Atheism vs. Christian

[durangodawood]

...Once again, Jesus wins!....

Should we play again, or go home for dinner?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Christians agree on the fundamentals. Jesus was God. The trinity is a valid theological concept. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and paid the penalty for our sins. He was resurrected in three days. There is a heaven and sincere Christians will go there.

Except for the Christians that disagree with one or more of those statements...

No True Scotsman fallacy in 5, 4, 3...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I oppose the notion that atheism is valid.

But we accept the fact that you're completely wrong about that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course, love does not precluded showing atheists where they are in error.

I think Jesus made it pretty clear that we are supposed to go around keeping our own house in order first. And since none of us is without sin, that keep us busy for quite some time. Maybe Christians should do a lot less lecturing on how other people are wrong, and a lot more listening to the complaints of other people. THAT is love.

It's true some atheists here make ridiculous mischaracterizations of what Christians think or believe, but at other times, very valid criticisms of theism and Christian belief are also made.

 

[keith99]

“A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading” (Ex-atheist C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy).

The same can be said for Christians. Paul and Lewis are dangerous to read for the Christian. Come to think of it the Bible perhaps the most dangerous thing a Christian can read.

 

[PaulA135711]

There is one question I left unanswered.

Why did I say that Jesus wins. God never loses.

Here is a Christian reggae song entitled "Winnaman":

On the other hand, the atheist movement has low morale at this time as is demonstrated at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Low_morale_of_the_atheist_movement

In 2011, atheist Jacques Berlinerblau declared: "The Golden Age of Secularism has passed."



The American atheist activist Eddie Tabash said at the 2010 Michigan Atheists State Convention:

“In every generation there has been a promising beginning of a true vanguard movement that will finally achieve widespread public acceptance for nonbelief. Yet, in each generation there has been an ultimately disappointing failure to actually register the naturalistic alternative to supernatural claims in the public consciousness...

Now given the confounding extent to which religion is entrenched in our society, it could take a minimum of 100 years of sustained, intense effort to even begin to cut into the current monolithic stranglehold that religion has on American mass culture."

The likelihood that the American atheist population will engage in 100 years of sustained, intense atheist activism is remote, see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Low_morale_of_the_atheist_movement

Eric Kaufmann, an agnostic professor whose academic research specialty is how demographic changes affect religion/irreligion and politics, wrote in 2010:

"Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."

It is not surprising that the atheist movement has low morale. Atheists consistently lose debates and now prominent atheists are ducking debates. It is very hard to win arguments when all the facts are not on your side. See: Rebuttals to atheist arguments at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Rebuttals_to_atheist_arguments

On the other hand, Christian morale is high and for good reasons: http://www.conservapedia.com/High_morale_of_Christendom

Christianity is true and the kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom.

 

[fat wee robin]

Why wouldn't the term "atheist" be appropriate for describing someone doesn't believe in a god? The trouble seems to be that some theists want the term to mean much more than it actually does.

To be an atheist means that one has something missing ,one is blind to that which is unseen .To 'see ' that which is unseen is a gift from God ,but then I am a christian who believes we have been here before,and there has been a judgement ,but not the
final one .

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There is one question I left unanswered.

Why did I say that Jesus wins. God never loses.

Here is a Christian reggae song entitled "Winnaman":

On the other hand, the atheist movement has low morale at this time as is demonstrated at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Low_morale_of_the_atheist_movement

In 2011, atheist Jacques Berlinerblau declared: "The Golden Age of Secularism has passed."



The American atheist activist Eddie Tabash said at the 2010 Michigan Atheists State Convention:

“In every generation there has been a promising beginning of a true vanguard movement that will finally achieve widespread public acceptance for nonbelief. Yet, in each generation there has been an ultimately disappointing failure to actually register the naturalistic alternative to supernatural claims in the public consciousness...

Now given the confounding extent to which religion is entrenched in our society, it could take a minimum of 100 years of sustained, intense effort to even begin to cut into the current monolithic stranglehold that religion has on American mass culture."

The likelihood that the American atheist population will engage in 100 years of sustained, intense atheist activism is remote, see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Low_morale_of_the_atheist_movement

Eric Kaufmann, an agnostic professor whose academic research specialty is how demographic changes affect religion/irreligion and politics, wrote in 2010:

"Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."

It is not surprising that the atheist movement has low morale. Atheists consistently lose debates and now prominent atheists are ducking debates. It is very hard to win arguments when all the facts are not on your side. See: Rebuttals to atheist arguments at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Rebuttals_to_atheist_arguments

On the other hand, Christian morale is high and for good reasons: http://www.conservapedia.com/High_morale_of_Christendom

Christianity is true and the kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom.

I think this guy is getting paid to drive traffic to conservapedia...

 

[fat wee robin]

I don't know what else to say here. There is no reason to think that beauty is evidence of anything other than itself. We have experience of beauty in this life, and it is just evidence of beauty in this life. If you are eating a pizza, that is just evidence of the pizza, not a "higher realm" of pizza.

What exactly do I need to prove here? What hurdle do I need to jump?

Totally ignoring the existence of the Theophrastus redivivus, I see. Atheism in European intellectual thought had been a growing strain for at least 200 years by the time d'Holbach published. He just published at a time when society had progressed to the point where excommunication was tolerable.

Why just Christanity and Western Europe? There are strong philosophical atheist traditions in Greek, Roman, Norse, pre-Christian Germanic, Arab, Indian, Chinese, Indo-Asian and central Asian cultures.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Much of it not really atheism, but rebellion against the Church and a need to search
out a personal path . Many who were 'atheists' became doubters (agnostics )and a number returned to belief like Darwin himself .

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Much of it not really atheism, but rebellion against the Church and a need to search
out a personal path . Many who were 'atheists' became doubters (agnostics )and a number returned to belief like Darwin himself .

The idea that Darwin converted to Christianity before he died is just a legend. There's an entire book devoted to debunking the myth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Much of it not really atheism, but rebellion against the Church and a need to search
out a personal path . Many who were 'atheists' became doubters (agnostics )and a number returned to belief like Darwin himself .

I have no idea how that is a reply to my post.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PaulA135711]

ToddNotTodd,

I cited Conservapedia atheism articles for a good reason.

The Secular Outpost admitted about Conservapedia's main atheism article: " I will admit, it has links to some useful sociological information concerning religious versus nonreligious populations...". The article has over 250 footnotes. Of course, being an atheist, he whines about the article too.

Here is the Conservapedia main atheism article: conservapedia.com/Atheism

Here is what a British atheist admitted about Conservapedia's atheism articles: "...they're very detailed, thorough and have lots of quotes and citations." See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_A_British_atheist_on_Conservapedia's_atheism_articles

One of YouTube's biggest Christian channels PPSimmons says Conservapedia's main atheism article is outstanding:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The idea that Darwin converted to Christianity before he died is just a legend. There's an entire book devoted to debunking the myth.

Here's an unusually well-balanced article on the subject: Did Darwin Believe in God?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

ToddNotTodd,

I cited Conservapedia atheism articles for a good reason.

The Secular Outpost admitted about Conservapedia's main atheism article: " I will admit, it has links to some useful sociological information concerning religious versus nonreligious populations...". The article has over 250 footnotes. Of course, being an atheist, he whines about the article too.

Here is the Conservapedia main atheism article: conservapedia.com/Atheism

Here is what a British atheist admitted about Conservapedia's atheism articles: "...they're very detailed, thorough and have lots of quotes and citations." See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_A_British_atheist_on_Conservapedia's_atheism_articles

One of YouTube's biggest Christian channels PPSimmons says Conservapedia's main atheism article is outstanding:

Sorry, I'm not falling for your shilling of a site ran by a knuckle dragging troglodyte. If you have an actual coherent point to make about why people shouldn't be atheists, then just say it.

 

[PaulA135711]

FrumiousBandersnatch,

In a previous post, I showed that Charles Darwin often had overwhelming thoughts that the natural kingdom was designed even in his later years, I did this using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a source. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html

So it is not surprising that people would readily believe that he had a deathbed conversion to creationism (I realize this did not happen).

Often had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world is designed even in his later years or deathbed conversion to creationism. There are not the same. But the difference is not super wide.

In addition, even in atheistic Japan, researchers found that Japanese children see the world as designed. See: http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed

 

[durangodawood]

So Darwin did or didnt have various private intuitions about this or that.

His published science still stands as foundational, even as the field has grown.

 

[PaulA135711]

ToddNotTodd,

At this forum. there has been atheists engaging in the genetic fallacy when I cited Conservapedia.

I am merely pointing out that there are even atheists giving positive commentary about Conservapedia's atheism material.

Frankly, your post has a tone of sour grapes.

 

[PaulA135711]

Darwin published science which is foundational?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? http://creation.com/15-questions

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone. http://www.discovery.org/a/2611

Pangenesis was an evolutionary idea that was developed by Charles Darwin.

Dr. Jerry Bergman wrote concerning pangenesis:

“Pangenesis is based on the idea that all somatic cells produce ‘gemmules’ or gene material that is ‘thrown off’ into the body’s circulatory system. These gemmules multiply by dividing, and eventually collect in the organism’s eggs and sperm (the gametes). Consequently, the experiences of their bearers are imprinted in the gemmules, and then can be passed on to the organism’s offspring. Darwin discussed his pangenesis idea in great detail, and felt confident that it would provide a feasible mechanism to produce new genetic information.[1] ”

Despite there being devastating experimental evidence against the notion of pangenesis provided by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin stubbornly held to the notion of pangenesis as he had no naturalistic explanation on how genetic information could be formed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Pangenesis

 

[quatona]

So-called atheists don't even have position on what atheism fundamentally is.

They have a position on what the word "atheism" denotes. No need to add qualifiers like "fundamentally".

I would say that 99% of so-called atheists are actually atheist poseurs

So all your statements about atheism and the articles actually don´t address us, but a pretty much non-existent position?

and really agnostics.

Yes, most atheists are also agnostics. Completely different category.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

ToddNotTodd,

At this forum. there has been atheists engaging in the genetic fallacy when I cited Conservapedia.

I am merely pointing out that there are even atheists giving positive commentary about Conservapedia's atheism material.

Frankly, your post has a tone of sour grapes.

Soooo...

You don't have any actual arguments of your own regarding why you think atheism isn't a valid position?