Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[Ronald]

No. When I joined CF back in 2005, I was Wiccan, hence the name and avatar. I have since lost my faith, and am now an atheist, but kept my avatar as a throwback to my pagan past. There was never any intention to antagonise, rub, or make a statement.

OK.

You answer your own question. "Why are things beautiful? Did nature and these biochemical impulses or motors directed them to be?... What about joy, inner peace and love -- did they evolve too from chemicals?" - yes, yes they did.

Those are your answers, I was just repeating them to sum up
thoughts.

Nonetheless, the sense of beauty is nothing more than saying one thing is preferable to another based solely on its looks

.
It's not only the sense of beauty that I'm talking about. Why and how something became beautiful to us all is an indicator of a Supreme designer of that beauty which just happens to be integrated with our aethetic senses.

Culture, as much as evolution, defines what is beautiful, but there are good reasons for why we find a lush, green valley with a meandering, clear blue river running through it, animals wildly gambling about, etc - such a landscape is ideal living conditions, with clean water, and ample game and vegitation. Contrast that to bare, crumbling soil (no water or plants), bones (no animals, and death is common), etc. There are real reasons why the former would be more aesthetically pleasing than the latter. But, of course, culture plays a bigger role, and it's able to swing this basic sense of beauty to point to other things.

Evolutionists attribute all this to nature and as you say culture. The cultural beauties designed by man such as art or fashion are not what I am talking about. I'm talking about bare beauty in nature, the botanicals, the animal kingdom, humans, etc. Since physical beauty is seen outwardly, it could not have evolved by your natural selection of mutations. Regardless of the mechanics of evolution (which btw don't work), the peacock could have been white and lived just as well. We could have all had faces that looked like chimps and survived as well. Why and how does beauty evolve ... by mutations that were more beneficial? Not possible. The variations of colors and designs seen in nature weren't really necessary for their survival, they were just made that way for our pleasure by God.

There seems to be no infusion of anything supernatural at any stage.

To you.

It's a wondrous process, and is well-understood by modern science, but no part of it requires the invocation of spirits.

Your defective ability to discern God is clearly noted.

Held together in what sense? Jesus holds all the protons together, or is it more metaphorical than that?

In Him all things consist. He holds all power in the universe from the electron to the entire universe.

Your threats have been duly noted, and filed away with the rest. Tell me, has your intimidation routine actually ever worked?

It is not my threat or intimidation. The wages of sin is death and the judgment will be made by God.

 

[Gadarene]

Did you know that God doesn't believe in atheists? He says in Romans 1:18,19: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom. 1:18,19 - NKJV)

So using the "atheist's" logic: " God doesn't believe in atheists, so atheists don't exist" would then be a true statement.

That's not the logic atheists use.

I suggest you learn a little about atheism - and logic - before criticising it.

 

[drjean]

That's not the logic atheists use.

I suggest you learn a little about atheism - and logic - before criticising it.

No need for personal attacks, please. Speak to the topic (such as post the atheist's logic from your POV).

I do know a little about atheism --and logic. I see no criticism in my post, just stating the obvious... my thoughts (as requested by the OP).

Be well.

 

[Gadarene]

No need for personal attacks, please.

Pointing out your mistake is not a personal attack.

Speak to the topic (such as post the atheist's logic from your POV).

I already did. I pointed out that what you said wasn't it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not only the sense of beauty that I'm talking about. Why and how something became beautiful to us all is an indicator of a Supreme designer of that beauty which just happens to be integrated with our aethetic senses.

By all means, present your case.

Evolutionists attribute all this to nature and as you say culture. The cultural beauties designed by man such as art or fashion are not what I am talking about. I'm talking about bare beauty in nature, the botanicals, the animal kingdom, humans, etc.

The example I gave of the lush valley and the mechanical effects that would have on our sense of aesthetic, only relied on what you call "bare beauty in nature, the botanicals, the animal kingdom".

Since physical beauty is seen outwardly, it could not have evolved by your natural selection of mutations. Regardless of the mechanics of evolution (which btw don't work), the peacock could have been white and lived just as well.

Right, but it's not. Why, according to evolution, is this the case? Short answer: sexual selection.

Long answer:
Plumage outwardly shows, among other things, health and one's success as a hunter/gatherer. Peacocks with colourful plumage show they have the excess food and skills to be able to grow such resource-intensive pigments, showing to the female how good they are as a mate. Peahens evolve to preferentially select such males, and the males of each generation are preferentially sired by peacocks with more extravagant plumage, meaning they in turn have more extravagant plumage. Rinse and repeat.

Now, you said that the mechanics of evolution don't work. Not that there's no evidence for common descent, but that the actual core theory itself is flawed. What, specifically, doesn't work?

We could have all had faces that looked like chimps and survived as well. Why and how does beauty evolve ... by mutations that were more beneficial?

You're putting the cart before the horse. We didn't evolve our faces because they're beautiful, we evolved our sense of beauty to favour the faces we happened to end up with.

Not possible.

Proof?

The variations of colors and designs seen in nature weren't really necessary for their survival, they were just made that way for our pleasure by God.

On the contrary, colouration can be absolutely vital to survival. There are two artificial ducks in this picture, one camouflaged, one counter-shaded. Which do you think would be picked off first, should a predator decide who to go for?

I can't even see the counter-shaded duck. Turns out that the "variations of colors and designs seen in nature" really can be necessary for survival.

To you.

Naturally. I wouldn't dream of speaking for someone else But by all means, prove me wrong. I'm a scientist, I relish being proven wrong - who wouldn't? If I have a faulty belief, I certainly don't want it.

In Him all things consist. He holds all power in the universe from the electron to the entire universe.

That doesn't answer my question. Does Jesus literally hold protons together, or are you being metaphorical?

It is not my threat or intimidation. The wages of sin is death and the judgment will be made by God.

Suppose you're in a noose and standing on a trapdoor hooked to a timer. Your father stands nearby, and says, "Love me, and I'll turn it off. Otherwise, I won't". Does that sound like a threat?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you know that God doesn't believe in atheists?

So God isn't aware of my existence? Good grief.

He says in Romans 1:18,19: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom. 1:18,19 - NKJV)

So using the "atheist's" logic: " God doesn't believe in atheists, so atheists don't exist" would then be a true statement.

By all means, show me a single atheist who has ever used such logic.

 

[Redac]

Did you know that God doesn't believe in atheists? He says in Romans 1:18,19: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom. 1:18,19 - NKJV)

So using the "atheist's" logic: " God doesn't believe in atheists, so atheists don't exist" would then be a true statement.

I have never seen any atheist use that logic, primarily because it's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So using the "atheist's" logic: " God doesn't believe in atheists, so atheists don't exist" would then be a true statement.

In all my years as an atheist discussing ideas with atheists and seeing atheists discuss ideas online, I have never encountered an atheist that has ever made an argument in the form: "If I don't believe in the existence of X, X doesn't exist".

I'm not claiming that such an event has never happened in human history, but based on my personal experience that sort of atheist is almost certainly extremely rare compared to the rest, something like a lone Flat Earther among millions of Round Earthers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've already gotten the information that I needed from you, and I don't wish to drag out a conversation beyond need, but you make a number of interesting statements here that I would like to make a brief reply.

If this was a subjective experience for me only, then yes. But when 2 billion christians confirm that God is in control of every event on the planet, then it no longer "seems" that way to me.

I'm pretty sure that your claim is dubious even from Christian understanding.

Out of those 2 billion christians...

- Many (probably most) of these are christians merely because they were taught to be christian by parents, schooling, and such, and are not "born again".

- Out of those remaining, I'm not certain that all of them would agree with you that "God is in control of every event on the planet". I wouldn't doubt that a majority would take that view, but another reasonable view is that Earth is at least partly or temporarily "controlled by Satan, the Lord of the World".

- Out of those remaining who do think that God is in control of every event on the planet, it doesn't seem likely that every one will have "confirmed" this in any way approaching knowledge. It will simply be a belief or a feeling.

- And out of those remaining, they have some interpretation of events equally as doubtful (to me) as how you interpret your personal experiences.

The number of people who interpret something in a particular way means nothing if the judgment they all bring to the subject makes the same sort of mistakes. It is possible even for millions of people to misinterpret their experience in the same way. At one time, the vast majority of people were flat-earthers.

So, the claim that two billion Christians have confirmed that such a belief is true is just not believable to me.

Jesus died for our past, present and future sins. Everything you've ever done wrong is attached to you like a rap sheet, it's your criminal record or so to speak.

The problem here is that you don't see this rap sheet. It's a hypothetical thing. You can feel guilt, or feel forgiven -- these are part of your experience. But the rap sheet is dogma.

We begin to see the sin in our lives and hate it.

This is a process that non-Christians, and even atheists, can experience just as well. I have certain ideas about what are virtues and what are vices, and I have learned how to have a vicerally negative reaction (hate, for lack of a better word) for vices in others and myself. Perhaps Christianity encourages this process, but it doesn't seem exclusive to Christianity.

When we look in the mirror, realize this through the trials of experience, we say no to our old ways, we mortify them. We die to our old selves and begin to walk with God. Obviously, character is demonstrated. "By their fruit you will know them".
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." Galations 5:22-23

Character is more than action, it is a disposition to think and feel about actions in a particular way. So, yes, you are talking about character.

You do not have spiritual vision. A veil exists over you preventing you from seeing.

Oh, there are many kinds of vision. Don't be too certain that I don't see this issue more clearly than yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ronald]

I'm pretty sure that your claim is dubious even from Christian understanding.

Maybe you are right, I shouldn't speak for 2 billion christians. However, if they actually understand the Bible whether Catholic or Prostestant or even Jewish, scripture is very clear that God is sovereign. If He is not in control of everything, then he wouldn't be omnipotent. He is omniscient and omnipresent as well There would be an uncertainty with our faith if He wasn't in control. Any little incident may not seem important but have vast repercussions down the line. So, as scripture says, He knows when a sparrow falls from a tree. He provides for all the earth in unique ways. I'm really talking referring to the significant events in life. Whether you eat a bagel or eggs is not, however, if you have high cholesterol and ate eggs everyday then the repercussions would come. We have an apparent free agency to act and choose. Did I choose to move out to California away from my family when I was 20? Or did God call me out here to get away from them within a series of events that led me to Him? As Forrest Gump said when he was wondering if our destiny was fixed and prepared for us by God or are we just meandering around and trying to figure out how to make our own? He said, I think both are happening at the same time! I loved Forrest Gump. Actually, scripture does say that a man plans his heart and God directs his steps. So, there is a freedom of doing whatever you want as long as it is in God's will. Well, that my life is in God's hands is so comforting, it removes worry and fear. And worry and fear are opposite of faith.

I wouldn't doubt that a majority would take that view, but another reasonable view is that Earth is at least partly or temporarily "controlled by Satan, the Lord of the World".

-
God allows Satan to do his evil for a purpose! If Satan was able to do what he wanted, we'd all be toast. He seeks to destroy, but he can only do just so much. Read the book of Job ... Satan was allowed to do so much to a point, destroy everything he had, kill all his family and livestock, give him painful sores, etc. but he wasn't allowed to kill him. The outcome was a lesson for the world and then Job received even more blessings then he started with. His faith was tested as ours is -- but in extreme ways, beyond what most of us could handle.

The problem here is that you don't see this rap sheet.

You know what you did wrong since you were a kid. You may have forgotten, but God doesn't --unless you are saved. You may have done bad things resulting in repercussions that you weren't aware of as well.
God gave Moses the Ten Commandments so we could know what sin is. Commiting adultery, stealing, coveting, baring false witness, not honoring your parents, worshipping idols (including yourself), basically not loving God (acknowledging him, appreciating him and putting him first). The Law is holy but Jesus fulfilled the Law because we can not keep it. The Old Testament stories demonstrate that man fails to keep these laws and be obedient. They had 613 laws to keep. Thankfully we are not under that system, we are under GRACE. We try to be good but sooner or later, we mess up. They did and everyone does. The wages of sin is DEATH OF BOTH BODY AND SOUL IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. Jesus can save you from death and offer eternal life. It's baffling that people will go to their death rejecting this free offer.

Oh, there are many kinds of vision. Don't be too certain that I don't see this issue more clearly than yourself.

You are very perceptive and analytical, it's refreshing. I like that I can say you're spiritually blind and you don't get all defensive and turn to attack me! That's self control and a bit of humility. Maybe, when you do become a Christian someday, this part of your character won't need so much work? God is still working on my patience and other things. But currently, you are living by physical sight, intelligence and wisdom that you have learned over the years of your life; which is valuable, but it is lacking faith in God and awareness of the spiritual realm. I suspect that He may be surely directing your steps towards a special moment in time when He will truly reveal himself to you.
Be on the lookout!

 

[Ronald]

By all means, present your case.

That would take chapters of material. I try to form a brief summation. Design in nature requires a designer. Nature does not design itself in a mindless process that involves more than a piece by piece progression of choosing a mutation that is more beneficial after going through thousands that weren't. Mutations are defects, they are harmful. We see birth defects in nature, they are not beneficial. Even geneticists would agree that maybe 1 in 10,000 mutations can possibly be beneficial. The problem is, the specie had to endure the 9999 harmful or even deadly defects before it came a upon a good one, hence, chance would not have a chance! The mechanism doesn't work long enough for survival. The eye, for instance, cannot evolve in a piece by piece process until you get sight. It needs all the components at once for vision to be possible: The optic nerve, retina, pupil, iris, muscles, lens, cornea and many other parts would have had to evolve simultaneously in one generation --poof ... a stretch of the imagination that some evolutionists call punctuated equilbrium! Yeah sure, that's requires more faith than we have. Actually the entire body that consists of many systems, organs and the parts work together and are interdependantly contingent. Neither could they evolve in a piece by piece manner. Darwin was a failure! It would have been better for him if he was never born, being responsible for leading millions of people astray. He thought the cell was some jelly-like, simple substance -- he did not know how complex it was. The simplist cell is more complex than the space shuttle. Life comes from life, it doesn't not come from nothing.
Do you like baseball? Read about Frank Pastore (an ex-pro pitcher) in his book, Shattered. He was an atheist who used to mock Christians but when he actually researched the claims made in the Bible for himself, (using rational logic), he found that Jesus is for real and the Bible is the truth. It hasn't been changed, since there are over 5000 manuscripts that have been passed down and transcribed accurately. Textural criticism is used which is a literary method of testing accuracy in the copies made. This is a very strict method that is used for all books of antiquity. You want facts? The Bible has been proven true through archeological finds confirming these people, places and events described existed and happened with hair splitting accuracy. Prophecies have been fulfilled demonstrating that only a supernatural vision must have been given by a supernatural Supreme Being watching over us. If prophets were wrong, they would be stoned to death -- that was the test of a prophet, 100% accuracy. This is why many had faith. You can't make over 300 prophecies about a coming Messiah (given 500-1700 years before his birth) and then have them all come true. Mathematicians have just taken eight prophecies and determined that the odds of one person fulfilled them was 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 So, 300 prophecies fulfilled by chance would prove impossible. Fact? Logic? You don't have to leave your brain at home when you are introduced to the Creator of the Universe. You do have to put your pride aside and assume that you really know nothing about life until you meet your Maker.

Biology does not explain what creates life, where it came from, nor does it attempt to explain what the life force is that directs the growth of a fetus in the womb. It explains what happens but not necessarily how. It is beyond human ability. The cell is complex but that is where we start to understand. Multiply that by trillions of cells opperating contingiently in a process requiring information, functions and processes beyond our knowledge and abilities by what ... chance mindless mutations selected by nature. Does nature think and have a mind to guide this process. DOES THAT SOUND LOGICAL? Nature is water, sunlight, electromagnetic energy, nuclear energy, chemicals and other minerals. Do they think and choose and direct life? No -- that's not logical. Chemicals + energy + time does not = life. Something is missing. Information is required, but where did the information come from? Even if you added information to that equation, it still doesn't spark life into existence.
Here is a list of biologists, geneticists, investigative jouralists, all atheists who became Christians after they honestly researched the evidence that demanded a verdict: Alesksandr Sozhenitsyn, C.S. Lewis, George Price, Rick Oliver, Francis Collins and Lee Strobel to mention a few who I would say have more knowledge and logic than you or I do. A book by Lee Strobel called "A Case for Christ" or his "A Case For Faith" will challenge your position, because he was an atheist and knows where you are coming from. The second book will argue this point in more detail. Being an award winning investigative reporter with a law degree from Yale, he confronts the top minds and interviews them while covering the questions and topics that all your atheists come to this forum to debate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've made a number of comments to the many points you made in your post. Some in agreement, some making scientific corrections (in my opinion; you are free to disagree ), etc. I trust that your arguments are your own, but given that you've copy-and-pasted whole paragraphs of your post from elsewhere in a modular fashion, I can't help but wonder if you aren't actually the author.

That would take chapters of material. I try to form a brief summation. Design in nature requires a designer.

I'm willing to accept that as a working definition. The implication, then, is that the appearance of design is not the same as design.

Nature does not design itself in a mindless process that involves more than a piece by piece progression of choosing a mutation that is more beneficial after going through thousands that weren't. Mutations are defects, they are harmful. We see birth defects in nature, they are not beneficial. Even geneticists would agree that maybe 1 in 10,000 mutations can possibly be beneficial. The problem is, the specie had to endure the 9999 harmful or even deadly defects before it came a upon a good one, hence, chance would not have a chance!

I disagree. In humans, we each have about 100-200 unique mutations, 98% of which are benign, conferring no real benefit or detriment. 1.5% are detrimental, and 0.5% are beneficial (source). That is, ignoring the mutations that don't do anything, 1 in 4 'functional' mutations are beneficial, and 3 in 4 are detrimental.

So the ratio of beneficial to detrimental mutations isn't 1:9,999 - it's 1:3. That's an improvement of over 3,000 percent Where did you get your figures, may I ask?

The mechanism doesn't work long enough for survival. The eye, for instance, cannot evolve in a piece by piece process until you get sight. It needs all the components at once for vision to be possible: The optic nerve, retina, pupil, iris, muscles, lens, cornea and many other parts would have had to evolve simultaneously in one generation --poof ... a stretch of the imagination that some evolutionists call punctuated equilbrium!

I disagree. The eye is any photosensitive structure, so only needs photosensitive pigmentation - that is, proteins which give off a signal when exposed to light. A patch of cells on your skin with such a pigment can give off signals to your pre-existing nervous system, telling you about intensity and vague direction. From that very basic beginning, more mutations can confer gradual advantages. A mutation that alters the shape of the body, placing the cells in a pit, improves the the ability to detect direction, and deeper pits improve it further still. This leads to a lip, then a pin hole, then a sealed, fluid-filled hole, etc. Each step is an improvement, but is by no means a necessary one.

Of the things you listed, the iris, muscles, lens, cornea, etc, actually aren't necessary. Useful, yes, but they aren't necessary for the detection of light. It is with successive generations, not one, that these additional features evolved.

Yeah sure, that's requires more faith than we have. Actually the entire body that consists of many systems, organs and the parts work together and are interdependantly contingent. Neither could they evolve in a piece by piece manner. Darwin was a failure! It would have been better for him if he was never born, being responsible for leading millions of people astray. He thought the cell was some jelly-like, simple substance -- he did not know how complex it was. The simplist cell is more complex than the space shuttle.

Indeed, however, complexity is not an automatic disproof of evolution. Darwin had no idea about genetics, he could only posit that there was some mechanism of imperfect inheritance, some unit of information that transferred from parent to offspring through which evolution occurred. In the 20th century, we discovered DNA, proving Darwin right.

Do you like baseball?

I'm more partial to football and rugby, if I'm honest.

Read about Frank Pastore (an ex-pro pitcher) in his book, Shattered. He was an atheist who used to mock Christians but when he actually researched the claims made in the Bible for himself, (using rational logic), he found that Jesus is for real and the Bible is the truth.

For every conversion story, there's a deconversion story.

It hasn't been changed, since there are over 5000 manuscripts that have been passed down and transcribed accurately. Textural criticism is used which is a literary method of testing accuracy in the copies made. This is a very strict method that is used for all books of antiquity. You want facts? The Bible has been proven true through archeological finds confirming these people, places and events described existed and happened with hair splitting accuracy.

It is inaccurate, even misleading, to say that archaeological findings prove the Bible. Rather, they prove parts of it. The Bible was right about Egypt, for instance, but that fact doesn't lend to the veracity of anything else. Individual claims must stand on their own merits.

Prophecies have been fulfilled demonstrating that only a supernatural vision must have been given by a supernatural Supreme Being watching over us. If prophets were wrong, they would be stoned to death -- that was the test of a prophet, 100% accuracy. This is why many had faith. You can't make over 300 prophecies about a coming Messiah (given 500-1700 years before his birth) and then have them all come true.

Ah, but they haven't all come true. Apparently, of the 333 messianic prophecies, Jesus has fulfilled 109 of them, and the remaining 224 will be fulfilled in the future. There's also disagreement between Jews and Christians as to what the messianic prophecies are. A blow-by-blow account also renders these prophecies to be self-fulfilling, unfulfilled, or simply too vague to apply to anything. Jesus is referred to as Immanuel only once, by Matthew, and Matthew references the prophecy to do so: he only calls him 'Immanuel' because it was predicted that he would.

But the subject of messianic prophecies is a lengthy and uninteresting one. Personally, I'd much more enjoy our discussion on evolution.

Mathematicians have just taken eight prophecies and determined that the odds of one person fulfilled them was 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 So, 300 prophecies fulfilled by chance would prove impossible.

Well, not really. Briefly, if eight prophecies = 10[sup]-26[/sup], then 300 prophecies = 10[sup]-975[/sup] - exceedingly improbable, but not actually impossible.

Anyway, technicalities aside, who are these mathematicians?

Biology does not explain what creates life, where it came from,

Sure it does. The prevailing theory is called 'abiogenesis'.

nor does it attempt to explain what the life force is that directs the growth of a fetus in the womb. It explains what happens but not necessarily how.

The 'life force'? As I've already explained, DNA tells cells what to do. It holds the blueprints for proteins and enzymes, which the cellular machinery manufacture, and which then go out and turn that cell into part of the liver, lungs, heart, etc. It's complex, but it's understood.

It is beyond human ability. The cell is complex but that is where we start to understand. Multiply that by trillions of cells opperating contingiently in a process requiring information, functions and processes beyond our knowledge and abilities by what ... chance mindless mutations selected by nature. Does nature think and have a mind to guide this process. DOES THAT SOUND LOGICAL?

Logical? Yes. Intuitive? No, but intuition does little to determine truth.

Nature is water, sunlight, electromagnetic energy, nuclear energy, chemicals and other minerals. Do they think and choose and direct life? No -- that's not logical.

Certainly, but they don't have to.

Chemicals + energy + time does not = life. Something is missing. Information is required, but where did the information come from? Even if you added information to that equation, it still doesn't spark life into existence.

The information comes from genetic mutation - there are a whole battery of mutations which increase the genetic material of an individual. Each human, for instance, has about 4 ERVs - viral DNA inserted into an inert part of the genome of the sperm or egg (or ball or ovum) that would eventually give rise to us. ERVs, then, represent a direct method of increasing our genetic material, and thus the information in our genome, and indeed are the backbone of paternity tests.

Here is a list of biologists, geneticists, investigative jouralists, all atheists who became Christians after they honestly researched the evidence that demanded a verdict: Alesksandr Sozhenitsyn, C.S. Lewis, George Price, Rick Oliver, Francis Collins and Lee Strobel to mention a few who I would say have more knowledge and logic than you or I do.

I'm sure I could cite just as many converts going the other way, however, playing the numbers game is a futile endeavour. Stephen Hawking himself could give up physics and become the next Pope for all the good it would do - as I said above, claims must stand on their own merits, not on the merits of those who make them.

A book by Lee Strobel called "A Case for Christ" or his "A Case For Faith" will challenge your position, because he was an atheist and knows where you are coming from. The second book will argue this point in more detail. Being an award winning investigative reporter with a law degree from Yale, he confronts the top minds and interviews them while covering the questions and topics that all your atheists come to this forum to debate.

I'm disinclined to discourse by proxy.

 

[Tiberius]

I hope you don't mind if I have a go responding...

They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

The simple fact that a belief brings with it a world view doesn't make it a religion. How many followers of political parties have worldviews influenced by that party? But their party isn't a religion.

They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

And apart from a lack of belief in God, I don't think you'll find any such belief shared among atheists.

Indeed, one could argue that a lack of belief in God isn't shared either, as some atheists firmly believe that God couldn't exist, some find it unlikely and there are many other points of view about it.

They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

I hardly see how this is a requirement for a religious belief. People can certain have religious belief without having this. So I fail to see how an abandonment of religion makes whatever you go to next a religion as well.

They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.

This is just wrong. Atheists don't look up to these people by definition.

They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

Again, this is just wrong. Darwin was a scientist. He was working to expand knowledge (a laudible goal, yes, but hardly religious), and he was NOT working to spread disbelief in God or atheism.

They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

And if I start going on about how great Star Trek is, does that mean I am trying to indoctrinate you into the Star Trek religion? Of course not.

And most of what I have seen of them has been them arguing for rationality. If a rational argument can lead to God, then they'll accept it. But so far, all arguments for God (at least the ones I have seen) are built on logical fallacies.

And this last one I'll break up into sections because you tried to cram a lot in there.

They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith.

To deny the existence of leprechauns also takes faith. Do you have two religions? Christianity and a-leprechaunism? Of course not. Atheists don't believe in God simply because they have no good reason to. The evidence does not support the existence of God, hence they do not believe.

This is very important for you to realise.

If there is evidence that withstands testing, then an atheist (in fact any rational person) will accept it as fact.

If there is no evidence whatsoever that can withstand testing, then atheists (or any rational person) will say, "So why should I believe it to be true?"

Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable.

Why should it? Evolution deals ONLY with how populations of animals change over many generations. To say that evolution can't explain some other aspect of the universe and is thus a bad theory is like saying your car is a bad car because it can't fly.

In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

Like I said, evolution has nothing to do with this. For you to say evolution is worthless because it can't provide answers to these questions is like me saying that the Bible has no use because it doesn't tell me how to operate my television.

If you try to put a square peg in a round hole and it doesn't fit, it isn't because the peg is bad, but because you tried to make it do something it wasn't meant for.

 

[Ronald]

I trust that your arguments are your own, but given that you've copy-and-pasted whole paragraphs of your post from elsewhere in a modular fashion, I can't help but wonder if you aren't actually the author.

I am an author and I don't have time to rewrite thoughts that I've previously organized for rebuttal against other atheists so I go back and give you the answer quicker.

In humans, we each have about 100-200 unique mutations, 98% of which are benign, conferring no real benefit or detriment. 1.5% are detrimental, and 0.5% are beneficial (source). That is, ignoring the mutations that don't do anything, 1 in 4 'functional' mutations are beneficial, and 3 in 4 are detrimental.

I would have thought that after 6000 years we would have accummulated more than that! There are nuetral mutations of course. But basically, God created two physically perfect, completely finished humans of whom we all came from. As a matter of fact, every creature was made finished. Micro-evolution exists of course which is changes within the kind but not macro-evolution which is a change into some other kind. A peacock was always a peacock. A rose was designed to look and smell that way from the start as was everything else.

Ah, but they haven't all come true. Apparently, of the 333 messianic prophecies, Jesus has fulfilled 109 of them, and the remaining 224 will be fulfilled in the future.

Your numbers are wrong, it has been tallied that more than 300 have been fulfilled! But even so, 109 prophecies fulfilled isn't enough for you to believe that He is who He said He was and follow Him?

There's also disagreement between Jews and Christians as to what the messianic prophecies are.

The Jews disagree with everything in a sentence that contains something positive or good about Jesus.

A blow-by-blow account also renders these prophecies to be self-fulfilling, unfulfilled, or simply too vague to apply to anything

Read "A Case for Christ" by Lee Stoubel
.

Jesus is referred to as Immanuel only once, by Matthew, and Matthew references the prophecy to do so: he only calls him 'Immanuel' because it was predicted that he would.

His name will be called Immanuel which means "God with us". Not his name will be Immanuel.

Personally, I'd much more enjoy our discussion on evolution.

To me it's just the opposite. I love talking about the Bible endlessly. Evolution is a dead end subject to me, there's no fruit. It's like talking to my brother about the existence of aliens and that they have been observing us for a long time. It's a dead end for me, because I do not believe that there are any.

Anyway, technicalities aside, who are these mathematicians?

THE ODDS OF EIGHT MESSIANIC PROP

Well, nice chatting, but I'm getting disinterested in this unfruitful endeavor. It is sad that you bought into all that stuff and are pretty locked in. I think we are at a crossroads, I'll go the way of the Lord and you can go your way. I'd like to say, let me know how that works out for ya, but you won't be able to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am an author and I don't have time to rewrite thoughts that I've previously organized for rebuttal against other atheists so I go back and give you the answer quicker.

There's nothing wrong with that.

I would have thought that after 6000 years we would have accummulated more than that!

No, each new human has 100-200 on top of all the rest. My child will have 100-200 mutations that arose between the formation of my sperm and his conception.

There are nuetral mutations of course. But basically, God created two physically perfect, completely finished humans of whom we all came from. As a matter of fact, every creature was made finished. Micro-evolution exists of course which is changes within the kind but not macro-evolution which is a change into some other kind. A peacock was always a peacock. A rose was designed to look and smell that way from the start as was everything else.

If a peacock's descendants ever became anything other than peafowl, then evolution is wrong. According to evolution, things don't change taxa. Rather, taxa splinter into new taxa, creating the nested hierarchy that constitutes one of the biggest pieces of evidence for evolution.

Basically, a peacock must always bear peacock offspring. Those offspring can speciate, splitting into two groups which become isolated and genetically unable to interbreed, but they're still peacocks. With mammals, the original mammal species split into distinct groups, which split further and further - but those descendants (dogs, cats, whales, horses, etc), are all still mammals.

A mammal will always be a mammal, but it won't always be a single species, which is the point.

To me it's just the opposite. I love talking about the Bible endlessly. Evolution is a dead end subject to me, there's no fruit. It's like talking to my brother about the existence of aliens and that they have been observing us for a long time. It's a dead end for me, because I do not believe that there are any.

There are real answers to be had, though, a bona fide conclusion that can be deduced from hard facts. Theology swings this way and that, but with science we can beat it out. Either the eye can, or cannot, evolve. The ratio of beneficial to detrimental mutations is 1:9,999 or 1:3 (or something else). Either the peacock's feathers can, or cannot, be explained by evolution.

Well, nice chatting, but I'm getting disinterested in this unfruitful endeavor. It is sad that you bought into all that stuff and are pretty locked in. I think we are at a crossroads, I'll go the way of the Lord and you can go your way. I'd like to say, let me know how that works out for ya, but you won't be able to.

I go wherever the truth is, wherever the evidence leads. I'm only interested in discussing what you brought up - you stated that geneticists say 9,999 in 10,000 mutations are harmful or even deadly, that the complexity of the cell is a blow to evolution, that evolution requires the spontaneous formation of a fully-developed organ, that organs can't evolve in parts, etc. I showed how all these were wrong, and it's insulting, and a little amusing, for the reply to be, "Yes, well, you're just locked in, I'm not going to respond, but only because it's fruitless!".

If I'm wrong, prove it. If I'm right, admit it. You've got nothing to lose, just tell the truth .

 

[someguy14]

Actually it would be more fair to criticize the way some interpert the Bible. To many what the Bible itself says does not include a simple straightforward explaination on hte origin of the Universe.

Colossians 1:16

 

[SithDoughnut]

Colossians 1:16

That's not an explanation. An explanation includes the how, not merely the who. The Bible does not explain how God created the universe, it only says that he did.

 

[Gadarene]

And seriously, can people stop quoting Lee Strobel as some kind of authority?

He is far from critical enough of the issues he raises, he only interviews people who wholly subscribe to the notions he is trying to disprove and places himself as the "opposition", whereas he would be better off finding people who wholly oppose those notions.

His trick of pretending to be the "atheist" point of view bears the unfortunate implication that if he wasn't a particularly skeptical atheist then, then he certainly won't be one now having converted to Christianity - and it certainly seems like he wasn't.

 

[Davian]

And seriously, can people stop quoting Lee Strobel as some kind of authority?

He is far from critical enough of the issues he raises, he only interviews people who wholly subscribe to the notions he is trying to disprove and places himself as the "opposition", whereas he would be better off finding people who wholly oppose those notions.

His trick of pretending to be the "atheist" point of view bears the unfortunate implication that if he wasn't a particularly skeptical atheist then, then he certainly won't be one now having converted to Christianity - and it certainly seems like he wasn't.

+1.

I have his 'Case for Christ' audiobook - with Lee reading it - and where he writes that he has 'concrete evidence' in the book (I have the PDF version), he says 'almost concrete evidence' in the audiobook. Having gone through the book, I found he never even got to 'almost'.

 

[drjean]

That's not an explanation. An explanation includes the how, not merely the who. The Bible does not explain how God created the universe, it only says that he did.

I think there's more there than that.

•God freely designed and created the universe out of nothing (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6, 9; Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3).

•Creation has a purpose: the glory of God (Isaiah 43:7: Revelation 4:11; Psalm 19:1, 2).

•Creation was fully grown and finished, having the appearance of age (cf. Genesis 1:10; 2:1). For example, Adam appeared as a grown man when he was one day old.

I suppose there are concepts too great for us to grasp. Even quantum physics bears out much of what I have believed by faith (aye, there's the rub: faith. )

Here are some counter intuitive truths about Quantum Mechanics. Remember that everything I am about to share has been experimentally verified. In fact, no part of Quantum Mechanics has ever been shown to be inaccurate or false.

• QM tells us that an observation of one object can instantaneously influence the behavior of another greatly distant object even if no physical force connects the two.
• QM tells us that observing an object to be some place causes it to be there. It wasn’t there before you observed it. If we observe an atom to be someplace, it was our looking at it that caused it to be there.
• QM tells us that an object can be in many places and many states at once.
• QM denies the existence of a physically real world independent of someone’s observations of it.

• It is not common sense that one object can be in two far apart places at once.
• Common sense tells us that there is a “real world” whether or not we look at it. But, that is not true. Nothing is real until someone observes it.
• A photon of light—or an atom—is either a wave or a particle depending on what we want it to be.
• Objects can exist in multiple places and only become real and localized when an observer expects it to be somewhere and actually looks for it there.

Hebrews 11:3 is my Biblical outline of quantum mechanics: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

In Genesis 1:1-31 the Bible describes God as thinking and speaking the universe into existence:
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. … And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." And it was so. … And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."… And it was so. … Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. … And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, … And it was so. … And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." … And God saw that it was good. … And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds … And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,” … God saw (observed) all that he had made, and it was very good.


(from: Preach it teach it blog)