A Sincere Question for Atheists

[hlgomez]

Atheist,

You may wish to deny God’s existence all you want. We can’t force you to believe in Jesus Christ. But one thing we believers in Jesus Christ our Lord can only assure you, that when the time comes, and you are all alone, and feel neglected, confused, hopeless, and you feel that all the world’s burden is upon you–there is only One that cares for you–His name is JESUS. You can call Him anytime, anywhere you want–and He is ready to respond with open arms. He’s just waiting for you to all Him.

God bless you!

Pio

 

[wolpertinger]

Okay, return from interrupt…

AnAtheist:

Now what does that imply?

In and by itself, nothing. There is, however, one small matter that you fail to consider. For better or worse, religion fills a need that many people have. I don’t personally share this need, but I don’t pass judgement about others that do. From any kind of rational perspective, god belief is provisionally unjustified, but the way you argue is really just like the other side of a single coin – you want everybody to bow down to the altar of rationality. To speak of the God of Science is not entirely off the mark…

In other words, you are somewhat oblivious to human nature, while the other side is not entirely receptive to rational and critical thought. It is an unsolveable problem and rather than trying to vanquish the other side, I’m more interested in co-existence for the mutual benefit. Maybe I’m utopian or hopelessly idealistic, but there it is.

 

[Tedster]

I can’t get through a whole thread on Atheism without thinking of Father Ken Roberts and his discussion with Madeline Murray O’Hare on the subject. He said the following:

“If you are right (O’Hare and atheists) and I am wrong, you’ll never know for sure. But if I am right (Roberts) and you are wrong, you’ll know for all eternity!”

Just a thought!

 

[AnAtheist]

Tedster:

I can’t get through a whole thread on Atheism without thinking of Father Ken Roberts and his discussion with Madeline Murray O’Hare on the subject. He said the following:

Just a thought!

Absolutely right. What a shame!

 

[hlgomez]

Atheist,

I would like to ask you how can you explain miracles? I know you don’t believe in them, but how come there are numerous miracles happening and no atheist ever dared to explain why and how it happened.

With regards to mathematics (1+1=2) and (3 = 1) here’s one example I’m buffled at.

1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs.
1 eggyolk + 1 egg white + 1 egg shell = 1 egg.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

:ehh: …:yawn: …

Pio

 

[squirt]

ktm:

I could also give you a frank opinion of what I think of atheism and atheists, but I haven’t, because this thread would immediately be locked or deleted, and I would get suspended in all likelihood.

I think I will leave this thread since (1) I have learned sufficient amounts of information from the 2-3 of you and (2) I feel like quitting this thread before it gets ugly.

See you around the boards!!

I actually like many of the atheists around here. I don’t agree with them on some things, I do agree with them on others.

Heck, there are elements of history, fiction and fantasy in the Bible. There’s definitely much more than that … but those elements are there. Since the Bible consists of a variety of literary forms, there are many elements in it. Many ways of expressing truths about God and our relationship with him.

Of course, what I would consider fantasy (in a literary sense) in the Bible and what AnAtheist would consider fantasy probably wouldn’t overlap much, if at all.

 

[wolpertinger]

1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs.
1 eggyolk + 1 egg white + 1 egg shell = 1 egg.
Pio

1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs.
1 egg yolk + 1 egg white + 1 egg shell = 3 egg parts.

Alternatively,
1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs.
*1/3 egg parts *+ *1/3 egg parts *+ *1/3 egg parts *= 1 egg

There. You just have to define the problem away.

 

[wolpertinger]

Tedster:

I can’t get through a whole thread on Atheism without thinking of Father Ken Roberts and his discussion with Madeline Murray O’Hare on the subject. He said the following:

Pascal’s Wager

 

[SCTA-1]

Alright,time to lighten things up here- What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah Witness? Someone banging on your door for no reason. Still thinking about those mathematical eggs.

 

[wolpertinger]

SCTA-1:

Alright,time to lighten things up here- What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah Witness? Someone banging on your door for no reason.

:bowdown:

 

[hlgomez]

1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs.
1 egg yolk + 1 egg white + 1 egg shell = 3 egg parts.

I’m not speaking of 3 egg parts, i’m speaking of an egg being a whole. That is , without just one of the 3 there can be no “egg”.

Alternatively,
1 egg + 1 egg = 2 eggs.
*1/3 egg parts *+ *1/3 egg parts *+ *1/3 egg parts *= 1 egg

First, are you sure enough that each one is 1/3 part of the whole egg? By what kind of measurement did you use? Prove it.

Further, granting that each part is really 1/3, they in their own nature/state is different from the other. Egg yolk is neither egg shell, nor egg white. Egg white is neither egg shell, nor egg yolk. And egg shell is neither the egg yolk nor egg shell.
It’s entirely different if you just say, 1/3 cup of water + 1/3 cup of water + 1/3 cup of water = 1 cup of water.

We’re getting close to distinguishing the nature of the Holy Trinity.

Pio

 

[Kevan]

AnAtheist:

Gravity organises matter. Gravity, a purely non-intelligent process, forms structures (planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, clusters) out of chaotic gas clouds. That we know for sure, as we can observe it in action.

Immediately the question devolves into the definition of “organized.” I’m a little rusty on astrophysics, but what you have described seems pretty ordinary: gravity pulls things and they fall into patterns.

Matter behaves randomly according to its nature. A molecule’s structure defines what shape its crystals will be when we grow them in a jar. In one broad sense of the term, the molecules are “organized.” But a crystal radio will not occur through random processes.

The intelligent design people (Behe, et al.) point to specificity as the salient element in design: things are organized so as to accomplish some specific purpose.

Even without analyzing something for specificity, I maintain that one will usually be correct when he believes he is looking at something that is the product of design rather than randomness. It’s nearly self-evident. If I wrote a two-line computer program in BASIC and it had bugs in it, it would still bear unmistakable evidence of design.

John Locke said that the existence of God was obvious from the fact that “matter cannot put sense into itself.” If we have sense (and most of us do), it cannot have arisen through random processes. In fact, a page of lucid prose cannot do so. How much less the encyclopedic volume of coding in a cell’s DNA?

Google the term “intelligent design” to see what’s being said these days.

The Internet is quite a learning tool. It was once believed that if a million monkeys typed on a million typewriters for a million years, eventually they would produce the works of Shakespeare. But now that we have forums on the Internet, we know that that’s not true.

 

[squirt]

hlgomez:

I’m not speaking of 3 egg parts, i’m speaking of an egg being a whole. That is , without just one of the 3 there can be no “egg”.

First, are you sure enough that each one is 1/3 part of the whole egg? By what kind of measurement did you use? Prove it.

Further, granting that each part is really 1/3, they in their own nature/state is different from the other. Egg yolk is neither egg shell, nor egg white. Egg white is neither egg shell, nor egg yolk. And egg shell is neither the egg yolk nor egg shell.
It’s entirely different if you just say, 1/3 cup of water + 1/3 cup of water + 1/3 cup of water = 1 cup of water.

We’re getting close to distinguishing the nature of the Holy Trinity.

Pio

Are we? Is each of the 3 parts completely an egg, as each person of the trinity is God … not a ‘part’ of God, but God Himself.

 

[hlgomez]

Are we?

Did I say that we already come to a conclusion of the Trinity?

Is each of the 3 parts completely an egg, as each person of the trinity is God … not a ‘part’ of God, but God Himself.

Again, I didn’t intend to “compare” or to make an analogy of God with the egg thing. But what I am saying is–based on those examples, we are “drawing close” to understanding the differences of things apart from God to the nature of God, not solely based on derivation from mathematics. So that, by understanding these natures created by God, and their relationship with each other, they might shed light as to how to understand God in three persons, all one and equal for all eternity amen: !), in our finite mind’s capacity to grasp.

Pio

 

[Monarchy]

The Barrister:

I think this leads us to the larger question. An atheist believes there is NO God. An agnostic questions the existence of God.

An Atheist is simply without god belief. We do not deny the existance of God (although a small minority does) because you cannot physically prove the non-existance of something. Therefore it is always up to the person making the poistive assertion (i.e. There is a god) to prove their claim.

An Agnostic (rightly so) simply says that you can’t prove it either way. So it is possible to be both an Agnostic and an Atheist.

 

[santana]

It is unfair play, i shoul say! You ask the question for atheists but post it in a catholic forum. You had better go to a ascientific forum, where mathematicians, physicists and astronoms talk. Of course, among this public you will never get a well grounded reply.

I personally agree with the pulsating theory: library.thinkquest.org/03oct/02144/basics/univevol.htm?tqskip1=1

And as for the odds and the ratios - i don’t think the world had to become exactly what it is now. I mean if the aminooxids had different formulas, if there were metan or another gas instead of oxigen and all other things were different, the life would have dveloped in those conditions as well as in the present. Who said all living creatures ARE to breathe using air? Trees breathe useng C(O)2. Why the leafs ARE to be green? Deep in the oceans, where there is not enough light, the alga leafs are dark red. We have no reason to think that our form and our planet is the example of the only possible life form. So life had mare odds than 10^62.

---

charity-fund.org

 

[Kevan]

santana:

It is unfair play, i shoul say! You ask the question for atheists but post it in a catholic forum.

Atheists hang around here. We’re free to ask; they’re free to remain silent or to answer. Unfair?

You had better go to a ascientific forum, where mathematicians, physicists and astronoms talk. Of course, among this public you will never get a well grounded reply.

We’re talking philosophy, mostly; and I’ve seen some perfectly dreadful philosophy coming out of the mouths of brilliant scientists.

I personally agree with the pulsating theory: library.thinkquest.org/03oct/02144/basics/univevol.htm?tqskip1=1

Interesting link. You reckon that theory is more plausible than the idea that God created the heavens and the earth?

And as for the odds and the ratios - i don’t think the world had to become exactly what it is now… So life had mare odds than 10^62.

You are alleging that your brain came into existence by means of an accumulation of random processes. I argue that intelligence cannot arise from random processes. The more you bump things around, the more disorderly they become.

 

[wolpertinger]

Kevan:

Atheists hang around here.

We sure do.

You are alleging that your brain came into existence by means of an accumulation of random processes. I argue that intelligence cannot arise from random processes. The more you bump things around, the more disorderly they become.

Not a random process at all: random mutations and decidedly non-random selection, iterated ad nauseam. If you’re not convinced that it works and you have some programming skills, read up on evolutionary algorithms and code yourself a proof of concept.

 

[Wormwood]

“Further, granting that each part is really 1/3, they in their own nature/state is different from the other.”

…I am still baffled about the mystery of your english Gomez’s arguments about miracles are the best. Almost every culture has had people that could perform miracles , be they shammans, chinese mystics, or saints. So miracles does not really prove the existance of God. As for the origin of matter, it is comical you can concieve the idea of God always existing, but the notion of time and space always existing seems absurd. Trying to keep the physics chat to a minumum, but I will say matter is defined as anything that takes up space, with no space where did God come into existance? And if there was space, then it was not created by God. The same circular arguments can be applied to either side, but the notion of complete understanding of the universe, when we don’t even understand earth is ridiculous. This is where the holy (like the church) and the unclean (like myself) differ, because your arguments are based on faith, and I need evidence before I can believe something. In truth most atheists are actually agnostic, because the same scientific descernment that made them question God, also affirms they have no proof to the contrary. An actual atheist belives that there IS NO God ( A-theist, non theistic). I hope this gives you an insight into the mind of a “heathen”, and helps you to understand why people are compelled to believe as they do.