Argument against atheism

Volos · Jan 30, 2004

Originally posted by :

Originally Posted by: tyreth

It is far easier to prove something exists than it is to prove something doesn't exist. And in my mind, the rational evidence of God and the accuracy of the Bible is by far enough. But more on this soon:

And yet there exists no rational evidence or sound philosophical argument supporting the belief in any Divine being much less the Christian God.

taedium · Jan 30, 2004

If I'm infinitely doubtful, couldn't I just take the limit and call myself an atheist?

Philosoft · Jan 31, 2004

taedium said:
If I'm infinitely doubtful, couldn't I just take the limit and call myself an atheist?

Heh. The atheist-asymptote.

daydreamergurl15 · Jan 31, 2004

Nathan David said:
Not entirely

It reflects the scientific knowledge of the time and place it was written (OT: a Jewish community in Babylon, 5th Century BC. NT: Judea and the Eastern Roman Empire, late 1st-early 2nd Century AD)

What does "archaeologically correct" mean? Some of the historical narratives in the Bible line up with archaeological finds, but others do not. There is no archaeological evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt or migrating from Egypt to Judea, for example. And archeology cannot confirm the stories of miracles.

which part is not correct, I told you atheist will find anything to disprove accuracys. This is so useless.

ardwinna · Jan 31, 2004

tyreth said:
How can anyone rationally be an atheist? You have no proof that God does not exist in what you do not know. Therefore the closest to an atheist one can ever hope to rationally be is an agnostic.

I understand that many of you probably call yourselves atheists, insofar as you reject all the gods that you have heard of. That's a different story altogether. But, at the heart of it, atheism is an irrational position.

You have no proof that God does exist. If you had proof, you wouldn't need belief. Nobody "believes" a fact. Nobody has "faith" in a fact.

By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Because there is no proof either way, nobody truly knows. Theism is as irrational a position as atheism.

ardwinna · Jan 31, 2004

daydreamergurl15 said:
which part is not correct, I told you atheist will find anything to disprove accuracys. This is so useless.

Nobody is forcing you to participate in this exchange. If you find it so useless, then just don't read this thread.

daydreamergurl15 · Jan 31, 2004

Volos said:
One could argue about the scientific, historic and archeological accuracy of the bible and point to any number of discrepancies. For example the biblical claim that bats are not mammals but actually birds, that rabbits chew cud, that the earth is flat. Suffice to say that the bible wile not wholly accurate in terms of history, archeology and science contains information that is accurate. However the Odyssey and the Iliad contain information that is historically, archeologically and scientifically accurate, by your reasoning the information contained within these books must also be true.

The only thing that the bible says about bats was in Isaiah 2:20, I can't find a scripture about rabbits, and take a look at Isaiah 20:22 you maybe surprised what God thinks about the shape of the world. I don't know much about mythology but I do know about the bible and I think you should do more research on this, you will be surprised at what you find.

-God Bless

daydreamergurl15 · Jan 31, 2004

ardwinna said:
Nobody is forcing you to participate in this exchange. If you find it so useless, then just don't read this thread.

The great thing about this forum is that I am allowed to. I also wonder why Atheist would come to a Christian forum. The great thing about this forum is that you are allowed to.

Arikay · Jan 31, 2004

They are in there.
Although I personally wouldn't use them, as often they are translation mistakes. It does show that even if the bible was inspired, most likely the translators were not.

God says the world is flat. Some bibles translate it as "round" but its an incorrect translation. This makes sense though as that was the scientific belief at the time, and further description of what was believed by the Hebrews can be read in the non canonized book of enoch.

Scientifically, the bible is about on par with its time. Nothing much special is said. Although there are a few mistakes, for example, the stars are not infinite as it suggests, but finite and countable. Many scientific errors appear to be translation mistakes.

Historically (and archeologically), the bible does ok for some things and bad with others. Although it depends on how you read it, it does worse if you read it literally. For example, the global flood has been shown to have not happend. No record is found of the plagues of egypt, and no evidence has been found for the exodus as described. Evidence does exist for Jesus, but its often less than many christians think. Same goes for major cities in the bible, quite a few of them have been found, or have major record of their existance.

daydreamergurl15 said:
The only thing that the bible says about bats was in Isaiah 2:20, I can't find a scripture about rabbits, and take a look at Isaiah 20:22 you maybe surprised what God thinks about the shape of the world. I don't know much about mythology but I do know about the bible and I think you should do more research on this, you will be surprised at what you find.

-God Bless

Ampmonster · Jan 31, 2004

the world is to complex, perfect, and circumstantial to have evolved.

daydreamergurl15 · Jan 31, 2004

Round and flat are two different things, if you can read the greek translation, I suggest you do. I can see that to you guys it doesn't matter what God said, it's either changed, false, or etcs. Okay, the skulls in the museum that is supposedly the first humors were found to be fraud there were different animal and human skulls put together but you guys would buy that, but the bible says one thing it just has to have been changed b/c it wasn't the belief at the time, even though no one in the bible said anything about it being a flat world. I am going to take *ardwinna* advice and leave this discussion.
-God Bless

Fiendishjester · Jan 31, 2004

Uh, hey Volos, in your post you have me quoted for something someone else said.

As for the discussion, I guess my first post had no impact whatsoever, or maybe it was just conveniently ignored. Either way, I'm going to attempt to get the point across once more.

Tyreth, you say that your position has evidence and proof behind it, while the atheists' positions are based on a lack of proof. This does not make your position any more viable. As I stated before in my first post, the evidence pointing to the existence of God is subjective. This means that the validity of this evidence has no set value. This is precisely why you are convinced by this evidence, and atheists aren't. People judge and interpret the evidence based on their personal biases and conceptions. It is not that the atheists are wrong and you are right, or that they "refuse to accept the truth." It is just that the evidence is completely subjective. The existence of such "evidence" itself is not a logical foundation for a belief in God, because there is no set standard that determines its validity. Therefore, like I stated before, the choice of the atheist to be an atheist and the Christian a Christian are based on the same logic. For example, two people can look at one piece of evidence for Christianity. One of them might be convinced, while the other might not be convinced. This is subjectivity.

Arikay · Jan 31, 2004

Im not sure I understand what you are talking about.
Its your choice to leave, but I dont see the reason.

As far as flat, if you read the bible literally, a look at the hebrew of Isa 40:22 suggests the world is a flat circle. The same sentiment is echoed in the book of enoch but with further description.

daydreamergurl15 said:
Round and flat are two different things, if you can read the greek translation, I suggest you do. I can see that to you guys it doesn't matter what God said, it's either changed, false, or etcs. Okay, the skulls in the museum that is supposedly the first humors were found to be fraud there were different animal and human skulls put together but you guys would buy that, but the bible says one thing it just has to have been changed b/c it wasn't the belief at the time, even though no one in the bible said anything about it being a flat world. I am going to take *ardwinna* advice and leave this discussion.
-God Bless

ardwinna · Jan 31, 2004

Arikay said:
Im not sure I understand what you are talking about.
Its your choice to leave, but I dont see the reason.

It's due to childishness. It's the "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-I'm-not-going-to-be-your-friend" mentality that you find on elementary school playgrounds.

igloo · Jan 31, 2004

Am i the only one that noticed that jesus lived for only a day according to B.C. and A.D.? Before Christ and then the next year is After Death. My brain hurts and no I'm not christian.

armed2010 · Jan 31, 2004

Ampmonster said:
the world is to complex, perfect, and circumstantial to have evolved.

The world is to complex, perfect, and circumstantial to not have evolved. We can all make baseless statements amp, try to back them up.

Volos · Jan 31, 2004

Originally posted by : Fiendishjester

Uh, hey Volos, in your post you have me quoted for something someone else said

Oopsterribly sorry.

Text edited

Volos · Jan 31, 2004

Originally posted by : daydreamergurl15

The only thing that the bible says about bats was in Isaiah 2:20, I can't find a scripture about rabbits, and take a look at Isaiah 20:22 you maybe surprised what God thinks about the shape of the world. I don't know much about mythology but I do know about the bible and I think you should do more research on this, you will be surprised at what you find.

Lev. 11:13-20
These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Bats apparently are birds and not mammals.

Lev. 11:6

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Rabbits, are lagomorphs, not ruminants. They do not chew the cud.

Deuteronomy 14:7 . . . as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof.

Here the Bible writer(s) compound the cud blunder by telling us that the rabbits also have hoofs.

Lev. 11:20-23 All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

Meaning that grasshoppers have four legs not six.

Deuteronomy 32.11 As the eagle taketh her young and bearth them on her wings.

Eagles have never been known to carry their young on their wings.

Genesis 11:9 Therefore its name was called Ba'bel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth.

According to this passage all of the world's languages appeared suddenly in their present form not as the result of the natural ongoing process of growth and development but simply as the result of god's retribution.

Joshua 10:13 The sun stood still, and the moon stayed.

The sun has always stood still in relation to the earth. The Old Testament writers were obviously laboring under the misconception that the sun, not the earth, was moving in an earth-centered universe.

1 Chronicles 16:30 He fixed the earth firm and immovable.

Psalm 93:1 The world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

Here the authors of the bible tell us that the sun goes around the earth as the earth is unmoving.

Not only I site hearth in motion in its rotation, it is also in orbit around the sun and the sun is in orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, and the milky way Galaxy is in a binary like orbit with the Andromda Galaxy and both Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving at incredible speeds among the galaxies of the Virgo cluster. That is A LOT of movement

Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus said,The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree.

The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Others, such as the orchid seed, are smaller. Also, shrubs do not grow into trees

Arikay · Jan 31, 2004

A.D. does not mean After Death. Its a latin phase, I would try to spell it, but then I would look stupid. It means "In the year of our lord" Which basically means that anything during Jesus's life and after his death should be called A.D.

Although, there are many scholars that believe the BC AD system is wrong and that jesus was born in B.C.

igloo said:
Am i the only one that noticed that jesus lived for only a day according to B.C. and A.D.? Before Christ and then the next year is After Death. My brain hurts and no I'm not christian.

daydreamergurl15 · Jan 31, 2004

ardwinna said:
It's due to childishness. It's the "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-I'm-not-going-to-be-your-friend" mentality that you find on elementary school playgrounds.

I am not leaving b/c ppl don't agree, I'm leaving b/c no matter what I say you won't believe me so why waste my time.

Argument against atheism

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Daughter of the King

treehugger

treehugger

Daughter of the King

Daughter of the King

HI

Swords to plowshares

Daughter of the King

Devil's advocate

HI

treehugger

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HI

Daughter of the King

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency