Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Rasta]

You are correct. Countless thousands have died for their beliefs. But if you don't mind let me try and make a point. Muslims, for example, believe in Islam and die for what they believe about the Quran. The Quran does not say that Mohammed rose from the dead, performed any miracles, etc. Yet, Muslims will die for Islam.

The Jews too don't believe anyone rose from the dead. Muslims believe that an illiterate man was given the divine inspiration to be able to recite the entier Koran (which they believe is the word of god) from memory. They believe this is a miracle.

What makes the account of the disciples different is that they said and proclaimed that the reason they were doing what they were doing was because Jesus had risen from the dead. Any followers of a religion can become fanatical and even suicidal. It neither proves or disproves the validity of that religion. But, with the followers of Christ, the disciples specifically and publicly declared that Jesus had risen from the dead.

According to the very thing which I find dubious.

There were many people alive at that time who could've disputed this, but, as far as I know, there are no ancient records of any disputations.

70 + years after the fact? Who would still be alive to dispute this?

If Jesus had not risen, all the Jews had to do was produce a body. Anyway, the claims of the disciples themselves are the motivation.

Same with all religions.

 

[2 King]

The Jews too don't believe anyone rose from the dead. Muslims believe that an illiterate man was given the divine inspiration to be able to recite the entier Koran (which they believe is the word of god) from memory. They believe this is a miracle.

And you don't believe in the miraculous correct?

According to the very thing which I find dubious.

Understandable. So you believe there stories are just Fabrications, correct?
All I know is that archaeology has continued to produce all sorts of ancient documents and so far, nothing has contradicted the gospel accounts...that I'm aware of. Anyway, can you propose a replacement theory for the claims and behavior of the gospel writers to account for their claims and actions? Or are you going to stick with what has been said thus far?

70 + years after the fact? Who would still be alive to dispute this?

Not sure I understand how you're using this question.
When Jesus was buried, and His body was missing afterwards, the people alive at the time had the opporunity to give reasons as to why it was missing. They could have given reasons then or later. But as far as I know, there are No Records of The Dispute.

 

[Super_Rational]

For one you said that people (evolutionists) do not talk about the big bang, well then how come someone from this Christian forum messaged me about the big bang??? And I hear it inside my school and it's one of the biggest in the state, Yeah, Not talked about, you obviously don't know much.

I'm talking about academic departments at a university or college or some biological industrial corp. This is where the serious science is done. They couldn't care less about the big bang in most cases. Yes you will get "private" conversations from scientists of all fields occasionally talking about the big bang & then carrying over to evolution. Why is this surprising to you? You still don't understand the difference b/w theories related to the big bang & evolutionary theory. That's quite clear. Also clear is the fact you don't care to learn, either.

I do not need to go to a Library. I said that creation lines up with Biblical account of Creation because it does, Evolution does not line up with Biblical creation, You take the evidence found by creationists by many different methods, it perfectly lines up with creation.

When someone makes up the answers to their made up questions, of course they will agree. Got it? But, I would love to see the "evidence" that the christian god created the universe in 6 days, or that light came before the earth or vice versa, or that Eve came from Adam. You don't have any evidence & no one could. You have the 1st book of the bible. That's it. Anything else on your part is pure speculation. The "evidence" creationists have is cherry-picked & twisted to fit their worldview. Things that don't fit are often overlooked or dismissed as lies by satan.

In order for Evolution to make any Argument against the origins of the Universe it has to be wrong, because they have to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order to make an argument that makes sense, and only in the biblical worldview does this these preconditions of intelligibility make sense and at the same time stay rational and internally consistent.

I'm guessing the "preconditions" can only be satified by the god of the bible? Go figure. Are they as follows:

Your preconditions for intelligibility:
1) god did it
2) everything is wrong but the bible

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I'm talking about academic departments at a university or college or some biological industrial corp. This is where the serious science is done. They couldn't care less about the big bang in most cases. Yes you will get "private" conversations from scientists of all fields occasionally talking about the big bang & then carrying over to evolution. Why is this surprising to you? You still don't understand the difference b/w theories related to the big bang & evolutionary theory. That's quite clear. Also clear is the fact you don't care to learn, either.



When someone makes up the answers to their made up questions, of course they will agree. Got it? But, I would love to see the "evidence" that the christian god created the universe in 6 days, or that light came before the earth or vice versa, or that Eve came from Adam. You don't have any evidence & no one could. You have the 1st book of the bible. That's it. Anything else on your part is pure speculation. The "evidence" creationists have is cherry-picked & twisted to fit their worldview. Things that don't fit are often overlooked or dismissed as lies by satan.



I'm guessing the "preconditions" can only be satified by the god of the bible? Go figure. Are they as follows:

Your preconditions for intelligibility:
1) god did it
2) everything is wrong but the bible

Oh and follow with the up to date posts not ones made like yesterday. jeez.

 

[Rasta]

And you don't believe in the miraculous correct?

Correct.

Understandable. So you believe there stories are just Fabrications, correct?

Not entierly. I don't rule out fabrication as it concerns the early Catholic Church though. What I think is more likely is that some dude named Jesus lived in Palestine, attracted a few followers in his life. Was killed as either a heretic or "rabble rouser". Then by word of mouth his tale travelled. As it travelled, people unknowling inserted their own presuppositions into the equation. Mystery religions were popular in Greece and Rome at the time, as well as Egypt. People heard what they wanted to hear.

Ever play the game telephone? Imagine that same game going on for 70+ years.

All I know is that archaeology has continued to produce all sorts of ancient documents and so far, nothing has contradicted the gospel accounts...that I'm aware of.

Except that the gospel accounts do not agree with eachother on small details. These small details have huge implications however, IMO.

Not sure I understand how you're using this question.
When Jesus was buried, and His body was missing afterwards, the people alive at the time had the opporunity to give reasons as to why it was missing. They could have given reasons then or later. But as far as I know, there are No Records of The Dispute.

Consider this. At the time, there were many new religions around. Who wanted to take the time to disprove them all? Christianity was not a big force until well after the events happened. By that time, there was no possible way to confirm or deny the events.

 

[Super_Rational]

Some evolutionists accept evolution itself to be as itself a presupposition -- an unquestionable fact through which other evidences are interpreted.

Just like a layperson doesn't question the existence of gravity. But if people could develop radically different theories to explain them, they probably would be guaranteed a nobel prize & fame. But it's all a secular conspiracy, right?

By the way, why doesn't creation science get any reasonable funding? Why isn't it self-funding? I'll tell you. It doesn't work, it's pseudoscience, & it has no practical application in the real world. Maybe that's also a conspiracy.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I'm talking about academic departments at a university or college or some biological industrial corp. This is where the serious science is done. They couldn't care less about the big bang in most cases. Yes you will get "private" conversations from scientists of all fields occasionally talking about the big bang & then carrying over to evolution. Why is this surprising to you? You still don't understand the difference b/w theories related to the big bang & evolutionary theory. That's quite clear. Also clear is the fact you don't care to learn, either.



When someone makes up the answers to their made up questions, of course they will agree. Got it? But, I would love to see the "evidence" that the christian god created the universe in 6 days, or that light came before the earth or vice versa, or that Eve came from Adam. You don't have any evidence & no one could. You have the 1st book of the bible. That's it. Anything else on your part is pure speculation. The "evidence" creationists have is cherry-picked & twisted to fit their worldview. Things that don't fit are often overlooked or dismissed as lies by satan.



I'm guessing the "preconditions" can only be satified by the god of the bible? Go figure. Are they as follows:

Your preconditions for intelligibility:
1) god did it
2) everything is wrong but the bible

Oh and follow with the up to date posts not ones made like yesterday. jeez.

But anyway I have some questions for you. Ill ask 3.




1.) Since the first cells formed from compounds in the environment, how did the cells develop the information to make those compounds and then assemble them into complex structures?

2.) Since scientists reject spontaneous generation happening today, why do they accept that it happened in the past?

3.) What evidence would be grounds for reject the origin of life from nonliving matter? If it is not falsifiable, then why is it considered scientific?

=]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Super_Rational]

Ignorant much? It shows you know nothing about Creation.

Yeah ok...But remember, I know as much as you do. It's right there in the bible. God did it. But I don't agree with your fairy tales, so I'm the ignorant one? You're ignorant of your ignorance.

But I'm still waiting on the evidence that unequivocally reveals the finer details of creation (or any, really), & that it was in fact the christian god & not some other. I know you don't have it, but it doesn't mean I won't call you on it. Go ahead. Rationalize away!

 

[Super_Rational]

Oh and follow with the up to date posts not ones made like yesterday. jeez.

Care to explain which part you're talking about? I read nearly every post. Perhaps your babble just doesn't translate?

 

[2 King]

Correct.

If you presuppose that the miraculous cannot occur, then by definition you have ruled out God being able to work in our world to the demonstration of anything "out of the ordinary." This means that you would not be able to recognize whether or not God was working. In essence, you have built a fence around yourself through which no evidence of biblical inspiration, miraculous accounts, Jesus' resurrection, etc. can get through. Therefore, I can't convince you that Jesus was who he said he was and rose from the dead, can I?

Ever play the game telephone? Imagine that same game going on for 70+ years.

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy.

Except that the gospel accounts do not agree with eachother on small details. These small details have huge implications however, IMO.

Interesting opinion

Consider this. At the time, there were many new religions around. Who wanted to take the time to disprove them all? Christianity was not a big force until well after the events happened. By that time, there was no possible way to confirm or deny the events.

That is a possiblity.

 

[Rasta]

1.) Since the first cells formed from compounds in the environment, how did the cells develop the information to make those compounds and then assemble them into complex structures?

Natural selection: Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.) Since scientists reject spontaneous generation happening today, why do they accept that it happened in the past?

Who accepts that? Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur in 1859.

3.) What evidence would be grounds for reject the origin of life from nonliving matter? If it is not falsifiable, then why is it considered scientific?

Create a better theory with facts to substantiate the claim.

 

[Super_Rational]

Oh and follow with the up to date posts not ones made like yesterday. jeez.

But anyway I have some questions for you. Ill ask 3.




1.) Since the first cells formed from compounds in the environment, how did the cells develop the information to make those compounds and then assemble them into complex structures?

2.) Since scientists reject spontaneous generation happening today, why do they accept that it happened in the past?

3.) What evidence would be grounds for reject the origin of life from nonliving matter? If it is not falsifiable, then why is it considered scientific?

=]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

1) Read up on the subject. I won't chase down every reference for you on the matter. All that is necessary is a self-replicating system w/ very low size or complexity. No one believes a cell popped out of nowhere. With a wealth of compounds, time, & the sheer number of chemical reactions available, it was bound to happen.

2)abiogenesis is no comparison to spontaneous generation. One talks of flies generating from meat & other products, one talks of slow, gradual evolution of chemical species (not to be confused with typical biological evolution & speciation).

3) life developing from nonliving matter is theoretically observable, just inherently very difficult to observe. Of course plants & animals reproduce & are constantly growing (from non-living matter), so we already know it's possible.

 

[Rasta]

If you presuppose that the miraculous cannot occur, then by definition you have ruled out God being able to work in our world to the demonstration of anything "out of the ordinary."

I am unable to believe in concepts for which no evidence exists. Same goes for genies, demons, angels, leprechauns, and bigfoot. I am entierly consistent with my methodology.

This means that you would not be able to recognize whether or not God was working.

Perhaps. Though, god knows where I'm at if he wants to find me. He knows exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence, should he care about my belief in him.

In essence, you have built a fence around yourself through which no evidence of biblical inspiration, miraculous accounts, Jesus' resurrection, etc. can get through. Therefore, I can't convince you that Jesus was who he said he was and rose from the dead, can I?

Probably not. I would need to see proof. Just as I can't convince you to believe what I believe. I'm fine with that though. I don't seek to convert anyone.

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy.

I disagree with the 100% accuracy bit. Though my opinion is that it changed, perhaps unknowingly, in the 70+ years before it was written down.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Read this article I found that pretty much debunks the were made from random made cells.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

 

[2 King]

I am unable to believe in concepts for which no evidence exists. Same goes for genies, demons, angels, leprechauns, and bigfoot. I am entierly consistent with my methodology.

Perhaps. Though, god knows where I'm at if he wants to find me. He knows exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence, should he care about my belief in him.

I do not mean to be overly contradictory, so please excuse me if I appear to be rude, but if you already deny the possibility of the miraculous and reject the gospel accounts because of that, what makes you think that I would believe you that if you saw something miraculous, that you wouldn't interpret it in a manner consistent with your presuppositions and then reject it?

I disagree with the 100% accuracy bit. Though my opinion is that it changed, perhaps unknowingly, in the 70+ years before it was written down.

Perhaps.

 

[Rasta]

I do not mean to be overly contradictory, so please excuse me if I appear to be rude, but if you already deny the possibility of the miraculous and reject the gospel accounts because of that, what makes you think that I would believe you that if you saw something miraculous, that you wouldn't interpret it in a manner consistent with your presuppositions and then reject it?

It is perfectly reasonable of you to think that.

 

[Rasta]

Read this article I found that pretty much debunks the were made from random made cells.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

Which argument do you find most compelling and why?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I stated the argument in the post I made because it is not true we came from cells in the origins of life. Ill state some things later, I have to go, ill be back later.

 

[Rasta]

I stated the argument in the post I made because it is not true we came from cells in the origins of life

So you know this, or you want this to be true?

Ill state some things later, I have to go, ill be back later.

Yeah, you might want to read it first.

 

[Super_Rational]

Read this article I found that pretty much debunks the were made from random made cells.

I don't know the author's beliefs, but the overall tone of the article is that of a deist & certainly not of a biblical creationist. Even the conclusion appears to suggest the possibility of it happening by mentioning the "fine tuning" argument.

I think talkorigins (sorry I can't post links yet, but is an easy google search) well-describes the problems with many of the assumptions made in Mullan's "paper," or whatever it is. At the very least, it gives a reasonable laymen's entry point for a wealth of work done in the area.

I do wonder, however, why these same people arguing against abiogenesis never apply the same logic to the spontaneous formation of a all-powerful creator god. Talk about a staggering improbability!