The stumbling block for atheists.

[quatona]

Maybe the stumbling block for atheists is certain people claiming to be Christians going around describing the God they expect atheists to believe in as sending people to be roasted alive forever. That would rightfully cause any human who is familiar with ethics to recoil in horror.

Then again, not liking someone and not believing they exist are two entirely different things.

 

[Radrook]

Then again, not liking someone and not believing they exist are two entirely different things.

Doesn't help to go around describing the one that you are attempting another person to accept as existing as a holy entity as being criminally insane either. I have heard atheists bring that up as an objection and I don't blame them.

BTW
I know there is a difference between the twain.

 

[Radrook]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Do you think that glibly going around telling atheists that God sends people to be roasted alive forever helps?

 

[Michael]

Yes, exactly: his theory has been the foundation.
Not sure what your point is in mentioning his non-scientific beliefs.

He postulated a "creation" (of all matter) event which was consistent with his "faith". How do you know the two aren't related?

Well, if you think all they offered were their irrational religious beliefs...ok.

Well, I do happen to believe that LCMD is rather irrational, certainly more irrational than most religious beliefs. I'm not sure I could blame Lemaitre for all of it.

 

[quatona]

He postulated a "creation" (of all matter) event which was consistent with his "faith".

That wasn´t in dispute.

How do you know the two aren't related?

That isn´t a claim I made.

Well, I do happen to believe that LCMD is rather irrational, certainly more irrational than most religious beliefs. I'm not sure I could blame Lemaitre for all of it.

 

[Radrook]

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

deleted

 

[Speedwell]

That might indeed be true, however, it isn't a rational to expect atheists to accept an entity who is described as being just and holy, but who is also described as roasting people alive forever in a torture chamber because those people disagree with him as believable.

It gets worse. We also are often told that this same entity will roast people alive who believe in him but don't believe in the literal inerrancy of scripture.

 

[Radrook]

Who are you and what have you done with the real Radrook?

Please note that the real Radrook never approved of roasting people alive forever.

Neither did the real Radrook judge people's eternal destiny based on what they might believe now without having been provided with a fair chance.

Neither did the real Radrook believe that everyone who claimed Christianity is right 100% of the time and that atheists are wrong 100% of the time.

So I guess your question is based on a misperception of what the real Radrook believed.

 

[Michael]

That wasn´t in dispute.

That isn´t a claim I made.

What exactly do you mean by the term "metaphysical"?

They don´t ignore their scientific findings. Their metaphyiscal beliefs have never been the foundations of science.

It was Lemaitre (and Friedmann) who first proposed the concept of "space expansion", which has to the be single most "metaphysical" claim about current cosmology theory, and it certainly is a primary foundation of LCDM theory. We can't "test" something like "space expansion" here on Earth, or inside or our solar system, or inside of our galaxy, or even inside of our local galaxy cluster, because "space expansion" never occurs there. It supposedly only happens somewhere (not really well defined by the way) between various galaxy clusters where humans can never *hope* to reach in a human lifetime. There's therefore never going to be any empirical experimental way to demonstrate that particular metaphysical claim.

How is that not a "metaphysical" belief? It also happens to be congruent with his other spiritual beliefs of course, but the core claim itself (space expansion) is also "metaphysical" in nature, and it opens up the barn door for other metaphysical concepts like inflation and dark energy. Which of his *other* spiritual beliefs were any "more" metaphysical than his "space expansion" claim?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Please note that the real Radrook never approved of roasting people alive forever.

Neither did the real Radrook judge people's eternal destiny based on what they might believe now without having been provided with a fair chance.

Neither did the real Radrook believe that everyone who claimed Christianity is right 100% of the time and that atheists are wrong 100% of the time.

So I guess your question is based on a misperception of what the real Radrook believed.

Nah. It was based on an unusual coherency of the post.

 

[Radrook]

Who are you and what have you done with the real Radrook?

deleted

 

[Radrook]

Nah. It was based on an unusual coherency of the post.

I fixed it.

 

[Radrook]

It gets worse. We also are often told that this same entity will roast people alive who believe in him but don't believe in the literal inerrancy of scripture.

I wasn't aware of that fine nuance to the hell-firist doctrine.

 

[Ken-1122]

The undetectable part of our universe can't be detected.

That doesn't make sense. If we assume there is more than what can be detected, why does the pink unicorns disappear but God becomes appearant? What ever logic that can be used to justify pink unicorns disappearing,that same logic can be used to justify God disappearing. Whatever logic that can be used to justify God becoming appearant, that same logic can be used to justify pink unicorns becoming apparent also

 

[Radrook]

That doesn't make sense. If we assume there is more than what can be detected, why does the pink unicorns disappear but God becomes appearant? What ever logic that can be used to justify pink unicorns disappearing,that same logic can be used to justify God disappearing. Whatever logic that can be used to justify God becoming appearant, that same logic can be used to justify pink unicorns becoming apparent also

There is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.

Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Ken-1122]

That was my point. They infer the directly undetectable part from the detectable but refuse to use the same line of reasoning if the concept of God is involved.

Do you know of any examples of atheists doing this?

 

[Radrook]

Do you know of any examples of atheists doing this?

Only to be told that they aren't really doing it? I think I'll pass on that.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is no evidence for the existence

There is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.

Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

then there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God either

 

[Radrook]

There is no evidence for the existence

then there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God either

Well, as the scripture I posted points out-there is really no excuse to be claiming such a thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, as the scripture I posted points out-there is really no excuse to be claiming such a thing.

Okay so your book says there is no excuse for dismissing your Gods existence, and my book says there is no excuse for dismissing pink unicorns. Why does your book trump mine?