Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists

[Dusky Mouse]

Since we're not speaking Greek, that's a nice bit of irrelevant trivia.

When you can't conduct a decent conversation without insulting rhetoric, you lose.

Good luck Blunder.

 

[KWCrazy]

I see that you have deleted sections of my post to alter its intent.

False. Only mods can delete sections of your post. I reproduced what I chose to comment on. It is not a requirement of this or any other website that I know of to reproduce every word of any post on which we comment.

I find that to be intellectually dishonest, but not unexpected.

I find your false accusation to be in poor taste, and not unexpected.

Putting words in my mouth? More intellectual dishonesty?

Another false accusation. The words I posted were all your own.

I said, I don't "reject God", I reject your claims for the existence of deities being anything more than characters in books. I also reject the claims of the existence of large primates known as "Sasquatch" that are similarly unsubstantiated.

I responded to the relevant statement. We are not discussing Sasquatch. You don't have encounters with Sasquatch dating back to the first days of mankind and you don't have the indwelling of the holy Sasquatch spirit with people who have accepted Sasquatch as their lord and savior. It was a useless comparison. You talk about characters in books like it discredits their existence, so I reminded you that books are often written about real people and real events. You seem to have difficulty accepting that.

Part of the reason that it's hard to have a debate between atheists and YEC's is that atheists are in many cases rude, condescending and ignorant. The biggest argument you have against the existence of God is your own incredulity. As I pointed out, however, twice as many people have experienced miracles as there are atheists. For all your pretentious self aggrandizing you're still a small minority.

Some people believe them to be of extraterrestrial origin, and have actually contacted humans. Do you deny their claims?

This isn't a UFO forum. Without examining their claims I couldn't give an opinion on any specific incidence. In regards to extra-terrestrial life, The probability of life originating on this planet and not on any other in the absence of a God is statistically zero. If life can arise on this planet without God then it can arise on any planet of a similar composition without God. Thus, if there is NOT life outside of this planet, it completely invalidates your contention that there is no God. If there is, then you have to admit there are things we simply do not know about even our closest celestial neighbors. I have seen nothing in the Scriptures to validate or invalidate our exclusivity. Further, I have seen nothing which indicates conclusively that God stopped creating life after Genesis 1.

I asked, is there one - just one - biologist that can provide testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of their particular deity?

Has the definition of biology been re-written to include the study of the Creator? If so, it's changed since I was in school. Science is the study of the natural world around us. By definition, God would be outside the natural world and outside of what could be validated or invalidated through science. Expecting a biologist to have definitive proof one way or the other is like asking a pastry chef for a detailed manual on underwater welding. It quite simply is a nonsensical inquiry.

I am not looking for other people who may be deceived, or self-deceived.

You're not looking for anything but validation of what you've already chosen to believe. There's no way you would ever accept my challenge because you're scared to death of what you might discover. On the other hand, I know that anyone who has spent years sharing the Lord's word has had more than one contact with evil forces that want to shut him down. You talk about self-deception while being its perfect living example. If you had the courage of your own convictions you would accept my challenge and go prove to the clergymen the folly of their own misguided beliefs.

I asked, how does one tell the difference between accepting the existence of deities and an exercise in self-deception? Something scientific.
As you deleted from my post, I am not asking for conclusive proof, just something testable, falsifiable. You deleted this line since you don't have anything, do you?

No, I deleted it because it was stupid. You want physical proof of a supernatural entity? It's not happening. Do you want something testable? Lots of people have experimented with Ouija boards and have had some very real, very terrifying results. of course, once you open those doors they are very hard to close. The Bible warns against necromancy because it defiles you, but you're more likely to get physical contact from a demon than an angel. Even then, though, it's not a given. The greatest trick the devil ever did was to convince the world he didn't exist. Why should he reveal himself to you when you're already serving him unaware?

Of course, you could also try the other avenue. You could attend a good church, seek the forgiveness of Christ for your failings, and ask the Holy Spirit to come into your life. You could actually find your truth that way. You can't find God in a telescope.

The straw man is in telling others what they think, that "An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God".

That's what the word means. A person who doesn't know is an agnostic. Atheist means literally "No God."

I know I cannot say there is no "God", for I would first have to define what I mean by "God".

And yet, you're here saying there is no God; only self deluded people who believe in fictional characters in books of mythology.

I know *you* can't even do that. Not in any way that would be of significance.

So you already know what I can and can't do in defining God? Amazing ability you have there.

I don't need to. I am not the one claiming to know. You, however, must suspect that you cannot demonstrate your "knowledge", as you deleted from my post, "It boils down to the fact that [theists] have no argument but their own incredulity." Does that sum up your position?

Do you REALLY think it's necessary to repeat every word of a post to respond to it? Seriously, I didn't need to cite a single quote to make my points.

Atheists are like a rat that knows every inch of his cage and believes he therefore knows everything about the world around him. The fact is that the study of the physical world around us can't tell us anything about the non-physical world. If God was standing in front of you your camera couldn't record Him. Since He doesn't reveal Himself to the unsaved, your eyes could not perceive Him. You would continue to believe that He didn't exist even though He stood right in front of you. That's why people having eyes could not see and having ears would not hear. You're asking for something you're unworthy to receive. If God proved Himself to you that would take away the ability to have faith, since faith is believe in things unproven. Without that provision of faith, you would be hopelessly damned. That's how it works. You're demanding proof of God and thinking somehow when others don't provide it that it's because it doesn't exist. We aren't meant to have proof, we're meant to have faith. Your proof will come when you stand before Him. If faith comes first, then you will have eternal life. If not, then you will have eternal damnation. That's how it works, like it or not.

Your claims of young age, gap age, or last Thursdayism are without scientific significance. Amirite?
[/COLOR]
Do not put words in my mouth. I asked a hypothetical question: Did your god make the universe to appear scientifically to be billions of years old as some sort of validation test for a particular interpretation of a book for a particular religion?
There are Christians that accept the theory of evolution, and of life first appearing on this planet billions of years ago. They think you are wrong.
Yep.

Can you not even change their opinion?

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. If their mind isn't open you can't change their opinions. I WILL say that I've asked many, many times for any of them to provide Scriptural passages to support their position. So far, nobody has ever been able to do so. This tells me their beliefs are not Scriptural.

Partially validated?

Yes

What part do you accept? Gravitational theory? Atomic theory? Germ theory? Or do you think demons cause disease?

Amazingly, you did the exact thing you accuse me of. I said, "So now God is responsible for you rejecting His explanation of how He created the world in favor of some partially validated and still largely impossible theory of auto-origination?" None of the things you mentioned deal with the auto-origination of the universe. Do you know what auto-origination is? Do you even understand what I said?

 

[KWCrazy]

The book doesn't contradict itself. Some passages may seem to, but when properly studied in context these apparent contradictions actually validate each other. I'm sure there are sermons on Youtube that discuss this. You can find some answers here. As for what we supposedly know about the world, we know that matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy so the universe is decaying or winding down. That means it is finite and will have an end. We know that matter/ energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. That means that the universe had to come from some form of energy. It could not create itself. We further know that in the total absence of heat we have absolute zero; a temperature at which there is no activity. Knowing this, we know that whatever the origin of the universe, it did NOT come about in accordance with natural law. Therefore, there is no way of knowing how old it is and no way of contradicting the description in Genesis where God creates a mature planet.

"If there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence." - Bertrand Russell

John 3:
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

The statement of that claim as 'fact' is extremely dubious.

Have YOU sought Him? By that I mean, have you prayed for Jesus to come into your life, and for the Holy Spirit to reveal itself to you? Jesus said 'Seek and you shall find." Atheists deny the very existence of God, so obviously they never sought Him. They may have gone to church three times a week for their entire life, but if they never accepted Christ as their savior and dedicated their lives to His service then they've never truly sought Him. When a person says they once knew God and then says there is no God, we know he isn't telling the truth. He may believe there is no God, but that proves he never knew Him.

And where did the Creator come from? Presumably you will say something along the lines of "He was always there - he is eternal." If that is an acceptable answer to you, then why is the notion of a necessary universe so implausible to you?

Anyone who ever got past seventh grade science knows that matter is not and cannot be eternal. All things in the natural world are subject to natural law. God is not a part of the natural world, and therefore is NOT subject to natural law. Things like eternity and infinity are difficult for us humans to fathom because our minds are finite. It's not required that we understand eternity, however, just that we have faith in it.

It's interesting that you should say God possesses energy. Could you elaborate on that? Did God not create energy? Was it always there?

In the physical world, all energy is in a constant state of decay to a lesser form of heat energy. These physical laws do not apply to the supernatural. God is said to be omnipotent, which means that His energy is boundless. Everything that exists came from Him. Heaven and the angels are also part of His creation. In time the physical world will pass away. However, the kingdom of Heaven will never pass away.

There is a third possibility, one that you refuse to even consider: that someone once believed they shared a personal communion with a deity but, following further thought, has come to understand that was probably not the case.

Actually, I addressed this. I said, "Saying they thought they knew of a guy named Ned isn't the same as saying they once had a personal relationship with him. That's not the case. Some "Atheists" are stating that they were once believers who had a personal relationship with God and now know for a fact He doesn't exist. There are no probably's in atheism. Atheism means absolutely no God; no deity. "Probably" means agnosticism.

Your incredulity at my former faith is no reason to presume that I am being dishonest.

There is no way you could have been in fellowship with God and now proclaim He doesn't exist. If you never experienced the Holy Spirit than you were never a Christian regardless of what you called yourself. Maybe you mouth proclaimed something your heart refused to believe. Having actually experience the Holy Spirit, you could become anything else but an atheist. You might even grow bitter and hate God, but you'd always know He existed. Either you never knew Him or you're lying to yourself about Him not existing now. God didn't go anywhere. If He was real at one time, He's still real.

 

[Davian]

False. Only mods can delete sections of your post. I reproduced what I chose to comment on. It is not a requirement of this or any other website that I know of to reproduce every word of any post on which we comment.

Perhaps I am more accustomed to discussion boards where it is a courtesy to admit where you cannot or do not want to answer a question, and or note where the deletions have taken place. In the context of this discussion, I will presume that you will delete what you cannot answer or feel uncomfortable answering. Govern yourself accordingly.

I find your false accusation to be in poor taste, and not unexpected.

If the accusation fits, so be it.

Another false accusation. The words I posted were all your own.

Just not in the order I had them, with other words added and some taken away.

I responded to the relevant statement. We are not discussing Sasquatch. You don't have encounters with Sasquatch dating back to the first days of mankind and you don't have the indwelling of the holy Sasquatch spirit with people who have accepted Sasquatch as their lord and savior. It was a useless comparison. You talk about characters in books like it discredits their existence, so I reminded you that books are often written about real people and real events. You seem to have difficulty accepting that.

That is not what I said. I said, I reject your claims for the existence of deities being anything more than characters in books. Do I need to type slower?

Part of the reason that it's hard to have a debate between atheists and YEC's is that atheists are in many cases rude, condescending and ignorant.

If I am ever rude, condescending, or show ignorance, please call me on it. I will do the same for you.

The biggest argument you have against the existence of God is your own incredulity.

No, the biggest argument I have about deities being anything more than characters in books is the inability of theists such as yourself to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

As I pointed out, however, twice as many people have experienced miracles as there are atheists.

Name one, and how the veracity of their "miracle" was confirmed.

For all your pretentious self aggrandizing you're still a small minority.

Argument from popularity. A fallacious argument.

This isn't a UFO forum. Without examining their claims I couldn't give an opinion on any specific incidence. In regards to extra-terrestrial life, The probability of life originating on this planet and not on any other in the absence of a God is statistically zero. If life can arise on this planet without God then it can arise on any planet of a similar composition without God. Thus, if there is NOT life outside of this planet, it completely invalidates your contention that there is no God. If there is, then you have to admit there are things we simply do not know about even our closest celestial neighbors. I have seen nothing in the Scriptures to validate or invalidate our exclusivity. Further, I have seen nothing which indicates conclusively that God stopped creating life after Genesis 1.

How did you establish that probability? Show your math, or retract.

Has the definition of biology been re-written to include the study of the Creator? If so, it's changed since I was in school. Science is the study of the natural world around us. By definition, God would be outside the natural world and outside of what could be validated or invalidated through science. Expecting a biologist to have definitive proof one way or the other is like asking a pastry chef for a detailed manual on underwater welding. It quite simply is a nonsensical inquiry.

Then what you said "A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago." is a nonsensical statement.

You're not looking for anything but validation of what you've already chosen to believe. There's no way you would ever accept my challenge because you're scared to death of what you might discover.

No, I am just no going to be sent on a snipe hunt, thanks.

On the other hand, I know that anyone who has spent years sharing the Lord's word has had more than one contact with evil forces that want to shut him down.

Evil forces? Do they come from the evil empire? lol.

You talk about self-deception while being its perfect living example. If you had the courage of your own convictions you would accept my challenge and go prove to the clergymen the folly of their own misguided beliefs.

If they want that to happen they will have to come here.

No, I deleted it because it was stupid. You want physical proof of a supernatural entity? It's not happening.

To repeat, I am not asking for conclusive proof, just something testable, falsifiable. Not even for your particular god. How about something "supernatural"? Ghosts, perhaps? Demons? A small demon?

Do you want something testable? Lots of people have experimented with Ouija boards and have had some very real, very terrifying results.

Kids can scare themselves. That they are scared is real. That the Ouija board is anything more than a demonstration of the ideomotor response has not been established.

of course, once you open those doors they are very hard to close.

I know, I just cannot get my kids to clean up their closets.

The Bible warns against necromancy because it defiles you, but you're more likely to get physical contact from a demon than an angel.

It is pretty hard to communicate with the dead because, well, they are dead.

Even then, though, it's not a given. The greatest trick the devil ever did was to convince the world he didn't exist. Why should he reveal himself to you when you're already serving him unaware?

What have I been serving him? Where?

Of course, you could also try the other avenue. You could attend a good church, seek the forgiveness of Christ for your failings, and ask the Holy Spirit to come into your life. You could actually find your truth that way. You can't find God in a telescope.

I am looking to explore reality, not discover religion. Thanks.

That's what the word means. A person who doesn't know is an agnostic. Atheist means literally "No God."

No, the definition of words is established in the way we use it. Definitions are descriptive, not proscriptive.

And yet, you're here saying there is no God;

Where did I say that?

only self deluded people who believe in fictional characters in books of mythology.

Do you not think that applies to everyone that believes in gods other than yours? I just think it is a bit more widespread.

So you already know what I can and can't do in defining God? Amazing ability you have there.

If you had something of significance, you would not have to resort to apologetics, would you? We would be down to one religion in no time at all.

Do you REALLY think it's necessary to repeat every word of a post to respond to it? Seriously, I didn't need to cite a single quote to make my points.

Seriously, it looks like evasion of my points that you are uncomfortable addressing.

Atheists are like a rat that knows every inch of his cage

Insults. Do you find that those add weight to your arguments? Is that a Christian thing?

and believes he therefore knows everything about the world around him.

I have never made such a statement, as it would not apply to me.

It would be you that claims to know the "truth", is it not?

The fact is that the study of the physical world around us can't tell us anything about the non-physical world.

Or the non-existent world.

If God was standing in front of you your camera couldn't record Him.

Camera do not record what is not there, in my experience.

Since He doesn't reveal Himself to the unsaved, your eyes could not perceive Him.

Hiding? That sneaky god of yours! But you can see him? What does he look like? What's he wearing right now? Can other people see him too, or just you?

You would continue to believe that He didn't exist even though He stood right in front of you.

So he is invisible? funny you should mention that. We were just discussing Bigfoot in the Physical Sciece forum, and how it compares to gods, and why they are so hard to find:

The reason cryptozoologists have been unable to find robust evidence of Bigfoot is because Bigfoot have the ability to become invisible.

"Invisibility of Bigfoot has been known about since at least the 60′s. People who know about, do not become Bigfoot researchers because they are pretty sure it is a waste of time trying to study something that is invisible most of the time. People who do not know about it, may become Bigfoot researchers because they do not know what they are up against. So the law of natural selection weeds out those who know about Bigfoot invisibility in the ranks of researchers. Sali Sheppard Wolford’s book “Valley of the Skookum”, clearly describes Bigfoot invisibility"

Cryptomundo » Invisible Bigfoot?

I'm sure you could smell them though.

That's why people having eyes could not see and having ears would not hear.

Or, deities are simply products of the imagination. That would explain why they cannot be seen or heard, unless you already think you can see and hear them. Circular reasoning, and all that.

Do you hear voices?

You're asking for something you're unworthy to receive.

Why does it appear more like I am asking for something that is beyond your ability to provide?

If God proved Himself to you that would take away the ability to have faith, since faith is believe in things unproven.

I am not asking for proof.

Without that provision of faith, you would be hopelessly damned.

Without that provision of faith, religion as we know it would be gone in a generation. Just think of that.

That's how it works. You're demanding proof of God and thinking somehow when others don't provide it that it's because it doesn't exist.

I am not demanding proof.

I am asking for more than something that looks like an exercise in self-deception.

We aren't meant to have proof, we're meant to have faith.

I am not asking for proof.

So why do you not have faith in all of those other gods out there? How do you sort them out if you have no proof or evidence?

Your proof will come when you stand before Him. If faith comes first, then you will have eternal life. If not, then you will have eternal damnation. That's how it works, like it or not.

Would you accept a scientific explanation for abiogenesis, under the provision that you would get to see the evidence only after you die?

Your claims of young age, gap age, or last Thursdayism are without scientific significance. Amirite?

Do not put words in my mouth. I asked a hypothetical question: Did your god make the universe to appear scientifically to be billions of years old as some sort of validation test for a particular interpretation of a book for a particular religion?

There are Christians that accept the theory of evolution, and of life first appearing on this planet billions of years ago. They think you are wrong.

Yep.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. If their mind isn't open you can't change their opinions. I WILL say that I've asked many, many times for any of them to provide Scriptural passages to support their position. So far, nobody has ever been able to do so. This tells me their beliefs are not Scriptural.

So they are not scriptural. So what? The bible is not evidence.

Yes

Amazingly, you did the exact thing you accuse me of. I said, "So now God is responsible for you rejecting His explanation of how He created the world in favor of some partially validated and still largely impossible theory of auto-origination?" None of the things you mentioned deal with the auto-origination of the universe. Do you know what auto-origination is? Do you even understand what I said?

Funny, after your edits, I don't even recognize the post that you are responding to. Whether intentional or not, it looks like you have tried a bait-and-switch on this one.

You said "So now God is responsible for you rejecting His explanation of how He created the world"
(my bold)

Are you speaking of the world around us, the instantiation of the cosmos, or the origin of the universe?

As I asked before, do you have anything that might establish gods as more that just characters in books?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The book doesn't contradict itself. Some passages may seem to, but when properly studied in context these apparent contradictions actually validate each other. I'm sure there are sermons on Youtube that discuss this. You can find some answers here.

I'm sure there are many internet apologists eager to make excuses for those aspects of the Bible that, when read literally, are demonstrably contradictory or even absurd. The concept of an inerrant Bible is difficult to uphold in the face of it. That's why, even as a Christian, I long ago abandoned the idea that the Bible was "perfect", both at the point of writing and at the point of reading. No book, even one that is ostensibly divinely inspired, could attain that standard of perfection. That's why we have hermeneutics.

As for what we supposedly know about the world, we know that matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy so the universe is decaying or winding down. That means it is finite and will have an end. We know that matter/ energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. That means that the universe had to come from some form of energy. It could not create itself. We further know that in the total absence of heat we have absolute zero; a temperature at which there is no activity. Knowing this, we know that whatever the origin of the universe, it did NOT come about in accordance with natural law. Therefore, there is no way of knowing how old it is and no way of contradicting the description in Genesis where God creates a mature planet.

The statement in bold does not accord with the concept of a deity creating matter, energy, space and time ex nihilo.

John 3:
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

I think Russell's aphorism was infinitely wiser.

Have YOU sought Him? By that I mean, have you prayed for Jesus to come into your life, and for the Holy Spirit to reveal itself to you?

Yes.

Jesus said 'Seek and you shall find." Atheists deny the very existence of God, so obviously they never sought Him.

You're wrong about that.

They may have gone to church three times a week for their entire life, but if they never accepted Christ as their savior and dedicated their lives to His service then they've never truly sought Him.

I went to Church weekly and made an effort to pray daily.

When a person says they once knew God and then says there is no God, we know he isn't telling the truth. He may believe there is no God, but that proves he never knew Him.

I've already enumerated another possibility for you, yet you continue to insist that I must fit somewhere in your false dichotomy.

Anyone who ever got past seventh grade science knows that matter is not and cannot be eternal. All things in the natural world are subject to natural law. God is not a part of the natural world, and therefore is NOT subject to natural law. Things like eternity and infinity are difficult for us humans to fathom because our minds are finite. It's not required that we understand eternity, however, just that we have faith in it.

In the physical world, all energy is in a constant state of decay to a lesser form of heat energy. These physical laws do not apply to the supernatural. God is said to be omnipotent, which means that His energy is boundless. Everything that exists came from Him. Heaven and the angels are also part of His creation. In time the physical world will pass away. However, the kingdom of Heaven will never pass away.

Where did EVERYTHING come from? - YouTube

Actually, I addressed this. I said, "Saying they thought they knew of a guy named Ned isn't the same as saying they once had a personal relationship with him. That's not the case. Some "Atheists" are stating that they were once believers who had a personal relationship with God and now know for a fact He doesn't exist. There are no probably's in atheism. Atheism means absolutely no God; no deity. "Probably" means agnosticism.

I've already explained this point to you. I'm an agnostic atheist:

There is no way you could have been in fellowship with God and now proclaim He doesn't exist. If you never experienced the Holy Spirit than you were never a Christian regardless of what you called yourself. Maybe you mouth proclaimed something your heart refused to believe. Having actually experience the Holy Spirit, you could become anything else but an atheist. You might even grow bitter and hate God, but you'd always know He existed. Either you never knew Him or you're lying to yourself about Him not existing now. God didn't go anywhere. If He was real at one time, He's still real.

Once again, I've already explained this point to you, several times now. Biggles captured it well:

In short, then there is indeed another 'option'.....A person may have believed that they were once in communion with a god, but then come to the realisation, through reasoned thinking, that such was probably not the case. It does not mean that they were any less fervent in that belief than you might be, while they held it......!

That you cannot bring yourself to accept that a person could no longer be a Christian does not mean that they were not once a Christian. I was a Christian, and I take umbrage at you casting aspersions on my character by claiming that I am lying. What's worse is that you pull the "No True Christian" line in an effort to quietly comfort yourself with the soothing thought that you are a true Christian. As if that thought never occurred to us "false" former Christians!

 

[KCfromNC]

When you can't conduct a decent conversation without insulting rhetoric, you lose.

Good luck Blunder.

If you need some time to come up with any sort of constructive response I'll be happy to wait.

 

[KWCrazy]

The statement in bold does not accord with the concept of a deity creating matter, energy, space and time ex nihilo.
My statement was made in regards to physical laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Such laws do not apply to God because by definition He is outside of natural law. Matter cannot be created. God created matter. We call those violations of natural law "miracles." There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible; each of them in defiance of at least one natural law. The fact that matter cannot be created by natural means is a validation that the creation of matter happened via supernatural means. It is not conclusive proof.

I went to Church weekly and made an effort to pray daily.

But were you saved? Going to church and seeking God aren't exactly the same thing, just as losing one's faith and being absolutely convinced that there is no God aren't the same thing. One cannot logically have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and later assert that there is no such being. Either you never knew God, or you're simply denying His existence now. If you WERE saved then you know in your heart that atheism is a big lie.

I've already enumerated another possibility for you, yet you continue to insist that I must fit somewhere in your false dichotomy.

It isn't possible to deny the existence of someone you once knew without being dishonest about the prior knowledge or the denial. It's a contradiction in logic. It's like me saying that my first wife never existed. While I might WISH that were the case, I can't change the fact that since I once knew her she had to exist.

I've already explained this point to you. I'm an agnostic atheist:

Qualified atheism isn't atheism. You're an agnostic. Atheists know there is no God. Theists know there is a God. Agnostics are at some point in between. You can call it what you like, but if you are not convinced that there is no God you aren't an atheist. That's a good thing, though. It means there's still hope for you. Agnostics at either end of the spectrum haven't acquired enough information. As Jesus said, seek and you will find. You just have to seek honestly.

That you cannot bring yourself to accept that a person could no longer be a Christian does not mean that they were not once a Christian.

We aren't talking about a religious affiliation, we're discussing the logical position of saying that you once knew God and now you know He doesn't exists. Many people practice Christianity without actually being saved. Many people accept the salvation of Christ without ever joining any particular denomination. Going to church neither condemns you nor saves you from condemnation. Neither does church attendance guarantee your personal knowledge of the Creator.

I was a Christian, and I take umbrage at you casting aspersions on my character by claiming that I am lying.

Nobody's talking about your character. This is a philosophical discussion about a position that you are taking which is logically unsound. It's like me claiming that my first wife doesn't exist. Either she never existed and I was mistaken about knowing her or she does exist and I'm not being honest with myself. I can't say I was married to her and now she doesn't exist any more than you can say you were "of Christ" and now Christ doesn't exist. It's a logical inconsistency.

What's worse is that you pull the "No True Christian" line in an effort to quietly comfort yourself with the soothing thought that you are a true Christian.

False allegation. If you were a true Christian then you experienced the presence of God. If you experienced the presence of God, then you know He is real. You can't say a God you know is real doesn't exist. You can renounce your former faith, but refusing to serve God is not the same as claiming He doesn't exist when you know first-hand that he does. Again, regardless of what your personal relationship was, you're claiming a logical inconsistency and this is a philosophical debate.

 

[bhsmte]

The statement in bold does not accord with the concept of a deity creating matter, energy, space and time ex nihilo.
My statement was made in regards to physical laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Such laws do not apply to God because by definition He is outside of natural law. Matter cannot be created. God created matter. We call those violations of natural law "miracles." There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible; each of them in defiance of at least one natural law. The fact that matter cannot be created by natural means is a validation that the creation of matter happened via supernatural means. It is not conclusive proof.

But were you saved? Going to church and seeking God aren't exactly the same thing, just as losing one's faith and being absolutely convinced that there is no God aren't the same thing. One cannot logically have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and later assert that there is no such being. Either you never knew God, or you're simply denying His existence now. If you WERE saved then you know in your heart that atheism is a big lie.

It isn't possible to deny the existence of someone you once knew without being dishonest about the prior knowledge or the denial. It's a contradiction in logic. It's like me saying that my first wife never existed. While I might WISH that were the case, I can't change the fact that since I once knew her she had to exist.

Qualified atheism isn't atheism. You're an agnostic. Atheists know there is no God. Theists know there is a God. Agnostics are at some point in between. You can call it what you like, but if you are not convinced that there is no God you aren't an atheist. That's a good thing, though. It means there's still hope for you. Agnostics at either end of the spectrum haven't acquired enough information. As Jesus said, seek and you will find. You just have to seek honestly.

We aren't talking about a religious affiliation, we're discussing the logical position of saying that you once knew God and now you know He doesn't exists. Many people practice Christianity without actually being saved. Many people accept the salvation of Christ without ever joining any particular denomination. Going to church neither condemns you nor saves you from condemnation. Neither does church attendance guarantee your personal knowledge of the Creator.

Nobody's talking about your character. This is a philosophical discussion about a position that you are taking which is logically unsound. It's like me claiming that my first wife doesn't exist. Either she never existed and I was mistaken about knowing her or she does exist and I'm not being honest with myself. I can't say I was married to her and now she doesn't exist any more than you can say you were "of Christ" and now Christ doesn't exist. It's a logical inconsistency.

False allegation. If you were a true Christian then you experienced the presence of God. If you experienced the presence of God, then you know He is real. You can't say a God you know is real doesn't exist. You can renounce your former faith, but refusing to serve God is not the same as claiming He doesn't exist when you know first-hand that he does. Again, regardless of what your personal relationship was, you're claiming a logical inconsistency and this is a philosophical debate.

One can determine they were in fact wrong in regards to God existing, even if their belief was rock solid at one point.

As I have stated before, there is not only nothing wrong with changing your mind about something, it is a sign of mental health to be able to do so.

The fact that you can't accept this reality, is your problem.

 

[KWCrazy]

One can determine they were in fact wrong in regards to God existing, even if their belief was rock solid at one point.

That's very true. However, this isn't a matter of changing one's mind about something they once thought. This is about denying the existence of God after having had a close personal relationship with Him. I can understand losing faith, but atheism is not about a lack of faith. It's an open declaration that God does not exist. It's pretty hard to reconcile the two. Either you never knew Him or He exists. Even if you blame God for every bad thing that ever happened to you, it still doesn't cause Him to cease existing.

As I have stated before, there is not only nothing wrong with changing your mind about something,

Changing you mind and changing your reality are different notions altogether. You could be a former Baptist, a former Pentecostal or a former Catholic and call yourself anything you want. You can belong to any of these faiths and still never be saved, never know God and never be a Christian. However, you can't go from knowing God or ANYONE for that matter to stating that they don't exist. it's logically inconsistent.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My statement was made in regards to physical laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Such laws do not apply to God because by definition He is outside of natural law. Matter cannot be created. God created matter. We call those violations of natural law "miracles." There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible; each of them in defiance of at least one natural law. The fact that matter cannot be created by natural means is a validation that the creation of matter happened via supernatural means. It is not conclusive proof.

Or it suggests that we do not understand the origins of matter, energy, time, space and the fundamental forces of the universe and that instead of masking our ignorance with the supernatural we should continue to investigate.

But were you saved? Going to church and seeking God aren't exactly the same thing, just as losing one's faith and being absolutely convinced that there is no God aren't the same thing. One cannot logically have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and later assert that there is no such being. Either you never knew God, or you're simply denying His existence now. If you WERE saved then you know in your heart that atheism is a big lie.

I've already addressed this.

It isn't possible to deny the existence of someone you once knew without being dishonest about the prior knowledge or the denial. It's a contradiction in logic. It's like me saying that my first wife never existed. While I might WISH that were the case, I can't change the fact that since I once knew her she had to exist.

I've already addressed this.

Qualified atheism isn't atheism. You're an agnostic. Atheists know there is no God. Theists know there is a God. Agnostics are at some point in between. You can call it what you like, but if you are not convinced that there is no God you aren't an atheist. That's a good thing, though. It means there's still hope for you. Agnostics at either end of the spectrum haven't acquired enough information. As Jesus said, seek and you will find. You just have to seek honestly.

I've already addressed this as well.

What part of "agnostic atheist" do you have trouble understanding? I lack a belief in deities. I don't claim to know that there are no deities. You are a gnostic theist: you believe in a God and you claim to have knowledge of that God.

We aren't talking about a religious affiliation, we're discussing the logical position of saying that you once knew God and now you know He doesn't exists.

I didn't say "now I know". You continue to misrepresent my position and the position of many atheists by assuming that, to be an atheist, I must claim to have some special knowledge about the non-existence of deities.

Nobody's talking about your character. This is a philosophical discussion about a position that you are taking which is logically unsound. It's like me claiming that my first wife doesn't exist. Either she never existed and I was mistaken about knowing her or she does exist and I'm not being honest with myself. I can't say I was married to her and now she doesn't exist any more than you can say you were "of Christ" and now Christ doesn't exist. It's a logical inconsistency.

See the bolded part above.

False allegation. If you were a true Christian then you experienced the presence of God. If you experienced the presence of God, then you know He is real. You can't say a God you know is real doesn't exist. You can renounce your former faith, but refusing to serve God is not the same as claiming He doesn't exist when you know first-hand that he does. Again, regardless of what your personal relationship was, you're claiming a logical inconsistency and this is a philosophical debate.

I've explained this point to you several times already. There is nothing logically inconsistent with recognising that a belief I once held was probably not an accurate reflection of reality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is about denying the existence of God after having had a close personal relationship with Him.

It is changing one's mind on something -- one's interpretation of what one had experienced beforehand.

If the experience one had interpreted as "a close personal relationship with God" is replaced by the view that what one had experienced was a misinterpretation of one's subjective experiences, then it is entirely possible to go from a Christian who believes that he had a relationship with God to an outright atheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Let me clarify.

Christian means "Of Christ." Atheists deny Christ. No Christ = no Christian. If you proclaim yourself to be an atheist then you proclaim that Jesus never lived. You cannot, then, say you were once a Christian. It's like saying, "I once was a devout follower of someone who never existed." You can say "I once thought of myself as a Christian," but you can't say you were ever a Christian. How could you be, if Christ never existed?

In denying God, atheists make a positive rejection of Christ's sacrifice. They reject the Holy Spirit, which is the unforgivable sin. They claim that when they die they will just be dead. This is not the case. As Paul says in Romans 2:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The African tribesman who never knows about Jesus will perish apart from the law. However, if he fulfills the requirements of the law in his heart, even being apart from the law he will be judged according to the goodness of his heart.

The person who is under the law; who has heard the teachings of the Scriptures and has been given the law will be judged under that law. He will be given eternal life under the law, or he will be condemned under the law.

Atheists who try to convince others that there is no God fall into the category of false teachers because they teach things that are contrary to the Scriptures. Rather than to simply be content in their rejection of Grace, they come to forums like this try to lead others away from their faith under the guise that they are "speaking the truth." Peter speaks about such people at length in 2 Peter 2:
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

10....Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

So, then, to know the truth and to teach falsely is a far greater offense to God than even the simple rejection of salvation. I would caution the false teachers in our midst to look again to the Scriptures and study these words. It is not I who will condemn you, or even God. You are condemning yourself. Knowing truth, you teach evil. If you were ever a Christian then you KNOW God is real. You can deny it to yourself all you want, but trying to erode the faith of others makes you a false teacher.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let me clarify.

Christian means "Of Christ." Atheists deny Christ. No Christ = no Christian. If you proclaim yourself to be an atheist then you proclaim that Jesus never lived.

To proclaim that Jesus never lived is to take a certain position on the historicity of Jesus. One can believe that Jesus did indeed live, but not accept claims of his divinity.

You cannot, then, say you were once a Christian. It's like saying, "I once was a devout follower of someone who never existed." You can say "I once thought of myself as a Christian," but you can't say you were ever a Christian. How could you be, if Christ never existed?

Your intransigence is remarkable. Several posters have explained this point to you on multiple occasions.

Atheists who try to convince others that there is no God fall into the category of false teachers because they teach things that are contrary to the Scriptures.

Do those who teach science that contradicts a literal reading of Scripture also fall into the category of false teachers?

Rather than to simply be content in their rejection of Grace, they come to forums like this try to lead others away from their faith under the guise that they are "speaking the truth."

I was already on this forum before I became an atheist.

So, then, to know the truth and to teach falsely is a far greater offense to God than even the simple rejection of salvation. I would caution the false teachers in our midst to look again to the Scriptures and study these words. It is not I who will condemn you, or even God. You are condemning yourself. Knowing truth, you teach evil. If you were ever a Christian then you KNOW God is real. You can deny it to yourself all you want, but trying to erode the faith of others makes you a false teacher.

This reads to me like someone who is trying to comfort himself with the thought that he is a "true Christian", a "true teacher", or what have you.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me clarify.

Christian means "Of Christ." Atheists deny Christ. No Christ = no Christian. If you proclaim yourself to be an atheist then you proclaim that Jesus never lived. You cannot, then, say you were once a Christian. It's like saying, "I once was a devout follower of someone who never existed." You can say "I once thought of myself as a Christian," but you can't say you were ever a Christian. How could you be, if Christ never existed?

In denying God, atheists make a positive rejection of Christ's sacrifice. They reject the Holy Spirit, which is the unforgivable sin. They claim that when they die they will just be dead. This is not the case. As Paul says in Romans 2:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The African tribesman who never knows about Jesus will perish apart from the law. However, if he fulfills the requirements of the law in his heart, even being apart from the law he will be judged according to the goodness of his heart.

The person who is under the law; who has heard the teachings of the Scriptures and has been given the law will be judged under that law. He will be given eternal life under the law, or he will be condemned under the law.

Atheists who try to convince others that there is no God fall into the category of false teachers because they teach things that are contrary to the Scriptures. Rather than to simply be content in their rejection of Grace, they come to forums like this try to lead others away from their faith under the guise that they are "speaking the truth." Peter speaks about such people at length in 2 Peter 2:
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

10....Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

So, then, to know the truth and to teach falsely is a far greater offense to God than even the simple rejection of salvation. I would caution the false teachers in our midst to look again to the Scriptures and study these words. It is not I who will condemn you, or even God. You are condemning yourself. Knowing truth, you teach evil. If you were ever a Christian then you KNOW God is real. You can deny it to yourself all you want, but trying to erode the faith of others makes you a false teacher.

KW, you are really struggling with this aren't you?

Who said anything about "denying Jesus ever lived"? I believe that Jesus was likely a real person (as some atheists do), but I just don't buy the christian story that he was also God and performed miracles.

People can come to realize (for a number of reasons) that they were totally wrong about something, get over it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

People can come to realize (for a number of reasons) that they were totally wrong about something, get over it.

Apparently, KW has never held a belief which he no longer currently holds. That would be "logically inconsistent".

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you proclaim yourself to be an atheist then you proclaim that Jesus never lived.

No, you only proclaim that Jesus, whatever he might have been (a story or a human being), is not a divine being.

You cannot, then, say you were once a Christian. It's like saying, "I once was a devout follower of someone who never existed."

A little more accurately: "I was once a devout follower of someone or something I had mistakenly thought was divine".

You can say "I once thought of myself as a Christian," but you can't say you were ever a Christian. How could you be, if Christ never existed?

Christ doesn't have to exist in order for one to be a follower of Christ. What you are suggesting is that if atheists are correct that God doesn't exist, then you are not a Christian because Christ doesn't exist.

No, you are a Christian because you believe that Christ does exist, and because you may experience something that you interpret as Christ interacting with you in some form of relationship.

In denying God, atheists make a positive rejection of Christ's sacrifice.

They reject the idea that a deity made a sacrifice, but they may very well believe that a human Jesus gave his life.

They claim that when they die they will just be dead.

Most do, but that is not actually required by definition. In any case, this doesn't mean that they weren't Christians when they did believe in life after death.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Do those who teach science that contradicts a literal reading of Scripture also fall into the category of false teachers?

That depends. If they are knowingly and deliberately trying to undermine the faith of others, then yes, they can be. If they teach that in accordance with natural law a man can't walk on the water, there is nothing specifically wrong with that because none of the miracles in the Bible happened in accordance with natural law. One has to understand natural law to truly understand a miracle. Science properly taught is a study of the physical world around us. The supernatural and non-physical is a discussion for religion. The truly wise understands that the natural and the supernatural are very different. The laws that affect one do not affect the other.

 

[KWCrazy]

I believe that Jesus was likely a real person (as some atheists do), but I just don't buy the christian story that he was also God and performed miracles.

How do you respond to the personal accounts on miracles found here?

 

[KWCrazy]

]A little more accurately: "I was once a devout follower of someone or something I had mistakenly thought was divine".

Either way works for me. The point I'm making is that you can't logically say "I was a follower of God and now He doesn't exist." That's what you are saying when you say you were once a Christian and now are an atheist. Either you never knew God, or you did.

Christ doesn't have to exist in order for one to be a follower of Christ.

Do you make it a practice to be a follower of entities that don't exist?

What you are suggesting is that if atheists are correct that God doesn't exist, then you are not a Christian because Christ doesn't exist.

Correct. Either God exists or He doesn't. If you're right I'm wrong. If I'm right you're wrong. We can't both be right.

No, you are a Christian because you believe that Christ does exist, and because you may experience something that you interpret as Christ interacting with you in some form of relationship.

However, if I subsequently learned there was no God then that relationship could never have happened. Conversely, if I HAVE had such a relationship, all the claims made by atheists will fall on deaf ears because having EXPERIENCED the presence of God and having SEEN miracles the incredulity of those who have not carries not weight with me.

They reject the idea that a deity made a sacrifice, but they may very well believe that a human Jesus gave his life.

Many members of the early church gave their lives rather than to deny the miracles that they had seen. Why? If the miracles never happened, why would they subject themselves to torture and death to perpetuate a lie that gained them nothing? Why would Saul of Tarsas give up everything to become the apostle Paul for a Jesus he had never met prior to the crucifixion? Why is it that none of the 5,000 ever came forward to say it was not true; that they were not actually all fed from a few loaves and fishes? How could such a fabrication ever gain traction among highly skeptical, often poorly educated people who believed that the Messiah would set His kingdom on earth?

 

[bhsmte]

How do you respond to the personal accounts on miracles found here?

KW,

I'm sure it comes to no surprise, I would not accept "personal" accounts of miracles as legit. Personal experiences are just that, personal and can be perceived in a way that lines up with your psyche. Or, people can also be outright lying.

Lastly, a miracle is the least likely explanation for any event, with all sorts of other logical reasons that could explain the event that supposedly took place.