The origins of atheism

[Ana the Ist]

That is right Scott. I have asked numerous atheists to tell me how life began and to date, zilch, zero, nothing. In other words they don't know.

Nobody knows...some just like to pretend they do.

 

[As I was saying]

You seeing a miracle happen may be evidence for you. It is not evidence for me, partly because I did not see it and partly because miracles are not explicitly linked to sources of miracles.

What are they linked to?

 

[Davian]

Just a thought, according to atheists, an amoeba appeared out of a pond and became a....and that became a......and that became a........and that became a.....and that became a......and so on and so forth and then one day that became a human.

The Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science Peter Harrison. Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford,
Fellow of Harris Manchester College

It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.

Science that you referred to as a "fairy tale" in post #2037.

Hypocrisy much?

 

[As I was saying]

Nobody knows...some just like to pretend they do.

And how do you know nobody knows? So all those Professors and Ph.Ds at Yale, Harvard, Stamford, Oxford and Cambridge and goodness knows how more universities who say they know are all liars? That is what I call arrogance in the extreme.

 

[As I was saying]

Science that you referred to as a "fairy tale" in post #2037.

Hypocrisy much?

No, I leave that to the atheists. And I note you have not refuted the quote which by the way was not mine.

 

[David Colin Gould]

What are they linked to?

Let me give you an example.

Say that I am witness a drowning man being saved by an invisible force that lifts him out of the water and deposits him on dry land. A deep feeling of joy combined with awe sweeps over me.

But the miracle bears no signature. It could have been Jesus. It could have been Allah. It could have been Ganesh. It could have been Zeus.

There is no link between the miracle and the source.

And this is true even if a voice said, 'I, Jesus, have saved this man, for he will become a light unto others.' (Or something similar). I would have to believe that voice.

Now, I am not saying that this miracle would have no affect on my world view. I would have to think carefully about it, and I am not sure what conclusions I would come to, particularly if it was witnessed by others who I could speak to about it.

 

[David Colin Gould]

And as it has been said pride goes before a fall as NO ONE knows everything and NO ONE is totally devoid of knowledge so it is all in your mind dear boy.

Have you heard of sarcasm?

And yes we are at an impasse as I cannot stoop down to your level and you cannot rise to mine.

And a moment ago you were accusing me of pride ...

 

[HitchSlap]

If you don't know, how do you know that no one else does?

Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[Davian]

No, I leave that to the atheists. And I note you have not refuted the quote which by the way was not mine.

I do not dispute the quote. My question to you is, do you accept western science, or does your theology more closely resemble what I described in post #2035?

 

[Davian]

And as it has been said pride goes before a fall as NO ONE knows everything and NO ONE is totally devoid of knowledge so it is all in your mind dear boy.

And yes we are at an impasse as I cannot stoop down to your level and you cannot rise to mine.

... up yours.

Or he stoops to your level.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And how do you know nobody knows? So all those Professors and Ph.Ds at Yale, Harvard, Stamford, Oxford and Cambridge and goodness knows how more universities who say they know are all liars? That is what I call arrogance in the extreme.

I haven't heard any claim to "know"....got any examples?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is right Scott. I have asked numerous atheists to tell me how life began and to date, zilch, zero, nothing. In other words they don't know.

Neither do theists, though many insist that they do know.

 

[As I was saying]

Neither do theists, though many insist that they do know.

That must mean you know all the theists in the world and what they know or don't know.That or you are talking through your hat.

 

[As I was saying]

I haven't heard any claim to "know"....got any examples?

"I haven't heard any claim to know."" You are not a very good atheist. First atheists reckon they know everything so why don't you know? You are a typical atheist though. I haven't heard so it can't have been said. One example is John MacArthur. Now you go and do your homework or you will fail the course.

 

[As I was saying]

Or he stoops to your level.

No. Just treating it with the contempt it deserves.

 

[As I was saying]

I do not dispute the quote. My question to you is, do you accept western science, or does your theology more closely resemble what I described in post #2035?

I accept the science that God created when he created heaven and earth. When he did that science was well and truly embedded in his act of creation. When one studies such one is overwhelmed how God could have produced such magnificent diversity and complexity. In fact, only God could have archived such because it is totally beyond man to do so.

 

[As I was saying]

Knowledge is demonstrable.

But if you don't know you have no point of reference to know if anyone else knows. All you are doing is guesswork as to what you think is the answer so it may be or may not be so your no nearer the solution.

 

[As I was saying]

Have you heard of sarcasm? And a moment ago you were accusing me of pride ...

Yes. I believe he spends a lot of time on here with his atheist friends.

Yes I was because you claimed you know everything but evidence would suggest otherwise.

 

[As I was saying]

Let me give you an example. Say that I am witness a drowning man being saved by an invisible force that lifts him out of the water and deposits him on dry land. A deep feeling of joy combined with awe sweeps over me. But the miracle bears no signature. It could have been Jesus. It could have been Allah. It could have been Ganesh. It could have been Zeus. There is no link between the miracle and the source. And this is true even if a voice said, 'I, Jesus, have saved this man, for he will become a light unto others.' (Or something similar). I would have to believe that voice. Now, I am not saying that this miracle would have no affect on my world view. I would have to think carefully about it, and I am not sure what conclusions I would come to, particularly if it was witnessed by others who I could speak to about it.

And here is me thinking that atheists didn't get into the realm of fantasy. As one who considers himself to be logical, I would have expected a more logical example rather than a fantasy picked out of the sky.

 

[Davian]

I accept the science that God created when he created heaven and earth. When he did that science was well and truly embedded in his act of creation. When one studies such one is overwhelmed how God could have produced such magnificent diversity and complexity. In fact, only God could have archived such because it is totally beyond man to do so.

Not a "fact".

Care to address the question I put to you in post #2050?