Atheism

[Dave Ellis]

Well they found other stuff like ashes etc.

Even if they did, I have ashes in my fireplace. That doesn't prove anything. Likewise, if it was burnt down thousands of years ago, the ashes would be long gone by now.

But it's not wrong. (2 Timothy 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What if 2 Timothy is wrong? You're working on the presupposition that the Bible is correct. You can't use the bible as evidence to prove itself correct. Of course it's going to claim it's being truthful... every holy book ever written claims to be the word of some god. You need supporting evidence to prove it.

Depends. Well it's obvious that verse isn't to be taken literal.

I don't see how it's obvious?

Yes it does, and in great detail.

What talks about Nukes in that passage?

 

[Jonathan95]

Even if they did, I have ashes in my fireplace. That doesn't prove anything. Likewise, if it was burnt down thousands of years ago, the ashes would be long gone by now.

Yes maybe it would, if it wasn't a miracle of God. Read the verses below

Deuteronomy 29:22-24
22 So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it;

23 And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:

24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?

What if 2 Timothy is wrong? You're working on the presupposition that the Bible is correct. You can't use the bible as evidence to prove itself correct. Of course it's going to claim it's being truthful... every holy book ever written claims to be the word of some god. You need supporting evidence to prove it.

So Paul and all the other apostles etc suffered as much as they did for nothing? Jesus also said we would be hated for his sake. Christians are the most hated people.

Watch Brother Yun's testimony, he's from China. He was without food and water for like over 50 days if I remember right. He got out of prison miraculously just like some Paul or some other apostle(s) got out from prison by a miracle of God. God opened the jail door for Brother Yun and healed his broken knees.

Don't come up with things like "well that's not true evidence". Would a man travel to USA to tell lies? China persecutes Christians.

I can say the same about evolution for example. They can just make things up, and earn money on it. Claiming what they have is evidence after research etc.

What talks about Nukes in that passage?

Zechariah 5
1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.

4 I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

5 Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth.

6 And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth.

7 And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.

8 And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.

9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can't really find the video where there were burning brimstones etc, but it's on YouTube when you search for Sodom and Gomorrah discovered or something.

Right, but does that video (if it even exists) have any reputable source? Can you track down names and dates? If you dig down to the actual source of the information, you'll find it's not what you think.

In this case, I think you're referring to Ron Wyatt's bogus claims that he found the actual smouldering sites of the five cities of the plains (two of which were Sodom and Gomorrah). These claims have been rejected universally - by both mainstream science, and by Creationists.

Even Answers in Genesis critiques his work, detailing how his alleged findings are not what he says they are.

I don't know, I just quoted stuff from a site.

First, it's dishonest (read: a lie, bearing false witness) to quote something as if it's your own work without citing your source.
Second, if you didn't understand what was being said, why did you post it as if you did? Why not make a thread saying, "Hey guys, I found this site that said "XYZ", what does that mean"?

Why did you believe it?

Zechariah 5, sorry. Watch the three parts about Zechariah 5 nuclear prophecy on YouTube too if you want.

I checked out Zechariah 5, too, and there's still nothing there.

No God gave it to them.

So you keep saying - but do you have any proof that it was anything more than self-fulfilling? Can you prove that it was caused by God, and not caused because the Jews told the British, "We want Israel"?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes maybe it would, if it wasn't a miracle of God. Read the verses below

Deuteronomy 29:22-24
22 So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it;

23 And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:

24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?

What exactly does that prove?

So Paul and all the other apostles etc suffered as much as they did for nothing? Jesus also said we would be hated for his sake. Christians are the most hated people.

If there actually was a Paul, and he actually did suffer... then yes, he suffered for nothing. Likewise, Christians are not the most hated people... not by a longshot.

Watch Brother Yun's testimony, he's from China. He was without food and water for like over 50 days if I remember right. He got out of prison miraculously just like some Paul or some other apostle(s) got out from prison by a miracle of God. God opened the jail door for Brother Yun and healed his broken knees.

He was not without food and water for 50 days... Likewise, where is your evidence that God just opened the door and let him walk out?

Don't come up with things like "well that's not true evidence". Would a man travel to USA to tell lies? China persecutes Christians.

Well, yes... he would. I can totally buy into a Christian fleeing a country that persecutes Christians, to go to one of the most religiously active countries with a majority Christian population. That's what being a refugee is.

I can say the same about evolution for example. They can just make things up, and earn money on it. Claiming what they have is evidence after research etc.

The problem is, to be accepted as Evidence it must be tested and peer reviewed. Evolution has mountains of mutually supporting evidence, even the Catholic Church has accepted it as truth. Dr Francis Collins, one of the few religious top level biologists, and an evangelical Christian has even stated that the genetic evidence alone was enough to confirm Evolution, and that's not even counting the fossil record and other evidence we have.

Zechariah 5
1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.

4 I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

5 Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth.

6 And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth.

7 And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.

8 And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.

9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

How does that allude to a nuclear weapon? I'm still not seeing where you get that connection.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then of course he's going to find evidence - he's getting paid for it. But that's a huge bias, one untempered by peer-review, rendering him useless as an example of an atheist who believes in ID - chances are, he's just in it for a quick quid.

well we can't go around and judging everyone's atheism because they act without morals can we? most likely, some of his evidence sticks. But I have never seen an athiest convert to theism. But it does happen. Josh Mcdowell, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis were all athiests at one point in the game. Chesterton was pretty versed in His athiesm when He converted.

but here is the quote from His book on ID

"quote-
"I could go on, but you get the picture. The evidence doesn’t prove that
God exists – maybe some advanced alien civilization is playing a trick on us;
maybe the scientists are undergoing some sort of mass hallucination; maybe all
this is happening due to some incredibly improbable quantum fluctuation. But the
evidence does provide some support for the hypothesis that God exists. It would
be close-minded for the scientists to refuse to countenance the hypothesis that
God exists, due to some commitment to methodological naturalism. Of course,
it is important to consider the naturalistic hypotheses, but one has to consider the
theistic hypothesis as well.
Note that the evidence is providing support for the existence of something
like the Christian God. While I have not given a definition of “supernatural”,
I take it that the Christian God counts as supernatural. The evidence for the
existence of this supernatural being is not conclusive, but that is how evidential
relations often work in science. For example, cloud chamber tracks give us
evidence for the existence of unobservable quarks (“unobservable” in the sense of
van Fraassen 1980), though this evidence is not conclusive." "

 

[Wiccan_Child]

well we can't go around and judging everyone's atheism because they act without morals can we? most likely, some of his evidence sticks. But I have never seen an athiest convert to theism. But it does happen. Josh Mcdowell, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis were all athiests at one point in the game. Chesterton was pretty versed in His athiesm when He converted.

And there are just as many atheists who used to be theists. But the point is, his testimony is tainted by the fact that he gets paid to 'find' evidence. If I was paid a hefty publisher's advance I bet I could 'find' evidence too. If you can cite peer-reviewed research and argue how it points to an Intelligent Designer or Jesus or whatever, that's fine - but citing that man doesn't get you anywhere, because he is not a trustworthy source.

Likewise, I wouldn't cite Dawkin's The God Delusion or Hitchen's God is not Great as evidence that there is no God or that God/Christianity/religion is wicked or what have you, because there's obvious bias there.

 

[Dave Ellis]

And there are just as many atheists who used to be theists. But the point is, his testimony is tainted by the fact that he gets paid to 'find' evidence. If I was paid a hefty publisher's advance I bet I could 'find' evidence too. If you can cite peer-reviewed research and argue how it points to an Intelligent Designer or Jesus or whatever, that's fine - but citing that man doesn't get you anywhere, because he is not a trustworthy source.

Likewise, I wouldn't cite Dawkin's The God Delusion or Hitchen's God is not Great as evidence that there is no God or that God/Christianity/religion is wicked or what have you, because there's obvious bias there.

I don't really agree here... Just because someone is paid to find evidence, doesn't mean the evidence they find is tainted.

Instead, it's best to examine the evidence anyone from any point of view presents, and critique it based on it's own merits. If it stands up to attempts to falsify it, who cares if the person that discovered the evidence was paid?

 

[createdtoworship]

And there are just as many atheists who used to be theists. But the point is, his testimony is tainted by the fact that he gets paid to 'find' evidence. If I was paid a hefty publisher's advance I bet I could 'find' evidence too. If you can cite peer-reviewed research and argue how it points to an Intelligent Designer or Jesus or whatever, that's fine - but citing that man doesn't get you anywhere, because he is not a trustworthy source.

Likewise, I wouldn't cite Dawkin's The God Delusion or Hitchen's God is not Great as evidence that there is no God or that God/Christianity/religion is wicked or what have you, because there's obvious bias there.

but you have hitchens in your signature?

ooops

 

[Wiccan_Child]

but you have hitchens in your signature?

Yes, I do. So what? Did you notice what he says? What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't really agree here... Just because someone is paid to find evidence, doesn't mean the evidence they find is tainted.

Instead, it's best to examine the evidence anyone from any point of view presents, and critique it based on it's own merits. If it stands up to attempts to falsify it, who cares if the person that discovered the evidence was paid?

In the event that we can't critique it (graydll is unforthcoming with what this evidence actually is), and since we're discussing the existence of a self-professed atheist who claims to have evidence for God, it's not so much whether or not he has genuine evidence, but whether his motives are unbiased.

You're right, he may well have genuine evidence for God, and his financial bias doesn't necessarily render his data incorrect, but it does render it suspect, and it's for that reason that I disbelieve that he is a genuine atheist with genuine evidence for God - rather, I believe he is masquerading as such for the money. Gradyll's point was to show him as an atheist who supports ID, but I doubt his support comes from anything more than his fee.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, I do. So what? Did you notice what he says? What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

but too bad we have to dismiss his quote.

because of your rules about hitchens.

 

[createdtoworship]

In the event that we can't critique it (graydll is unforthcoming with what this evidence actually is), and since we're discussing the existence of a self-professed atheist who claims to have evidence for God, it's not so much whether or not he has genuine evidence, but whether his motives are unbiased.

You're right, he may well have genuine evidence for God, and his financial bias doesn't necessarily render his data incorrect, but it does render it suspect, and it's for that reason that I disbelieve that he is a genuine atheist with genuine evidence for God - rather, I believe he is masquerading as such for the money. Gradyll's point was to show him as an atheist who supports ID, but I doubt his support comes from anything more than his fee.

so now his evidence and his atheism is in question? Nice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

but too bad we have to dismiss his quote.

because of your rules about hitchens.

I said it's fallacious to cite Hitchen's God is not Great as proof that God doesn't exist, I never said citing Hitchens anywhere in any context is erroneous. Did you even read my post?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

so now his evidence and his atheism is in question? Nice.

Of course it is, that's what 'scepticism' means - questioning everything. Maybe he is a genuine atheist, or maybe he's a theist pretending to be an atheist to make a quick buck. Maybe he does have genuine evidence, or maybe he's tacked on to the tired old arguments bandied about. A self-professed atheist who presents evidence of God calls into question the genuineness of his atheism - is he, in fact, an atheist at all?

Until you actual show us what his evidence is, we can't comment on whether he is or is not an atheist with evidence for God. All we know is that he says he's an atheist while simultaneously saying he has evidence for God. Both those claims are suspicious, and your silence isn't exactly helping your case.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In the event that we can't critique it (graydll is unforthcoming with what this evidence actually is), and since we're discussing the existence of a self-professed atheist who claims to have evidence for God, it's not so much whether or not he has genuine evidence, but whether his motives are unbiased.

You're right, he may well have genuine evidence for God, and his financial bias doesn't necessarily render his data incorrect, but it does render it suspect, and it's for that reason that I disbelieve that he is a genuine atheist with genuine evidence for God - rather, I believe he is masquerading as such for the money. Gradyll's point was to show him as an atheist who supports ID, but I doubt his support comes from anything more than his fee.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you in this particular case. If he's an Atheist that is professing he has solid evidence for God, he's contradicting his own position. He either isn't an atheist, or he doesn't have convincing evidence.... It's illogical to assume he wouldn't believe his own convincing evidence.

I was thinking more along the lines of not being able to quote a guy like Dawkins or Hitchens, or on the Christian side, a guy like Strobel or Behe. All of them received a lot of money for their work, but that doesn't make their points more or less valid. What matters is if their points are backed with evidence or contains no logical fallacy.

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course it is, that's what 'scepticism' means - questioning everything. Maybe he is a genuine atheist, or maybe he's a theist pretending to be an atheist to make a quick buck. Maybe he does have genuine evidence, or maybe he's tacked on to the tired old arguments bandied about. A self-professed atheist who presents evidence of God calls into question the genuineness of his atheism - is he, in fact, an atheist at all?

Until you actual show us what his evidence is, we can't comment on whether he is or is not an atheist with evidence for God. All we know is that he says he's an atheist while simultaneously saying he has evidence for God. Both those claims are suspicious, and your silence isn't exactly helping your case.

we already discussed this twice. But a third helps you I guess. He says he has evidence for a designer, and some for that designer being God, but it's not conclusive. What does not conclusive mean to you?

But I wouldn't mind if He was a convert to theism...

after all:
Design arguments eventually caused philosopher Antony Flew to renounce 66 years of atheism and admit that the universe is created (diesm).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

we already discussed this twice. But a third helps you I guess. He says he has evidence for a designer, and some for that designer being God, but it's not conclusive. What does not conclusive mean to you?

It means it isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond that, it could be anything.

But I wouldn't mind if He was a convert to theism...

after all:
Design arguments eventually caused philosopher Antony Flew to renounce 66 years of atheism and admit that the universe is created (diesm).

And arguments like the problem of evil, absence of evidence, etc, cause theists to deconvert by the truckload. For ever esteemed convert to, there's a convert from. For every Christian twisting science and scripture to get them to marry up, there's an Islamic Imam doing the same with the Qur'an.

All that matters is the actual evidence. Antony Flew may believe that there's evidence of a designer, but that doesn't mean there really is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you in this particular case. If he's an Atheist that is professing he has solid evidence for God, he's contradicting his own position. He either isn't an atheist, or he doesn't have convincing evidence.... It's illogical to assume he wouldn't believe his own convincing evidence.

I was thinking more along the lines of not being able to quote a guy like Dawkins or Hitchens, or on the Christian side, a guy like Strobel or Behe. All of them received a lot of money for their work, but that doesn't make their points more or less valid. What matters is if their points are backed with evidence or contains no logical fallacy.

Agreed - claims and evidence should be judged on their own merits. If there's evidence the man's claims to being an atheist are irrelevant to its veracity. I just find it not that surprising when a man paid to find evidence... finds evidence. It's like a manufacturer of cheese doing a study and coming up with the surprising result that cheese cures cancer - while it may well cure cancer, the conclusion is suspect because of bias.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Anthony Flew's conversion isn't all it is cracked up to be. Long article but worth the read: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

[createdtoworship]

Anthony Flew's conversion isn't all it is cracked up to be. Long article but worth the read: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all

a quote from your link

"still rejects Christianity, saying only that he now believes in “an intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world,” evangelicals are understandably excited. "