Any suggestions to refute atheism

[Daniel_Keeran]

I think it’s amazing that you think that getting something wrong is proof that your theory is right.

But you know what, this conversation is really pointless. You like delusions. I don’t. No point in arguing.

Imagine that you wanted your children to believe that you sacrificed yourself, to yourself, to make up for their sin against you. Now it was vitally important that they believe that you did all of this, or they will die… eternally… which really sucks. And for some reason you can’t, or won’t, directly reveal yourself to everyone… at least in anyway that is independently verifiable.

Wouldn’t you at least… at the very least… make sure that any prophesies that informed your children of what they needed to be on the look out for would be crystal clear, and not some vague, stupid cryptograms like, “he’ll be buried with the rich and the wicked”.

If you think that’s convincing, then fine, you think it’s convincing. I have a bridge I’d like to… no wait… God would like you to buy from me. It’s in the Bible. If you want, I’ll find some verses to prove it to you.

Delusions? Without a transcendent declaration, ideas about morality, unique human value, and meaning of life are simply delusions.

Everything in life requires a degree of faith, believing something to be true based on the preponderance of evidence. My belief in God is based on the preponderance of evidence, not a blind faith. The many fulfilled prophecies provide evidence of this faith.

Hebrews 11;1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

 

[phoenix3212]

No one’s brought up Aquinas’ Five Proofs yet?

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.
**The Argument of the First Cause
**The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus :
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.
**The Argument from Contingency
**The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.
**The Argument from Degree
**The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :
Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle
**The Teleological Argument
**The teleological argument or argument of “design” (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :
All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

From Wikipedia

 

[buffalo]

So, you don’t have any instances of true prophecies then? How disappointing. What you have described above is no better than coincidence, and most likely fraud.

Aren’t there any good arguments for faith around? There must be some, surely?

That exactly the point. Start figuring the odds that all these coincidences would be manifested in one man. Pick any human in history and see how many will apply.

 

[buffalo]

The fact some details are not mentioned in the NT lends even more credibility to the NT record. But he did have offspring in the millions of people who have been born again unto God. What are some “convoluted and vague riddles”?

sideline is back at the tired old claims - is there a book these guys work out of?

 

[Sideline]

sideline is back at the tired old claims - is there a book these guys work out of?

Wow Buffalo, no one has ever asked if atheists work out of the same book. How original of you! You Christians are all so original.

You would never use the same tired old metaphor of finding a red grain of sand in Texas, or a red silver dollar in Texas, or a penny in a jar of dimes the size of Texas. (Did you ever look up the original quote by the way?) It doesn’t sound original, but Christians wouldn’t reuse the same tired old arguments over and over again, would they?. By the way, what are the odds of finding the goal of your version of the metaphor, ever bother to try and figure it out for yourself? No?

Have you ever heard the saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

 

[Sideline]

That exactly the point. Start figuring the odds that all these coincidences would be manifested in one man. Pick any human in history and see how many will apply.

I have just sold an article, so I’m not going to reproduce it here, that shows that a full fifty “prophesies” in the OT apply to me.

I’m still researching. I’m going to stop when I reach 100.

I will tell you that I also draw heavily from Psalms, but also Jeremiah.

 

[buffalo]

Wow Buffalo, no one has ever asked if atheists work out of the same book. How original of you! You Christians are all so original.

You would never use the same tired old metaphor of finding a red grain of sand in Texas, or a red silver dollar in Texas, or a penny in a jar of dimes the size of Texas. (Did you ever look up the original quote by the way?) It doesn’t sound original, but Christians wouldn’t reuse the same tired old arguments over and over again, would they?. By the way, what are the odds of finding the goal of your version of the metaphor, ever bother to try and figure it out for yourself? No?

Have you ever heard the saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Of course Catholics would use the same claims after all they are true. Truth is endearing and lasting. And so are the attacks on it.

What I was asking is do all atheists come up with their attacks all by themselves or do you have a book on it? Do you think you are an original thinker and have come up with something new?

 

[buffalo]

I have just sold an article, so I’m not going to reproduce it here, that shows that a full fifty “prophesies” in the OT apply to me.

I’m still researching. I’m going to stop when I reach 100.

I will tell you that I also draw heavily from Psalms, but also Jeremiah.

I would like to see it.

 

[Sideline]

I would like to see it.

Why?

You don’t need to read it to ignore the main points and change the topic, you could do that now. Just pretend you read it, and offer some non-sequitur.

Here, I’ll write your response for you:

“I think it is so sad that atheists go to such lengths to deny the truth of the Gospels. Jesus’ life, death and passion isn’t a parlour trick.”

There, I’ve answered for you. I’ve saved you the bother of ignoring all of the important points.

 

[buffalo]

Why?

You don’t need to read it to ignore the main points and change the topic, you could do that now. Just pretend you read it, and offer some non-sequitur.

Here, I’ll write your response for you:

“I think it is so sad that atheists go to such lengths to deny the truth of the Gospels. Jesus’ life, death and passion isn’t a parlour trick.”

There, I’ve answered for you. I’ve saved you the bother of ignoring all of the important points.

Thanks!

 

[Sideline]

What I was asking is do all atheists come up with their attacks all by themselves or do you have a book on it? Do you think you are an original thinker and have come up with something new?

I haven’t cut and pasted from another website, so yes, my posts are *comparatively *original.

As for attacks on truth, I see you doing that a lot more than I do.

Did you ever check to see if that long list of prophesies was in line with Catholic teaching?

Note to Buffalo: One day you should actually answer some of my questions. It would really throw me off guard.

 

[Sideline]

Thanks!

Wait… you know you do that, and you are fine with it?

That’s amazing. I am amazed that any rational adult thinking that avoiding an issue is a virtue.

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t cut and pasted from another website, so yes, my posts are *comparatively *original.

As for attacks on truth, I see you doing that a lot more than I do.

Did you ever check to see if that long list of prophesies was in line with Catholic teaching?

Note to buffalo… one day you should actually answer some of my questions. It would really throw me off guard.

comparatively original

I did not post that list, and no I did not check every one out. If I remember correctly you posted something about the prophecies and somebody posted a bunch of them in several posts. I replied “now you asked for it.”

Your claim rests with somehow the Gospels being fabricated at a later date and written to support the prophecies. The Gospels were not written at the late dates you require for your argument. By the way, to make the Gospels conform would be quite a daunting task. And if all the Gospels were written from the same perspective that would smack of collusion. Catholicism would not have survived in that case.

 

[buffalo]

Wait… you know you do that, and you are fine with it?

That’s amazing. I am amazed that any rational adult thinking that avoiding an issue is a virtue.

I am deluded, non-rational and happy with my God delusion. On that basis I will not become atheist despite your best attempts.

 

[Sideline]

comparatively original

I did not post that list, and no I did not check every one out. If I remember correctly you posted something about the prophecies and somebody posted a bunch of them in several posts. I replied “now you asked for it.”

It was the red grain of sand reference. That metaphor is found on many of the sites… do you read my posts at all?.. that have such lists. I’m pretty sure you didn’t come up with it on your own. Perhaps I’m wrong. What are the odds of finding the red grain of sand in the Sahara twice?

Your claim rests with somehow the Gospels being fabricated at a later date and written to support the prophecies. The Gospels were not written at the late dates you require for your argument.

Uhm… yes they were. They were written after the death of Jesus. That’s how much later they would need to be written. Here’s an example. Go to an event sometime and the next day start lying about what happened. Make sure that there are enough people around so that no one person would be able to witness everything that happened at the event. Try to make the lie at least somewhat believable. In other words, don’t go for space aliens, try something somewhat believable.

Think about how many untrue stories are floating around about 911, the JFK assassination, and about Princess Diana’s death. Those things were filmed, and there are still untruths about them floating around.

It’s absurd to say that someone couldn’t get away with changing the story of Jesus. It’s just simple common sense.

By the way, to make the Gospels conform would be quite a daunting task. And if all the Gospels were written from the same perspective that would smack of collusion. Catholicism would not have survived in that case.

No it wouldn’t be a daunting task. If Betty and Martha both heard about my lie from two different people the details would be fairly similar but not exact. It is would be easiest thing in the world.

But don’t take my word for it… test it. Then do it again, and again. You will see it is very, very simple to get people to believe something that isn’t true.

 

[Sideline]

I am deluded, non-rational and happy with my God delusion. On that basis I will not become atheist despite your best attempts.

I’m trying to get you to be rational, not an atheist.

Being a theist is fine, but being irrational and vocal about it is dangerous.

I have several friends who believe in God, but we don’t argue because they don’t use it as an excuse to turn off their reason or common sense.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I have just sold an article, so I’m not going to reproduce it here, that shows that a full fifty “prophesies” in the OT apply to me.

I’m still researching. I’m going to stop when I reach 100.

I will tell you that I also draw heavily from Psalms, but also Jeremiah.

When you say you have written such an article, you really should at least post your findings so we can all have a look.

The totality of messianic prophecies are like a connect-the-dots picture, and when you stand back from the dots you can clearly see Jesus, but as you come near the picture you only see part of it…

 

[buffalo]

It was the red grain of sand reference. That metaphor is found on many of the sites… do you read my posts at all?.. that have such lists. I’m pretty sure you didn’t come up with it on your own. Perhaps I’m wrong. What are the odds of finding the red grain of sand in the Sahara twice?

Uhm… yes they were. They were written after the death of Jesus. That’s how much later they would need to be written. Here’s an example. Go to an event sometime and the next day start lying about what happened. Make sure that there are enough people around so that no one person would be able to witness everything that happened at the event. Try to make the lie at least somewhat believable. In other words, don’t go for space aliens, try something somewhat believable.

Think about how many untrue stories are floating around about 911, the JFK assassination, and about Princess Diana’s death. Those things were filmed, and there are still untruths about them floating around.

It’s absurd to say that someone couldn’t get away with changing the story of Jesus. It’s just simple common sense.

No it wouldn’t be a daunting task. If Betty and Martha both heard about my lie from two different people the details would be fairly similar but not exact. It is would be easiest thing in the world.

But don’t take my word for it… test it. Then do it again, and again. You will see it is very, very simple to get people to believe something that isn’t true.

No - the red grain of sand I got from somewhere else. Humans acquire their knowledge from others. You do not have positive knowledge of the Gospels you have skepticism. I found most non-believers to be weak on history and philosophy. It is easy to be a skeptic. It is easy to believe as you do. It is much much harder to believe in the Catholic proposition and harder yet to live it.

This is the way it went - first there were eyewitnesses. Then the eyewitnesses were given infused knowledge at Pentecost. Then oral tradition began. (Oral tradition is very accurate in this time period together with community correction) Then the Gospels and letters were written to give a permanent record.

If you are a student of history and followed the historians techniques and protocols you will quickly see the Gospels are true. Serious historians are in agreement. There really is no question. This has been tested and retested and the case is closed.

What closes the case for historians is the Resurrection and the empty tomb.

daunting task - I was referring to making sure the Gospels were written to agree with the prophecies. How would I begin - first off I would have to write it to agree with one prophecy. Then I would add another and so forth. Each time tweaking the story so it agrees with each of the previous prophecies… Now then I present that to the community of witnesses. The witnesses will not accept it and propagate if it isn’t true. Pretty daunting for the Gospels and impossible to fabricate the entire Bible.

 

[Sideline]

When you say you have written such an article, you really should at least post your findings so we can all have a look.

Tell me, if someone paid you to write an article would you post it in the public domain before you let them publish it? Sorry, but I’d rather keep the people who pay me happy rather than you. It isn’t hard though. Go through the Hebrew Bible and find passages that in some way describe you. I’ll make it easy for you. If you’ve been born, been lost, have poor speech or are particularly well-spoken, live on the ocean, a sea, the desert, or the wilderness, or been injured in anyway you will be able to find ten easy.

The totality of messianic prophecies are like a connect-the-dots picture, and when you stand back from the dots you can clearly see Jesus, but as you come near the picture you only see part of it.

That’s practically the definition of an illusion.

 

[Sideline]

No - the red grain of sand I got from somewhere else.

In other words, it’s not original. Well, you and the many websites on this subject are all lifting from the same source.

Humans acquire their knowledge from others.

If you want me to cut you slack for getting your ideas from somewhere else you should extend the same charity to others. It’s common courtesy… as well as being a favourite teaching of Jesus.

You do not have positive knowledge of the Gospels you have skepticism. I found most non-believers to be weak on history and philosophy.

I find most believers to be not only ignorant of these, but arrogant as well. They read poorly written apologetics books and think they are historians.

You certainly have not displayed any knowledge of history. In fact, you’ve stated very clearly that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your pet theories. That isn’t historically or philosophically sound.

It is easy to be a skeptic.

No, it’s not. It is far easier to put blind faith in things. Especially if you give yourself the out of not examining evidence.

It is easy to believe as you do. It is much much harder to believe in the Catholic proposition and harder yet to live it.

I managed to be a faithful Catholic when I was ten. I had to study history, philosophy, and science to believe as I do now. So… wrong again.

I don’t see the point in responding to any of your posts… or even all of the made up stuff in this one. You favour ignorance over knowledge. You have stated this repeatedly. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for along time. But I don’t see the point anymore.