Atheist here.

[kilt]

Are you open to surfing websites that provide objective evidence for the Christian faith?

Can you give me the most convincing ones please?

 

[razeontherock]

3. What prophecies? Give me the most detailed prophecy please.

That G-d would be with us, via His Son establishing His Church, in which He would dwell. Exactly as you are encountering!

 

[bling]

I am just curious by adopting a pure "observable" philosophy, as of right now, would it be impossible for me to believe in a God?

In other words, in order to believe in God, do I have to "feel" him?

edit: Hehe, is that really a brain there for the atheist symbol, great job.

I think you could work with a: “pure "observable" philosophy” and conclude that the most likely alternative would be “There is most likely a god”. This is not to say you have solid “proof” beyond any skeptical doubt, but that it takes a lot less “faith” to believe there is a god than it takes to believe there is no god.

The “evidence” for the existence of God is all around us and has always been around man, but you have to consider the evidence to make it support or deny the existence of God.

You observe life all around you, so what is the most likely source for life to begin?

The universe surrounds you and got started some way and at some time, so how could that happen?

Now if you say: “do not know and do not care” you are avoiding the evidence, so there is where you can begin your investigation.

What we do know and have learned from science is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”. Everything continues to become more complex than we first realized, which leads to virtually infinite complexity, which means it could not happen randomly.

The other issue is with the fact: “something does not come from nothing” some have gotten around this by defining nothing as really being something, but that is just smoke and mirrors. The problem of “something” whither matter/energy or intelligence goes beyond science. If you say only “matter and energy” has existed how does that explain not only the appearance of intelligence in the universe, but actual human intelligence?

 

[kilt]

I think you could work with a: “pure "observable" philosophy” and conclude that the most likely alternative would be “There is most likely a god”. This is not to say you have solid “proof” beyond any skeptical doubt, but that it takes a lot less “faith” to believe there is a god than it takes to believe there is no god.

The “evidence” for the existence of God is all around us and has always been around man, but you have to consider the evidence to make it support or deny the existence of God.

You observe life all around you, so what is the most likely source for life to begin?

The universe surrounds you and got started some way and at some time, so how could that happen?

Now if you say: “do not know and do not care” you are avoiding the evidence, so there is where you can begin your investigation.

What we do know and have learned from science is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”. Everything continues to become more complex than we first realized, which leads to virtually infinite complexity, which means it could not happen randomly.

The other issue is with the fact: “something does not come from nothing” some have gotten around this by defining nothing as really being something, but that is just smoke and mirrors. The problem of “something” whither matter/energy or intelligence goes beyond science. If you say only “matter and energy” has existed how does that explain not only the appearance of intelligence in the universe, but actual human intelligence?

1. Where is it? and please don't say the trees.

2. I don't know where we come from.

I am not going to "assume" it is not right to tell a rational person to rush to answers.

And something does not come from nothing is not a fact, it has never been observed, so you cannot put a judgement on that statement at all. And if you read that sentence and facepalm yourself, ask yourself, have we really observed "Nothing". The answer is no, so why even claim that as a fact.

and if matter and energy only existed, how does that NOT explain the "appearance of intelligence" in your words. Yes humans are relatively smart, so what?


So at the end of this thread, I guess it is probably faith based. Thanks for all the replies. And yes, I did read Luke 11 and tried that prayer, word for word, didn't work.

 

[bling]

1. Where is it? and please don't say the trees.

2. I don't know where we come from.

I am not going to "assume" it is not right to tell a rational person to rush to answers.

And something does not come from nothing is not a fact, it has never been observed, so you cannot put a judgement on that statement at all. And if you read that sentence and facepalm yourself, ask yourself, have we really observed "Nothing". The answer is no, so why even claim that as a fact.

and if matter and energy only existed, how does that NOT explain the "appearance of intelligence" in your words. Yes humans are relatively smart, so what?


So at the end of this thread, I guess it is probably faith based. Thanks for all the replies. And yes, I did read Luke 11 and tried that prayer, word for word, didn't work.

You say: “I am not going to "assume" it is not right to tell a rational person to rush to answers.” But do you act like; there is a God or there is not a God? What are you “assuming”?

Right, we have never “observed” something coming from nothing, but have always seen stuff come from something and “nothing” has not been found to exist. The so called “laws of science” are just observed consistencies to this point.

This is more theoretical physics and physics only deals with this universe.

The more I study about life and the universe the more “faith” I see needed to believe that a God was not involved than to believe God was involved. As you say: “I don't know where we come from”, so why we are here is unknown and where we are going is unknown to you.

 

[kilt]

You say: “I am not going to "assume" it is not right to tell a rational person to rush to answers.” But do you act like; there is a God or there is not a God? What are you “assuming”?

so why we are here is unknown and where we are going is unknown to you.

1. I don't act like anything, my research of the world does not point to a conscious being making everything. How do you prove a being created everything? How do you NOT prove a being created everything? You can't intelligently answer any of those questions without filling in gaps with "well maybe.."

When you look at a tree, you probably think "Hmm, cool a tree, how did it get there, oh a being created it".

When I look at a tree, I think "Hmm, cool a tree, how did it get there" and it stops right there. No more assuming.

2. Why? alot of evidence suggests that evolution is how we got here. Sure there is some holes in evolution, but the amount of evidence is still staggering. How is life created? No one can prove for sure yet. I don't understand the second part.

 

[Forge3]

Is this a battle for understanding or liberation?. Atheists make your request her or not! Or do I have to appeal to your intellect or sentiments? Why don't you tell me where to start or begin before I critically destruct you most lofty or lame arguments.

 

[hedrick]

Hi, I just wanted to try this out. The headliner says that no debates are allowed here and to go to the other forums for them, but I can't go there since I am not christian.

I guess from the Christian point of view, everybody without Christian faith would be considered as "struggling".

I have been an atheist since I was 12 years old, now I am 22. I guess you could say that I adopted an "observable" philosophy, where if it can't be demonstrated objectively, then I see no reason to believe it.

I am just curious by adopting a pure "observable" philosophy, as of right now, would it be impossible for me to believe in a God?

In other words, in order to believe in God, do I have to "feel" him?

edit: Hehe, is that really a brain there for the atheist symbol, great job.

You'll find Christians of all kinds. I'm from an approach that wants to base everything on evidence. We use the best Biblical criticism, science, history, etc., that we can find. But that means that we tend not to stick with traditional views all the time, as conservatives (by definition) do. Hence evidence-based Christianity is in a minority both here and in the real world.

Others have noted the "feeling" isn't the major issue. That seems to have come to the fore during the pietistic period. Religion should affect our whole lives, including our emotions, but feeling isn't the primary thing.

Note that love, as used in the Bible, isn't primarily a feeling. It's caring about someone. Again, it has emotional aspects, but different in different people. I'm not very emotional. Christianity tends to be more cerebral for me.

I think the evidence is somewhat a mixed bag. The evidence for Jesus is pretty good. N T Wright makes a pretty good argument that the existence of the Church is hard to explain without Jesus' resurrection. I also think there's pretty good evidence that God was working with Israel. You can see God's spokesmen (the prophets being the main ones) moving Israel from the common concept at the time of gods as the tribe's war god, to an idea of Israel as chosen to show the rest of the world God, and to welcome other nations. Note that making this argument involves rejecting a conservative view of the Old Testament. I think the early books in many cases show the "before" picture: God imaged as the tribal war god. Conservatives, of course, have to argue that the whole BIble presents a consistent picture of God.

To me the big problem is that the world operates on a day to day fashion as if God didn't exist. Now plenty of people see his impact in their lives, but people make enough mistakes interpreting their observations that it's hard to know how seriously to take this. Of course there are good explanations for this. The only way the world makes sense at all is if God wants to let us develop independently, following something like Star Trek's "prime directive." That requires a world that functions in a fairly predictable way, with real consequences for our actions. Too many interventions, and we'd no longer have a world in which we could learn responsibility.

So I there is certainly evidence, in the history of Israel and Jesus, as well as in contemporary reports, but it's far from unambiguous.

Whether ambiguity is a problem depends upon how God is going to evaluate the results. If he is going to torture anyone who doesn't believe the right thing forever, this is a potential issue. However that's not the only way to read Jesus' message. However further discussion of that is permitted only in "unorthodox theology", and that appears to be Christians-only.

 

[kilt]

I think the evidence is somewhat a mixed bag. The evidence for Jesus is pretty good. N T Wright makes a pretty good argument that the existence of the Church is hard to explain without Jesus' resurrection. I also think there's pretty good evidence that God was working with Israel. You can see God's spokesmen (the prophets being the main ones) moving Israel from the common concept at the time of gods as the tribe's war god, to an idea of Israel as chosen to show the rest of the world God, and to welcome other nations. Note that making this argument involves rejecting a conservative view of the Old Testament. I think the early books in many cases show the "before" picture: God imaged as the tribal war god. Conservatives, of course, have to argue that the whole BIble presents a consistent picture of God.

So I there is certainly evidence, in the history of Israel and Jesus, as well as in contemporary reports, but it's far from unambiguous.

1. Hey, can you give me a short form of his argument and/or a link to it. Does it have anything to do with "Why would someone die for something they don't believe in"?

2. Just because people followed some crazy rules doesn't mean a God was behind it. I mean, the Greeks also had first hand testimonies for their Gods.

3. Yeah, Jesus could have been a real person but I don't believe he went around healing people/died/resurrected on the cross. There are very, very little accounts of him outside of the bible.

 

[joey_downunder]

1. Hey, can you give me a short form of his argument and/or a link to it. Does it have anything to do with "Why would someone die for something they don't believe in"?

2. Just because people followed some crazy rules doesn't mean a God was behind it. I mean, the Greeks also had first hand testimonies for their Gods.

3. Yeah, Jesus could have been a real person but I don't believe he went around healing people/died/resurrected on the cross. There are very, very little accounts of him outside of the bible.

The link I gave you answers all those questions. The website creator is an academic librarian. http://www.tektonics.org/mainhub.html

 

[kilt]

The link I gave you answers all those questions. The website creator is an academic librarian

If you think I am going to navigate through that huge website then you are wrong, give me specific links please.

 

[joey_downunder]

This one for Jesus' existence, including documents from secular sources i.e. non-christian writers from the 1st and second century. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

 

[hedrick]

1. Hey, can you give me a short form of his argument and/or a link to it. Does it have anything to do with "Why would someone die for something they don't believe in"?

2. Just because people followed some crazy rules doesn't mean a God was behind it. I mean, the Greeks also had first hand testimonies for their Gods.

3. Yeah, Jesus could have been a real person but I don't believe he went around healing people/died/resurrected on the cross. There are very, very little accounts of him outside of the bible.

1. Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins* by N.T. Wright

2. What crazy rules? Jesus "rules" were by and large principles that most modern humanists agree with. His controversial claims weren't rules, but the claim that God cares about us and about how we treat each other, and that he commissioned Jesus to start his repair project for the world, enlisting us as his followers to carry the project out. Personally I'd be happy to have you as an ally even if you don't believe, and I think Jesus would be too.

3. The New Testament is, by and large, a collection of all the relevant records. There's no reason to think anything else ever existed. Why would anyone else bother to create an account of his life? It would be very suspicious if we found official records of 1st Cent Jerusalem and the events weren't mentioned, but they didn't survive. I don't know enough about Roman record-keeping to know if that was expected, but if there are detailed chronicles of events from provinces like Judea, I've certainly never heard of them.

 

[bling]

1. I don't act like anything, my research of the world does not point to a conscious being making everything. How do you prove a being created everything? How do you NOT prove a being created everything? You can't intelligently answer any of those questions without filling in gaps with "well maybe.."

Do you act like the Christian God exist or does not exist?

Do you act like a Creator being exist or does not exist?

“Proofing” really is not possible for most if not all things to the skeptic, so if that is what we are striving for it is not possible.

When you look at a tree, you probably think "Hmm, cool a tree, how did it get there, oh a being created it".

When I look at a tree, I think "Hmm, cool a tree, how did it get there" and it stops right there. No more assuming.

Are you sure that you do not “assume” God did not create the tree?

Either a being created the tree or no being created the tree (it is that simple), so how much “faith” does it take to believe a being did not create the tree as compared to believing a being did create the tree?

2. Why? alot of evidence suggests that evolution is how we got here. Sure there is some holes in evolution, but the amount of evidence is still staggering. How is life created? No one can prove for sure yet. I don't understand the second part.

Evolution is an explanation for living things can naturally changing to adapt to the environment, but chemicals do not “evolve” so what is the mechanism for chemicals to become living organisms is one question left unanswered?

 

[Soothfish]

Evolution is an explanation for living things can naturally changing to adapt to the environment, but chemicals do not “evolve” so what is the mechanism for chemicals to become living organisms is one question left unanswered?

What you seem to be describing is Lamarckian evolution which was completely debunked centuries ago. The modern theory of evolution is entirely about changes in populations at the chemical level. Much of the general public fails to understand this on a frequent basis. Not only Christians, Jews, and Muslims but many secular non-scientists as well.

Evolution is ENTIRELY about genetic changes. Sometimes Mendelian 'inheritance' is used for convenience in following changes in populations but the outside phenotype is not the true mechanism, only the result.

The actual origin of life is so far back in the time table that it isn't really on the forefront of study just yet. Not only is it not part of the theory of evolution, it isn't even an actual field yet! It's just that new!

 

[852derek852]

Do you believe that some actions are right and some actions are wrong?
Do you believe that other people are conscious?

There is no observation you can make that will answer either of these questions. You just have to take them on faith.

If you answered yes to either of these, you may be less of an atheist than you think!

If, on the other hand, you answer "no" or "I don’t know", then you are a nihilist and/or a solipsist respectively. As someone who has been down that road, I can tell you it's not a pretty place to be.

 

[kilt]

2. What crazy rules? Jesus "rules" were by and large principles that most modern humanists agree with. His controversial claims weren't rules, but the claim that God cares about us and about how we treat each other, and that he commissioned Jesus to start his repair project for the world, enlisting us as his followers to carry the project out. Personally I'd be happy to have you as an ally even if you don't believe, and I think Jesus would be too.

3. The New Testament is, by and large, a collection of all the relevant records. There's no reason to think anything else ever existed. Why would anyone else bother to create an account of his life? It would be very suspicious if we found official records of 1st Cent Jerusalem and the events weren't mentioned, but they didn't survive. I don't know enough about Roman record-keeping to know if that was expected, but if there are detailed chronicles of events from provinces like Judea, I've certainly never heard of them.

2. you really didn't think a virgin woman marrying her rapist is a crazy law? I could go on but I think you heard them all. God could of easily just stated men and woman are equal opposed to making that horrible law.

3. There's no reason to think anything else ever existed - It is said that several hundreds saw him and you are saying that there is no reason to think any other records existed? I am sure if someone risen from the dead or done some miracle, there would be official documentation on it. Instead of "oh I heard this..."

Do you act like the Christian God exist or does not exist?

Do you act like a Creator being exist or does not exist?

“Proofing” really is not possible for most if not all things to the skeptic, so if that is what we are striving for it is not possible.

Are you sure that you do not “assume” God did not create the tree?

Either a being created the tree or no being created the tree (it is that simple), so how much “faith” does it take to believe a being did not create the tree as compared to believing a being did create the tree?




Evolution is an explanation for living things can naturally changing to adapt to the environment, but chemicals do not “evolve” so what is the mechanism for chemicals to become living organisms is one question left unanswered?

1- I act like a being does not exist

2-Yes I am sure I do not assume that God created the tree, if I did, so what? At the end of the day I do not know for sure.

Do you believe that some actions are right and some actions are wrong?
Do you believe that other people are conscious?

There is no observation you can make that will answer either of these questions. You just have to take them on faith.

If you answered yes to either of these, you may be less of an atheist than you think!

If, on the other hand, you answer "no" or "I don’t know", then you are a nihilist and/or a solipsist respectively. As someone who has been down that road, I can tell you it's not a pretty place to be.

1- Yes I do believe that some actions are right and wrong. Even though I classify myself as a moral relativist.

2- Yes I do believe other people are conscious


don't have to take any of those on faith btw.

This one for Jesus' existence, including documents from secular sources i.e. non-christian writers from the 1st and second century.

None of those people have seen him....they are just building off the hype of christianity by more or less acknowledging that alot of people believed in it.... Strongest one you list is Josephus and even he only mentioned him only 2 times. Just supports that he believed Jesus existed, but he didn't really meet him. So out of the hundreds of people who saw him....only one somewhat directly mentions him?

 

[razeontherock]

2. you really didn't think a virgin woman marrying her rapist is a crazy law? I could go on but I think you heard them all. God could of easily just stated men and woman are equal opposed to making that horrible law.

You have no idea what "that crazy law" IS. And for God to have stated that men and women were equal in that time and place would've turned society upside down, rendering it non-functioning. This is not the way to get things done.

3. There's no reason to think anything else ever existed - It is said that several hundreds saw him and you are saying that there is no reason to think any other records existed? I am sure if someone risen from the dead or done some miracle, there would be official documentation on it. Instead of "oh I heard this..."

This is patently absurd. You're referring to a time and place when the only person reading you anything (outside of liturgical Temple worship) was a stranger, oppressing you from afar. Your trust was in verbal testimony, face to face. You have no need to write anything down, because you dare not challenge the well-established authority of the 12 Apostles. People died for doing that!

 

[kilt]

You have no idea what "that crazy law" IS. And for God to have stated that men and women were equal in that time and place would've turned society upside down, rendering it non-functioning. This is not the way to get things done.



This is patently absurd. You're referring to a time and place when the only person reading you anything (outside of liturgical Temple worship) was a stranger, oppressing you from afar. Your trust was in verbal testimony, face to face. You have no need to write anything down, because you dare not challenge the well-established authority of the 12 Apostles. People died for doing that!

1- Don't get your first statement.

2- Ah, yes my bad, this is old testament, in the New Testament God changed his mind about the issue, it is still a horrible law, no matter the context.

3- How is it absurd? There is a book written about Jesus.... are you saying that it is absurd that the bible exists? More people could of easily written about Jesus.

 

[razeontherock]

it is still a horrible law, no matter the context.

You have no idea what the law is, but "it's still horrible." You like arguing from ignorance?

3- How is it absurd? There is a book written about Jesus.... are you saying that it is absurd that the bible exists? More people could of easily written about Jesus.

Yes, apparently you do like arguing from ignorance. I explain how it is absurd, to which you ask, how is it absurd.