The origins of atheism

[JonFromMinnesota]

Groan! Not the teapot again. If you only knew how silly you sound bringing that up ad infinitum. You have no idea what is the weakest and strongest part of my faith so stop trying to make out you know everything because you don't. In comparison to God you know very little.

The teapot is a great example to compare your claim of "in the beginning". It's just a claim...unfalsifiable...just as the teapot is unfalsifiable...it doesn't make either claim true.

I never claimed to know everything. I seemed to have struck a nerve with my simple observation so perhaps we shouldn't continue.

 

[As I was saying]

You seem to have an aversion to the phrase "I don't know." Such a response is intellectually honest when one genuinely does not know. Many believers claim to know, but the answers they give seem to advance our understanding no further than "I don't know."

Sorry to say, the only aversion I have is for people who don't know but give the impression they do know, like so many atheists and because they think they know, they give the impression that no one else knows, especially those that do know.

The atheist are very fond of the idea that if they haven't seen it it doesn't exist, which implies that there is no knowledge outside of what an atheist thinks he knows. What is commonly known as a closed mind.

I guess when you can't handle the truth, you have to invent all sorts of red herrings to cover your tracks and hope that no one notices the paucity of your arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

The teapot is a great example to compare your claim of "in the beginning".

More like it's a strawman.

 

[As I was saying]

The teapot is a great example to compare your claim of "in the beginning". It's just a claim...unfalsifiable...just as the teapot is unfalsifiable...it doesn't make either claim true.

I never claimed to know everything. I seemed to have struck a nerve with my simple observation so perhaps we shouldn't continue.

And my impression is that it is the only example that atheists have, which they seen to conjure up from their little red book which gives stock answers to things they don't understand. Most atheistic speculation is due to the fact that they know nothing about God. They only think they do. That is why they have this habit of quoting parts of the bible totally out of context and expect us to overawed at their knowledge of God and the bible when all they do is show us how little they know.

 

[As I was saying]

More like it's a strawman.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[As I was saying]

John MacArthur the preacher?

He's the only one I found...couldn't find a John MacArthur the atheist. So, do I still need to answer your question? If he's the wrong John MacArthur...will you link the right one?

Try to drop the attitude too.

That is right and so sorry you are offended by the truth. Can't do much about that.

 

[As I was saying]

Umm, there was a monster sarcasm rally, dude. You must have missed it.

No sarcasm, just the truth which I know you cannot handle.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That is why they have this habit of quoting parts of the bible totally out of context

In what context is this good?

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25: 44-46

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

More like it's a strawman.

I'm not purposely misrepresenting an argument. I'm giving you an example of another unfalsifiable claim to show you that "in the beginning" is nothing but a claim and not evidence.

 

[As I was saying]

Miracles are not logical, by definition.

Okay. Here's another one that is often claimed as miraculous by those of a religious persuasion:

Someone is diagnosed with incurable cancer.
They (or others) pray to [insert name here] to heal them.
At some later time, it is determined that they no longer have the cancer.

The problem here is that many different religious people of many different religions discuss the same kinds of miracles. What conclusion can we draw from that?

Some possible conclusions are:
1.) there are many different deities, each of which sometimes cures cancer for some unknown reason;
2.) there is one deity, but that deity is willing to answer the prayers of those who do not pray to them for some unknown reason;
3.) there are no deities, and sometimes cancer goes into remission and, given that a lot of people believe in deities, many times there are people involved who prayed.

Now, I think option 3 is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from these three options. You may have another option that is more reasonable.

I do not speak for various religions as my own keeps me very busy and active. We pray for people who have cancer and sometimes they get healed and sometimes they don't. Fortunately I was one of those who was healed so all I can do is speak as I find. I find getting into all sorts of hypothesis achieves very little, especially when the one making the hypothesis is only trying to be clever and disingenuous.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry to say, the only aversion I have is for people who don't know but give the impression they do know, like so many atheists and because they think they know, they give the impression that no one else knows, especially those that do know.

The atheist are very fond of the idea that if they haven't seen it it doesn't exist, which implies that there is no knowledge outside of what an atheist thinks he knows. What is commonly known as a closed mind.

I guess when you can't handle the truth, you have to invent all sorts of red herrings to cover your tracks and hope that no one notices the paucity of your arguments.

I'm noticing the paucity of your arguments...

 

[As I was saying]

In what context is this good?

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25: 44-46

Lev 25:38 Remember--I am the LORD your God! I rescued you from Egypt and gave you the land of Canaan, so that I would be your God.
Lev 25:39 Suppose some of your people become so poor that they have to sell themselves and become your slaves.
Lev 25:40 Then you must treat them as servants, rather than as slaves. And in the Year of Celebration they are to be set free,
Lev 25:41 so they and their children may return home to their families and property.
Lev 25:42 I brought them out of Egypt to be my servants, not to be sold as slaves.
Lev 25:43 So obey me, and don't be cruel to the poor.
Lev 25:44 If you want slaves, buy them from other nations
Lev 25:45 or from the foreigners who live in your own country, and make them your property.

The context is God's instructions to the Israelite as to how they are to conduct themselves once they arrive in the land of Canaan which he was giving to them. They were not to make slaves of each other because he had not brought them out of the land of Egypt to be slaves, they were to be servants.

 

[As I was saying]

I'm noticing the paucity of your arguments...

How unoriginal.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How unoriginal.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[As I was saying]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Glad you think your comments are unoriginal.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Lev 25:44 If you want slaves, buy them from other nations
Lev 25:45 or from the foreigners who live in your own country, and make them your property.

The context is God's instructions to the Israelite as to how they are to conduct themselves once they arrive in the land of Canaan which he was giving to them. They were not to make slaves of each other because he had not brought them out of the land of Egypt to be slaves, they were to be servants.

But taking other people as slaves is perfectly okay? In what context is that good?

 

[As I was saying]

Atheist concede that they don't know the answer to many questions, but they are sure the origins and destiny if the universe have nothing to do with a God. For now they have to settle for Atheist faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."

Good one Colter. You are probably like me, don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Glad you think your comments are unoriginal.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Good one Colter. You are probably like me, don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Isn't faith a virtue? If that's the case, are you claiming you aren't virtuous enough to be an atheist?

 

[As I was saying]

But taking other people as slaves is perfectly okay? In what context is that good?

They didn't take other people as slaves. They purchased them. And the Israelite's were known to treat their slaves with respect and dignity, unlike the Roman Empire, who treated them like dirt. The correct meaning of the word is servant, not slaves.