The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[shima]

claire: Atheists do not give themselves the best option....they can't because their minds cannot accept what they cannot see or that which can't be empirically proved....

Strange, I usually think the same about Christians. How they cannot accept atheism because their minds cannot accept what they can see. They need to invent a God to make this life worth living.

Tye Porter: The fact that science continues to prove God;

Science doesn't prove God.

The religion of atheism, is dogmatic, and stagnant.

Atheism is not a religion. Its a belief. And its not dogmatic or stagnant, being heavily influenced by philosophy.

It is uninformed and blind.

That is what I think about Christianity.

It is narrowminded and weak.

That is also what I think of Christianity.

Their arguements and faith have not changed since it's inception.

Neither has that of any other religion. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the same religion.

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

This is beautiful.
If we were dogmatic, we would have died out before
Christ came.

Humans owe their continued existence to those vanguard people who were (at least for periods of time) not dogmatic, and dared to think outside the dogmatic box society has tried to impose on them.

However, dogmatic thinking has always been a part of the human condition and perpetuated by the less educated masses. You underestimate the power of dogma. Name several religions older than Christianity whose dogma persists until this day. This shouldn't be hard. Unless you are ignorant of any other religion but Christianity.

The fact that science continues to prove God;

Science does no such thing. In fact, science continues to find natural explanations for things that our more superstitious ancestors attributed to the supernatural.

The fact that new theories pop up to replace
old dead ones, as soon as they die,
constantly requires anybody, Christian, or otherwise
to remain vigilant and informed.

Then, why do so many Christians ignore the vast and growing body of empirical evidence supporting biological evolution (vs the God-poofed theory) and physio/psychological explanations for human behavior (vs the soul/spirit theory)?

The religion of atheism, is dogmatic, and stagnant.
It is uninformed and blind.
It is narrowminded and weak.
Their arguements and faith have
not changed since it's inception.

You have actually described Christianity, not atheism!
:chuckle:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Then, why do so many Christians ignore the vast and growing body of empirical evidence supporting biological evolution

There isn't a single shred of empirical evidence supporting macro-evolution. It's never been observed -- only inferred.

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
There isn't a single shred of empirical evidence supporting macro-evolution. It's never been observed -- only inferred.

Why do you believe that the world around you even existed before you were born? You didn't exist to observe it before you could. So, by what method of reasoning have you used to conclude that anything existed before you could observe it?

 

[LightSon]

atheism religious?

atheism religious?

Originally posted by shima
Atheism is not a religion. Its a belief.

Let's consider that. My random house defines religion as,

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Notice that the "esp." (especially) clause is not binding, it only signals predominance. Hence the base definition can have sway.

Is atheism "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"?

To the degree you can say"yes", then atheism is a religion. Atheism is clearly is a set of beliefs, you indicated as much. Atheism via its dogmas of evolution, presume to describe the cause and nature of the universe, yet it does seem to be a little shy on describing the purpose. In fact, Atheism can't articulate a purpose; we are here by an accident of time, space and energy. 2 out of 3 suggests atheism is at least 2/3 of a religion. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why do you believe that the world around you even existed before you were born? You didn't exist to observe it before you could. So, by what method of reasoning have you used to conclude that anything existed before you could observe it?

Ever notice how the evolutionists always try to change the subject when it's pointed out that they have no empirical evidence whatsoever for their pet theory? :chuckle:

 

[Skeptic]

Re: atheism religious?

Re: atheism religious?

Originally posted by LightSon
Is atheism "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"?

Atheism is simply the denial of any supernatural deity involved the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It is not a set of beliefs concerning the these things. Regarding cause, it says not what did cause it, but rather what did not cause it. Regarding nature, it says not what its nature is, but rather what its nature isn't. Same with regard to purpose.

Science is not atheism, even though good science presumes the absence of the supernatural. If science did not presume the absence of the supernatural, then at some point the scientist would stop looking for possible future explanations for certain things, and would be content with saying simply that God did it. A scientist can be a theist, but ceases being a good scientist when he uses his theology in the place of empirical evidence when trying to explain something.

To the degree you can say"yes", then atheism is a religion. Atheism is clearly is a set of beliefs, you indicated as much.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs, but a belief God does not exist. Theisms of various kinds, including Christianity, are not simply statements affirming the existence of God. They are very much sets of dogmatic beliefs!

Atheism via its dogmas of evolution, presume to describe the cause and nature of the universe, yet it does seem to be a little shy on describing the purpose.

No, science (not atheism), via the scientific method, attempts to describe the causes and nature of the universe. Evolution is not dogma, but derives from the application of the scientific method. Purposes are for the imagination and the religious.

 

[shima]

Atheism is clearly is a set of beliefs, you indicated as much.

That is true. I cannot deny that there is no proof of the non-existence of God. There are however several arguements from the psychological, scientific and moral point of view that point towards the non-existence of God.

Atheism via its dogmas of evolution presume to describe the cause and nature of the universe ...

Evolution isn't dogma, it is science. And the Big Bang is a pretty substantial theory at the moment.

... yet it does seem to be a little shy on describing the purpose.

Well, that is because atheists believe that there isno inherent purpose to the universe. There is no (spiritual) reason it is here. Atheists believe that, since the universe lacks its own purpose, we are free to create purposes for ourselves. We have no proof that it is so, but neither do other religions about their stated purpose.

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Ever notice how the evolutionists always try to change the subject when it's pointed out that they have no empirical evidence whatsoever for their pet theory? :chuckle:

What I'm saying is that evolutionists base their belief in evolution in the same way that you base your belief in the existence of the world before you were born.

You might believe something like this:
"I only know that the world existed before I was born because I have made inferences based on my observations of the world around me."

The evolutionist says this:
"I only know that the life descended from common ancestors because I have made inferences based on my observations of the fossil and other physical/biological evidence before me."

In no way was I trying to change the subject.

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You might believe something like this:
"I only know that the world existed before I was born because I have made inferences based on my observations of the world around me."

The evolutionist says this:
"I only know that the life descended from common ancestors because I have made inferences based on my observations of the fossil and other physical/biological evidence before me."

:chuckle: :kookoo: :chuckle: :kookoo: :chuckle: :kookoo: :chuckle:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
There isn't a single shred of empirical evidence supporting macro-evolution. It's never been observed -- only inferred.

Supernatural occurences have been neither observed nor inferred -- only assumed...
:chuckle:

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Gerald
Supernatural occurences have been neither observed nor inferred -- only assumed...

Wrong again, liar. :bannana:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Wrong again, liar. :bannana:

::considers something particularly painful to do to RogerB::
Mind demonstrating that I'm wrong?

Links, please?

 

[claire]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Humans owe their continued existence to those vanguard people who were (at least for periods of time) not dogmatic, and dared to think outside the dogmatic box society has tried to impose on them.

Agreed. And some of those people who were/are able to "think outside the box" have been people of faith!

As to the statement that science does not prove God....lets define prove....

It is always amazing to me that any human can look around the universe, the intricate workings of every system, ecological, biological, astrological, et al....and not "see" the hand of a greater power....could it be an exclusive product of nature? Yes, it could...but like every other argument between theists and non-theists, it boils down to faith....some choose to believe that a supreme being planned it, put it into motion, and exists in every cranny of his creation...and others either choose to put their faith in nature rather than in its architect...or just have not yet seen the wonder of it....

It is VERY easy to believe what one can see, and what can be demonstrated by empirical data....so much easier than making the "choice" to accept that which one cannot "see" and that which one cannot "prove"....At one time or another, some of the greatest "scientists" "artists" and "academics" were hailed as idiots or heretics...until knowledge caught up with vision and belief...

Because vision exceeds my understanding....
Because the form is indistinct and blurred
Because the premise is often challenged
Does not negate what is inferred.
Because the pieces don't fit together
Like a jigsaw puzzle still undone
Does not mean the picture is less awesome
It only means we've just begun.....

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Gerald
Mind demonstrating that I'm wrong?

Links, please?

Jesus rose from the dead.

*THE PROOF IS HERE*

That you choose not to believe this bit of history in no way detracts from its power and truthfulness.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Gerald
Supernatural occurences have been neither observed nor inferred -- only assumed...

Not true.
Peter was very clear about how Christ was seen.
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were .eyewitnesses of his majesty

And Paul record in 1st Corinthians 15:1-6
1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.



Just because you choose to disbelieve eyewitness testimony, does not change the fact of the resurrection. You simply prefer to remain in the dark.

Scripture is replete with God's working. It is you who are assuming.

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by LightSon
Not true.
Peter was very clear about how Christ was seen.
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were .eyewitnesses of his majesty

And Paul record in 1st Corinthians 15:1-6
1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.



Just because you choose to disbelieve eyewitness testimony, does not change the fact of the resurrection. You simply prefer to remain in the dark.

Scripture is replete with God's working. It is you who are assuming.

Great minds.....

 

[shima]

LightSon: Just because you choose to disbelieve eyewitness testimony, does not change the fact of the resurrection. You simply prefer to remain in the dark.

Eyewitness testimony "proves" that Elvis lives, that alien spaceships have visited Earth and that "cold fusion" is possible.

The problem is the credibility of the eyewitnesses. Since Paul set out to establish Jezus as the Savior, he therefore had a vested interrest in manipulating eyewitness testimony.

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by shima
Eyewitness testimony "proves" that Elvis lives, that alien spaceships have visited Earth and that "cold fusion" is possible.

The problem is the credibility of the eyewitnesses. Since Paul set out to establish Jezus as the Savior, he therefore had a vested interrest in manipulating eyewitness testimony.

Beats the heck out of pie-in-the-sky theories that you Religious Scientists cling to.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Jesus rose form the dead.

I think you mean "from"...

Interesting how in 20 centuries' time, no one else has...

As well, Jesus and other biblical personages are said to have performed miracles on a regular basis.

Interesting how in 20 centuries' time, no one else has...