The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Freodin]

Are you familiar with the first chapter?

Come to the point.

 

[Elioenai26]

Come to the point.

Are you familiar with the first chapter?

 

[quatona]

Are you familiar with the first chapter?

1 Corinthians 1 NIV - Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ - Bible Gateway

Now, get to the point.

 

[Freodin]

Are you familiar with the first chapter?

No, of course not! When I first answered you that I have read the letters to the Corinthians, I of course meant that I read it WITHOUT the first chapter!

[/sarcasm off]

Now come to the point!

 

[Belk]

You're not paying attention. I said there is NO EVIDENCE OF ALIEN LIFE. Or, call it life on other planets if it suits you. You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's no possibility of life on other planets. This whole thing started because of trying to point out that SOME atheists will say " I believe there is evidence for life on other planets due to mathmatical probability" (NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) Since there is ZERO evidence of life on a planet other than earth one cannot say that is sufficient evidence. The fact there is life here on earth says nothing of the conditions for life on other planets.

I am paying attention. I'm telling you that you are wrong and trying to explain why. You are trying to exclude life on Earth as if it does not matter. The point I am trying to make is that it matters a great deal. You are artificially trying to limit the set of things we have evidence of life for in order to equate it with the lack of evidence we have of deities. We have a huge body of evidence that shows that life started and evolved on this planet. We can extrapolate from this that it is likely to happen elsewhere. Simply claiming (paraphrasing) "Excluding life on earth we have no evidence of life on other planets" while technically correct it seems an invalid comparison to me. I would state it like such:

In the universe we have observed so far we have no empirical evidence for deities. In the universe we have observed so far we have one planet full of empirical evidence for life.

We have observed life. We know it happens. We know that on this planet it started out very simple and evolved. That IS evidence for life on other planets. It most certainly is not enough evidence to claim knowledge, but it is enough to get a rough outline of the possibilities.

At this point it doesn't matter that there is no empirical evidence for God. The point is if one is going to say "life on earth is enough for me to claim "justified belief" of life on other planets" but turn around and say " there is no empirical evidence for God therefore no reason to think He exists" is somewhat of a contradiction. Mind you, I'm not talking about whether or not God actually exists but some atheists tend to claim there is no evidence for God (just as there is no evidence of life ON OTHER PLANETS) so it's silly to believe in a God but then have no problem believing life exists on other planets no matter how improbable that might be.

I do not see it as a contradiction. I see lots of evidence for life. I have seen no evidence I found convincing for deities. That you are trying to limit the empirical evidence to "life on other planets" does not mean I feel compelled to change my stance since that is not the evidence I rely on to make my determination. Does it make sense now?

 

[Elioenai26]

No, of course not! When I first answered you that I have read the letters to the Corinthians, I of course meant that I read it WITHOUT the first chapter!

[/sarcasm off]

Now come to the point!

My point is that we are told why God has chosen to act in the way that He has.

In explaining to the Christians in Corinth (who were spending a great deal of time arguing about who should be followed, who should be listened to, who should be respected, and numerous other childish instances of foolishness) what God had charged him with, the apostle Paul begins by saying that Christ did not send him to baptize people but to preach the gospel.....

He then moves into the wisdom of God in His plan for humanity. Let us look at what he says below:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written,

“Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”


Now, do you understand why I have said what I have said?

 

[Cearbhall]

It just means you are wrong, that's all.

I know Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Plain and simple. That means that everyone who says He is not is wrong.

That just means you feel the same way that anyone who has an opinion feels. Your opinion doesn't have any more influence over mine than mine ever will over yours. I think you're dead wrong.

One of the most fascinating things about society is how members of the majority seem to think that their views deserve special recognition.

It´s not what I´m hoping for - it´s what your approach in your threads and debate invitations suggests...until your arguments are proven faulty and you end up either having a melt-down or preaching.

This is why I prefer to talk to religious people who are in academia.

 

[Freodin]

Now, do you understand why I have said what I have said?

Yes, I understand perfectly why you have said that.

That doesn't change my objection to it: it is an excuse. It was an excuse then and it is an excuse now.

In a previous post you said: "My faith in God is a reasonable faith. I am a reasonable man."

What kind of "reason" are you talking about? The kind of reason, of "wisdom of the wise" that God alledgedly destroyed? The kind of "reason" that is foolishness to the unsaved... to those who simply do not believe it? The kind of reason that is the "foolishness of God" which is wiser than men?

This is not reason at all. This is an excuse, a wall that Paul started to build. A wall that tells the believer: "Don't listen to others. Don't listen, even if they are making sense. Sense is bad. Foolishness is good!"

It is an excuse to keep your sheep in line. Nothing else.

And while this fits perfectly into a system build by man, who need to use every means of control they have to excert their power over others... it does not fit with God.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, I understand perfectly why you have said that.

That doesn't change my objection to it: it is an excuse. It was an excuse then and it is an excuse now.

In a previous post you said: "My faith in God is a reasonable faith. I am a reasonable man."

What kind of "reason" are you talking about? The kind of reason, of "wisdom of the wise" that God alledgedly destroyed? The kind of "reason" that is foolishness to the unsaved... to those who simply do not believe it? The kind of reason that is the "foolishness of God" which is wiser than men?

This is not reason at all. This is an excuse, a wall that Paul started to build. A wall that tells the believer: "Don't listen to others. Don't listen, even if they are making sense. Sense is bad. Foolishness is good!"

It is an excuse to keep your sheep in line. Nothing else.

And while this fits perfectly into a system build by man, who need to use every means of control they have to excert their power over others... it does not fit with God.

With all do respect, atheism does not make much sense to me. It is unreasonable to me. That is why I am not an atheist.

I tend to be skeptical when people tell me things like matter creates mind and morality and things like "the universe has always existed" or things like " Jesus never lived".

The above are a few examples. There are more.

I cannot accept those claims as "reasonable".

If you can then great for you. If irrationality is the price i have to pay for "the freedom to determine my own destiny" which incidentally is something that an atheist like Krauss would deny I even possess, then you can keep it.

 

[Elioenai26]

That just means you feel the same way that anyone who has an opinion feels. Your opinion doesn't have any more influence over mine than mine ever will over yours. I think you're dead wrong.

One of the most fascinating things about society is how members of the majority seem to think that their views deserve special recognition.

This is why I prefer to talk to religious people who are in academia.

Your views are always welcome here and I am sure we are all appreciative of you taking the time to share them with us....I know I am!

I encourage you to comtinue to come here and visit with us lowly Christians whenever you are unable to find one in academia to converse with. We love to have you here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

With all do respect, atheism does not make much sense to me. It is unreasonable to me. That is why I am not an atheist.

I can respect that.

I became an atheist, and am still an atheist, because a godless universe makes the most sense to me. If it doesn't to you, then of course you are right not to be an atheist.

I wish you well on your path.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

I can respect that.

I became an atheist, and am still an atheist, because a godless universe makes the most sense to me. If it doesn't to you, then of course you are right not to be an atheist.

I wish you well on your path.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I admitted that?

That is news to me!

The explain why you ran away from an opportunity to provide this evidence. Seems you were worried that it wouldn't be convincing to someone who doesn't jump to your religious faith as an answer when confronted with sparse evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Uhh...

Maybe your idea of a relationship is different than mine.

I always thought a relatinship required two people....

Am I wrong?

What does this have to do with my response? Does your god not want a relationship with people? Is it so powerless that it can't convince people that he exists, or is he just hoping people will randomly have a relationship with something it has given them no reason to think exists?

 

[KCfromNC]

It's a strange way to look at things. Why is the non-intellectual route preferred by God?

Larger target audience for the marketing campaign. And people who go with their feelings rather than their intellect are more easily parted from their money.

 

[Non sequitur]

With all do respect, atheism does not make much sense to me. It is unreasonable to me. That is why I am not an atheist.

I tend to be skeptical when people tell me things like matter creates mind and morality and things like "the universe has always existed" or things like " Jesus never lived".

The above are a few examples. There are more.

I cannot accept those claims as "reasonable".

If you can then great for you. If irrationality is the price i have to pay for "the freedom to determine my own destiny" which incidentally is something that an atheist like Krauss would deny I even possess, then you can keep it.

I'm not sure why a god always having existed is reasonable, but the universe always existing is unreasonable.

Btw, being an atheist does not mean "Jesus never lived".

 

[Freodin]

With all do respect, atheism does not make much sense to me. It is unreasonable to me. That is why I am not an atheist.

I tend to be skeptical when people tell me things like matter creates mind and morality and things like "the universe has always existed" or things like " Jesus never lived".

The above are a few examples. There are more.

I cannot accept those claims as "reasonable".

If you can then great for you. If irrationality is the price i have to pay for "the freedom to determine my own destiny" which incidentally is something that an atheist like Krauss would deny I even possess, then you can keep it.

I fear you are falling for one of the vagueties of language here.

I don't think you consider all these things "unreasonable"... you just think they are false.

And thus we can debate them. We can find arguments - reasons! Thus reasonable - for and against them. We can find agreement or continue to disagree.

I don't grudge you this kind of disagreement. I might think that your reasons are faulty and your logic inconclusive. You might think the same about mine.
But we can still talk about them.

There are a lot of things that you presented here though that are unreasonable. Unbackuped claims, evasions. Fallacies.

I have said in a recent post that I have in the years and decades that I have been engaged in these debates, I haven't found anything that would make me consider Christianity / religion.
But it is the unreasonable things like the one I mentioned that drive me even further away.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

With all do respect, atheism does not make much sense to me. It is unreasonable to me. That is why I am not an atheist.

I was once like you my friend, and I have viewed many WLC videos on YT, so I understand and predict how you rationalize. I am assuming you live in NC which is in or near the Bible belt of the US. You will be probably surrounded by many others who also share your belief. Being surrounded by people who share the same belief helps to reinforce the belief.
it is a powerful force!

If you were born and raised in say...Indonesia or Iran for example, you would most likely find Christianity very unreasonable. So unreasonable a "fatal" choice like Christianity in some countries means not only being ostracized in society, but torment and anguish in hell for eternity after death.

I tend to be skeptical when people tell me things like matter creates mind and morality and things like "the universe has always existed" or things like " Jesus never lived".
The above are a few examples. There are more.
I cannot accept those claims as "reasonable".

I wouldn't accept those claims as "reasonable" either, and one could legitimately describe my position on theism as a-theist.

If you can then great for you. If irrationality is the price i have to pay for "the freedom to determine my own destiny" which incidentally is something that an atheist like Krauss would deny I even possess, then you can keep it.

You are entitled to your skepticism, in my opinion that is a great trait to have, I recommend you question EVERYTHING!

But with all due respect sir, your statement above and indeed almost this whole thread gleans WLC and subtle ad hominem as well as projection towards atheists.

In fact there shouldn't be such a demographic or word as atheist. If all adults stopped believing in their imaginary friends, the word "atheism" would vanish!

 

[Elioenai26]

I was once like you my friend, and I have viewed many WLC videos on YT, so I understand and predict how you rationalize. I am assuming you live in NC which is in or near the Bible belt of the US. You will be probably surrounded by many others who also share your belief. Being surrounded by people who share the same belief helps to reinforce the belief.
it is a powerful force!

If you were born and raised in say...Indonesia or Iran for example, you would most likely find Christianity very unreasonable. So unreasonable a "fatal" choice like Christianity in some countries means not only being ostracized in society, but torment and anguish in hell for eternity after death.




I wouldn't accept those claims as "reasonable" either, and one could legitimately describe my position on theism as a-theist.



You are entitled to your skepticism, in my opinion that is a great trait to have, I recommend you question EVERYTHING!

But with all due respect sir, your statement above and indeed almost this whole thread gleans WLC and subtle ad hominem as well as projection towards atheists.

In fact there shouldn't be such a demographic or word as atheist. If all adults stopped believing in their imaginary friends, the word "atheism" would vanish!

Christ revealed Himself to me long before I even knew who Dr. Craig was.

And no, I do not question everything, nor would I advise anyone else to question everything. Being a skeptic does not mean that I question everything. Being a skeptic means that I tend to question the questionable. For example, if I read somewhere or heard from someone that a man was going around and people were claiming this man was healing blind deaf and mute people, raising people from the dead, calming the seas, claiming He was God....I would automatically question that. Those things would be questionable. I would not just accept it because someone said it was true. I would investigate, search, research, ask questions etc

By the way, thousands of souls in Indonesia and Iran are coming to Christ. Most of them are doing so despite the ever present threat of ostracism, torture, and death.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Being a skeptic means that I tend to question the questionable.

How would you know if something were questionable or unquestionable? How would you come to the conclusion that a certain item needs to be taken of the table in terms of evaluating and questioning?