradict "every day" observations, like the Saints going to a Super Bowl... This is no way to logically approach a unique happening.

Modern science has nothing to say about such things because they were not on the scene, can take no measurements, observe nothing about it. But human knowledge transcends "modern science". Modern science is not the only means by which humans can know something. Thus, your argument is spurious.

Regards

 

[azlan88]

If I may jump in and offer a word of advice, only reading the Bible will strengthen your faith and broaden your horizons, for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." So you can't have faith nor hear the truth if you don't read the Scriptures! Also, Peter said in 1 Peter 3:15 to "always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is in you." Studying history helps, but I cannot stress this enough that you must read the Scriptures, for the Word of God is "a lamp unto your feet and a light unto your path."(Psalm 119:105). Jesus Himself said, "I am the light of the world. He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."(John 8:12) That's all I have to say.

 

[HEV_tux]

as a long time athiest looking for religion i think when it really comes down to it, religion is about faith not logic. If you truely feel a religion is real then that is the religion for you.

For example the In the bible jesus christ preforms miracles that Logic and Science says is imposible, but to some people faith is a step above logic and therefore they can overlook it. If you look for the most logical religion you are somewhat missing the point.

I am no religious genius, just offering my two cents.

 

[Physicist]

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection to explain the observed phenomena of species evolution does not rest on blind belief.

Who said anything about "blind"?

NO ONE has observed single cell creatures decide to form into an unrelated mammal, directly or indirectly. It is all based upon presumption. As such, it is indeed a leap of faith.

While I don't wish to be critical, the above statement shows lack of understanding of modern biology. The argument from ignorance ("I don't understand it. Therefore it is wrong.") is a fallacious argument. Cells don't 'decide' anything. Evolution, i.e., e change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation, is a well established scientific fact. It was recognized even before Darwin. The brilliance of his Theory was explaining this evolution. As in any theory. it made predictions which were then tested. For example, we should not find rabbit bones in the same geological strata as trilobyte fossils; and we don't. Human DNA should be more closely related to apes than lemurs, and it is. There are literally thousands of such examples. You may choose to reject his Theory for religious reasons but recognize that by doing so you have placed yourself in the scientifically illiterate camp with such fellow-travelers as the Flat-earth Society.

Rather, better than a century of careful scientific observation supports its predictions. The Resurrection, on the other hand, contradicts the every day observation that dead people stay dead, and hence requires a large leap of faith from the believer

Many unique things contradict "every day" observations, like the Saints going to a Super Bowl... This is no way to logically approach a unique happening.

Modern science has nothing to say about such things because they were not on the scene, can take no measurements, observe nothing about it. But human knowledge transcends "modern science". Modern science is not the only means by which humans can know something. Thus, your argument is spurious.

Regards

While close to meeting my definition of miracle, the Saints playing in the Superbowl does not violate any Natural Law (Winning might ;))

Science does have a say in past events because all the evidence we have indicates that basic physical characteristics are not time dependent. Light at a specific frequency emitted billions of years ago from a distant galaxy behaves exactly like light of that frequency emitted from the sun a few minutes ago. If this were not the case, energy would not be conserved and all our measurements show that it is.

All our observations shows that dead people stay dead. However, there have been many 'claims' of dead people coming back to life, usually connected with religious belief. Such claims are faith-based, not fact-based.

 

[Drew]

While I don't wish to be critical, the above statement shows lack of understanding of modern biology. The argument from ignorance ("I don't understand it. Therefore it is wrong.") is a fallacious argument. Cells don't 'decide' anything. Evolution, i.e., e change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation, is a well established scientific fact. It was recognized even before Darwin. The brilliance of his Theory was explaining this evolution. As in any theory. it made predictions which were then tested. For example, we should not find rabbit bones in the same geological strata as trilobyte fossils; and we don't. Human DNA should be more closely related to apes than lemurs, and it is. There are literally thousands of such examples. You may choose to reject his Theory for religious reasons but recognize that by doing so you have placed yourself in the scientifically illiterate camp with such fellow-travelers as the Flat-earth Society.

I think that many of us would agree that the "facts" are consistent with the theory of evolution. And let me nuance this a bit - the facts are consistent with "unguided evolution". But I suggest that the facts are also consistent with a "guided" evolution model - a model where some agency is "directing" things. So there is a sense in which deciding to go with either one involves a measure of faith Just to spare you the time, I am aware of Occam's razor. And I am also prepared to argue that, in spite of the naive and often fallacious way some fundamentalists will argue the point, there is no inconsistency at all with incorporating "divine design" into a scientific description of the world.