Atheism

[createdtoworship]

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

He doesn't believe in a Biblical God!

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.

I won't get into ID here but there are plenty of former athiests who have converted to intelligent design, not necessarily a Biblical God but a designer. And that is reassuring.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Antony Flew is conspicuous by his rarity among atheists. His change of mind doesn't mean very much. It doesn't mean that design argments are necessarily good arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He doesn't believe in a Biblical God!

Correct. Your point?

I won't get into ID here but there are plenty of former athiests who have converted to intelligent design, not necessarily a Biblical God but a designer. And that is reassuring.

And there are plenty who've gone the other way. What's your point?

 

[Jonathan95]

I won't get into ID here but there are plenty of former athiests who have converted to intelligent design, not necessarily a Biblical God but a designer. And that is reassuring.

There's no other designer by these means, except for the biblical triune God.

 

[createdtoworship]

Antony Flew is conspicuous by his rarity among atheists. His change of mind doesn't mean very much. It doesn't mean that design argments are necessarily good arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

good enough for him right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There's no other designer by these means, except for the biblical triune God.

And only the Biblical God could be the designer of ID because...?

(Protip: it's not a coincidence that a Christian would say this. Any guesses on what a Muslim or Hindu Creationist would say?)

 

[createdtoworship]

There's no other designer by these means, except for the biblical triune God.

I agree however ID intelligent design doesn't advocate for the use of religious literature especially when trying to get promotion in public arenas like schools - with "teach the controversy" campaigns

 

[Dave Ellis]

There's no other designer by these means, except for the biblical triune God.

Can you show your evidence for how you know that?

 

[Jonathan95]

And only the Biblical God could be the designer of ID because...?

(Protip: it's not a coincidence that a Christian would say this. Any guesses on what a Muslim or Hindu Creationist would say?)

What's ID?

I meant there's no other designer than the biblical triune God that created the universe etc.

Because The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and The life. Following Jesus is about love and so, so it's the right way. No religion has love like us. The bible is not a bunch of DO´s and DONT´s.

 

[createdtoworship]

Correct. Your point?

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.

thats what you said....and I said

"He doesn't believe in a biblical God"

And there are plenty who've gone the other way. What's your point?

all I am saying is that there is evidence, it's just that many won't accept it. Even the athiest in question that FOUND some of the evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What's ID?

I meant there's no other designer than the biblical triune God that created the universe etc.

Because The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and The life. Following Jesus is about love and so, so it's the right way. No religion has love like us. The bible is not a bunch of DO´s and DONT´s.

How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God? In fact, do you have evidence for anything you are claiming to know?

 

[Jonathan95]

How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God? In fact, do you have evidence for anything you are claiming to know?

Because it confirms science, archeology etc and prophecies fulfilled etc. Also,

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:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What's ID?

'ID' is short for 'Intelligent Design', the new guise Creationists put their beliefs in to surreptitiously get it into science classrooms. As found by Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID is irrevocably religious.

I meant there's no other designer than the biblical triune God that created the universe etc.

Well, so you believe.

Because The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

It's unclear just what the Bible actually is - Catholics have a differet set of texts that make up the Bible than do Luthereans, for instance. And then there's translation - KJV, NIV, etc. And then there's interpretation - literal, metaphorical, and to what degree. And then, of course, the inerrant part is suspect - if it's inerrant, why aren't Christians bound to Jewish law any more?

Because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and The life. Following Jesus is about love and so, so it's the right way.

That doesn't make it right, though. Even if the religion was only about love, that would make it nice, not right.

No religion has love like us.

So it's alleged, but the religion, neither in theory and in practice, doesn't actually display those traits. It's a religion that says you'll go to Hell if you don't love someone, it's a religion that commands you to kill gays and for victims to marry their rapists. This isn't a religion of love. And then, of course, there's Christianity in practice; Christians are no more likely to be loving than anyone else.

Christianity is no more a religion of love than Islam is a religion of peace.

The bible is not a bunch of DO´s and DONT´s.

"DO believe in me, DO love me" - all with the caveat that, if you don't you burn in hell forever and ever. And then there's the thousand and one other rules, some quite good like "DON'T kill", and some archaic and illogical like "DON'T have gay sex" or "DON'T eat shellfish". The religion is replete with DOs and DON'Ts, despite the trite assertion to the contrary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

thats what you said....and I said

"He doesn't believe in a biblical God"

Right, but I wasn't referring to him. I'm referring to the fact that playing the numbers game is meaningless. For every convert to Christianity, there's one going the other way. For every example you could cite of someone saying, "Because of the evidence, now I believe!", you can find one saying, "Because of the evidence, now I don't believe!".

All that matters is the evidence itself, not who believes what.

all I am saying is that there is evidence, it's just that many won't accept it. Even the athiest in question that FOUND some of the evidence.

OK, but I'm saying there is no such evidence. The atheist you cite has a financial bias to the whole thing, and until you cite what his alleged evidence is, it's doubtful if he even has anything more cogent than a weak appeal to the anthropic principle.

You may say there's evidence, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

good enough for him right?

Yes, but that isn't necessarily saying much.

If all you are doing is "counting souls saved", then perhaps you just don't care what it was that convinced him. Do you even know what did? But the argument is all that matters. What was it, and was it really a good argument?

For all I know, he was getting senile. Or he wasn't well-versed in science. Or he just didn't know enough about the issue to make a good judgment.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because it confirms science, archeology etc and prophecies fulfilled etc. Also,

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:

We have disproven the scientific examples you brought up, Archaeology can not possibly confirm the miracle claims or important parts in the bible. Likewise, the prophecies are incredibly sketchy and there's no proof they were actually fulfilled.

You're trying to use the bible to prove the bible again... that doesn't work. There is no evidence outside the bible to confirm any of the key tenets of Christianity, and in fact many parts of known history directly contradict what the bible has to say.

There's nothing to prove the bible is any more than a book of fairy tales.

 

[Jonathan95]

We have disproven the scientific examples you brought up, Archaeology can not possibly confirm the miracle claims or important parts in the bible. Likewise, the prophecies are incredibly sketchy and there's no proof they were actually fulfilled.

You're trying to use the bible to prove the bible again... that doesn't work. There is no evidence outside the bible to confirm any of the key tenets of Christianity, and in fact many parts of known history directly contradict what the bible has to say.

There's nothing to prove the bible is any more than a book of fairy tales.

The bible disproves what you say, so. It doesn't make sense people 2000 years ago would write lies etc like that.

The bible is not a fairy tale, when I read it, I found truth. I got happy and felt love and peace. When I read it sometimes it's like living water in my heart.

(Ephesians 5:26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

(John 17:17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

(John 7:38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

An example is when I had been away from The Word of God (the Holy Bible) once. I had a spiritual thirst. I felt literal thirst too, and it got quenched by reading the bible. The heart is our inner-being - our spirit. We consist of spirit, soul and body. An example is that we feel aching etc and other things in our hearts, connected to Sins like bitterness etc. How can this be? It proves we have a spirit.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, but that isn't necessarily saying much.

If all you are doing is "counting souls saved", then perhaps you just don't care what it was that convinced him. Do you even know what did? But the argument is all that matters. What was it, and was it really a good argument?

For all I know, he was getting senile. Or he wasn't well-versed in science. Or he just didn't know enough about the issue to make a good judgment.


eudaimonia,

Mark

an athiest for thirty years with numerous famous books, just decided to become a theist. And it's not good enough? Oh I think the arguments are conclusive, but not everyone in the world does. Doesn't mean they aren't good arguments though. Rarely does the masses believe the right things.

 

[createdtoworship]

Right, but I wasn't referring to him. I'm referring to the fact that playing the numbers game is meaningless. For every convert to Christianity, there's one going the other way. For every example you could cite of someone saying, "Because of the evidence, now I believe!", you can find one saying, "Because of the evidence, now I don't believe!".

All that matters is the evidence itself, not who believes what.


OK, but I'm saying there is no such evidence. The atheist you cite has a financial bias to the whole thing, and until you cite what his alleged evidence is, it's doubtful if he even has anything more cogent than a weak appeal to the anthropic principle.

You may say there's evidence, but that doesn't make it so.

well then if you were not referring to him (the topic of the discussion), then you changed subjects. But now, you would be correct. Post adjustment.

 

[mkatzwork]

The bible disproves what you say, so.
...
How can this be? It proves we have a spirit.

If this is truly demonstrative of your standard of proof, then you were captive whichever was the first religion that got a hold of you. It didn't matter which one it was.