Ask an Atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter hopefully_wild
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully wild,

Let me understand. You are an Athiest because you haven’t heard any good arguments in favor of the divine. Is this correct? Or do you have a problem with the divine in relation to your views of Justice, Morals, etc…?
 
Please understand that I never implied this directly, nor do I agree with it.
“This”? Which “this” are you speaking of?

What is it that you “don’t agree with”?

What was it you “never implied”?

I’m sure it was the wacky “formatting” functions that have me so confused.

But, you’re VERY good indeed at eliciting questions, aren’t you!? 🙂 I like that in a poster!
 
If there is no God, then there are no transcendent truths or natural rights. Man’s ideas are only the accidental and random firing of electrical charges in the brain based on evolutionary urges and biological determinism. There is no freedom, no meaning, no soul, no love, only a meaningless life and then annihilation. Man is reduced to a carbon-based protoplasm signifying nothing.
If there is no God, then neither is there right and wrong, only power. Those with power dictate to the powerless what they determine to be right and wrong. We have seen what murderous acts the godless perform once they have power to impose their will. If you think the world is bad with religion, look at what happens with out it!

Just my opinion.
 
If there is no God, then there are no transcendent truths or natural rights. Man’s ideas are only the accidental and random firing of electrical charges in the brain based on evolutionary urges and biological determinism. There is no freedom, no meaning, no soul, no love, only a meaningless life and then annihilation. Man is reduced to a carbon-based protoplasm signifying nothing.
If there is no God, then neither is there right and wrong, only power. Those with power dictate to the powerless what they determine to be right and wrong. We have seen what murderous acts the godless perform once they have power to impose their will. If you think the world is bad with religion, look at what happens with out it!

Just my opinion.
Amen to your opinion. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union when Stalin was in power. Religion is what truly keeps checks and balances on our government. It really is power to the people.
 
This seems quite vague - almost to the point of being meaningless. Are you looking for ‘independently verified’ empirical evidence - a sort of measurement of God? Are you looking for God to suddenly appear in Times Square demanding homage or else!? Please try to be precise as to what evidence you are looking for.

God did come and reveal Himself to mankind. We have numerous documents testifying to His incarnation, passion and resurrection. The most authoritative have been compiled in a single work - the New Testament. There is also the Sacred Tradition.

As for a biblical type event, one of the most recent was at Fatima. There, on October 13, 1917, in the presence of approx. 70,000 people - including many atheists who were there for the expressed purpose of disproving everything - God made the sun dance and rain drenched clothes and ground to instantly dry. This has been testified to by all present - even the atheists.
 
I do understand that as well as all arguments for or against god. I studied philosophy heavily in school and particularly philosophy of religion.
i don’t mean for this to come off as snooty, but did you study philosophy at an undergrad or graduate level?

what argument did you accept that is against the existence of God?
 
Oringally posted byHopefully Wild…I have done my best to answer all the questions. I do realize that I have skipped some, but that was either because they were questions that I have already answered or because they were questions asking me to defend my beliefs, which wasn’t really the point in this thread. I’m not here to defend what I believe, I just wanted to provide insight to people who may have questions regarding what it’s like to be an atheist and things of that sort
.

:tsktsk: Friend, Do you really want to take this kind of risk? I mean by choosing to be a complete Atheist? I’m not criticizing you at all, but simply am concerned. You know there are many passages in scripture that do say things regarding being so hard hearted that you will be lost for all of eternity.
:ehh:
Even if you find it so very difficult to believe, why not take the leap and at least open your mind and heart. Study the Word and even start to pray. Do you know by simply saying the name Jesus with your thoughts turned to the possibility of heaven, He can change you completely, as He did with St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Just repeating His name over and over with good thoughts in your head is a prayer. God honors and accepts anything from you, He will do the rest.
:yyeess:
While I realize my words will most likely make no impact, I’m hoping they will. Once you see the light of the Lord, there is no turning back. Once you’re found, He will never let you go again. It’s very hard for me to try and explain this to you. I know you are not here to be converted, however, since you are on a Catholic forum, I don’t see any harm in at least planting a few seeds if nothing else I can do.
:curtsey:
I was recently in a dialogue with another guy on this forum who seems to have been around for a really long time. Also an Atheist but he said he liked it here. So be it. We’re glad to have him. I failed of course in all my dialogue with him in succeeding in making him see the light, but I’m not going to lose hope. I pray that the few little seedlings I planted will take root. I will never know on this side of heaven if they did, but I love to evangelize. He was a heck of a nice guy and so are you. What is it with you guys, you Atheists, you’re all so darn nice. Likeable.

Maybe I want to help Jesus save souls LOL. I’d better make sure my own is in good shape too, which it often is not, so I confess I’m a sinner as we all are. I just love to serve the Lord and Savior and the Almighty Father.
:bowdown:
All I ask of you is to just let a little bit of all of our words that have been spoken here to maybe give you a little something to even consider. We’re not going to hammer you on the head, but it would be so pleasing to God to find one of His lost sheep. Do you know that if you ever turned your face to the Lord and finally accepted Him, even if you find it hard to believe, that’s okay too, but did you know that all the angels in heaven will celebrate. Yes, that’s true. The return of one lost sheep causes a big celebration in heaven. I believe that’s in scripture, hope it is.
:harp: :heaven:
Mother Teresa, the greatest nun of our times, was in spiritual darkness I think most of her life. She could not feel the presence of God. She continued to perservere even so. She eventually wrote a book called “Come Be My Light.” She so desperately needed to feel God’s presence, but He witheld that from her. It’s called ‘midnight of the soul’, which St. John of the cross had as well. We have no idea why God wants it this way, but whatever way he chooses we must follow him. Our arms are simply to short to box with Him.
:gopray2:
I pray you will have eternal salvation through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus christ.
 
The proponents of Darwinian evolution just cannot say that the smaller components of the bacterial flagellum and human organs such as the ear and the eye can function fine on their own without providing actual scientific evidence of this.

For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum:

Scientists have known about the flagellum for some time. However, its structural details, which have only emerged over the last decade or so, have come as a great surprise to them. It has been discovered that the flagellum moves by means of a very complicated “organic motor,” and not by a simple vibratory mechanism as was earlier believed. This propeller-like engine is constructed on the same mechanical principles as an electric motor. There are two main parts to it: a moving part (the “rotor”) and a stationary one (the “stator”).

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

harunyahya.com/images_books/images_refuted/275.jpg
An electric motor-but not one in a household appliance or vehicle. This one is in a bacterium. Thanks to this motor, bacteria have been able to move those organs known as “flagella” and thus swim in water.This was discovered in the 1970s, and astounded the world of science, because this “irreducibly complex” organ, made up of some 240 distinct proteins, cannot be explained by chance mechanisms as Darwin had proposed.
(click on image to read more)

The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution’s assertion of “step by step development.” In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum although a few tried to do so.

The bacterial flagellum is clear evidence that even in supposedly “primitive” creatures there is an extraordinary design. As humanity learns more about the details, it becomes increasingly obvious that the organisms considered to be the simplest by the scientists of nineteenth century, including Darwin, are in fact just as complex as any others.

The proponents of Darwinian evolution therefore need to refute the truth of the sound scientific evidence presented above by providing equally sound scientific evidence of their own that the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.

In the event that they are unable to do this, then they MUST concede that the bacterial flagellum has come into existence by being created and NOT evolved.
Just because somebody calls the bacerial flagellum irreducibly complex doesn’t make it so. The basic structure missing several components (i.e. reduced in complexity) is a kind of molecular syringe.

Here’s a 2 hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller (a catholic even), with a section specifically in regards to the bacterial flagellum, one of the cornerstone examples of the ridiculous irreducible complexity argument that was completely and utterly demolished in the Dover school board trial a couple of years ago:

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The piece regarding the bacterial flagellum starts at about 39:48.

Other amazing presentations of evidence in this lecture include several transitional fossils of whales, and the explanation why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas other great apes have 24 .

Your information was fallacious to begin with and is hopelessly out of date now.
 
Other amazing presentations of evidence in this lecture include several transitional fossils of whales, and the explanation why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas other great apes have 24.
Could it just be that we’re incredibly absentminded, and just permanently misplaced Chromosome-24!?

…I have relatives who most CERTAINLY could have been that bone-headed!

(( OK,… I could’a done it, myself, but I didn’t,… really! ))
 
Just because somebody calls the bacerial flagellum irreducibly complex doesn’t make it so. The basic structure missing several components (i.e. reduced in complexity) is a kind of molecular syringe.

Here’s a 2 hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller (a catholic even), with a section specifically in regards to the bacterial flagellum, one of the cornerstone examples of the ridiculous irreducible complexity argument that was completely and utterly demolished in the Dover school board trial a couple of years ago:

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The piece regarding the bacterial flagellum starts at about 39:48.

Other amazing presentations of evidence in this lecture include several transitional fossils of whales, and the explanation why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas other great apes have 24 .

Your information was fallacious to begin with and is hopelessly out of date now.
I already pointed this out previously (that the basal body of the flagellum is identical to the Type III Secretory System or in other words, NOT IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX) so I don’t know if he missed it, or is purposely parroting.
 
My apologies, I missed it as well, and didn’t mean to just repeat information you had already given.
 
The proponents of Darwinian evolution just cannot say that the smaller components of the bacterial flagellum and human organs such as the ear and the eye can function fine on their own without providing actual scientific evidence of this.

For instance, in the case of the bacterial flagellum:
But I have, in fact I named the specific component and what it’s used for.

The basal body, of a 9+2 arrangement (component)
Type III Secretory System (function)

Do you want me to perform the search for you too?

Google is your friend!

I agree that irreducible complexity is a valid argument if the proponents of the argument can find a structure that is made of smaller components that by themselves have NO function WHATSOEVER. This however is not the reality.

Mind you, even if the proponents were to come up with such a structure (as they have in the past) this doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, it merely adds more work to a biologist’s plate. In all the cases that IDers have provided structures assumed to be “irreducibly complex”, evolutionary biologists have eventually demonstrated that they are not so.
 
My apologies, I missed it as well, and didn’t mean to just repeat information you had already given.
Sorry. Wasn’t trying to imply that your post was unnecessary. Just was hoping to shine the lime light on mine again in hopes that Hamba2ham will answer (or possibly rebut).
 
…] Here’s a 2 hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller (a catholic even), …]
Interesting! I’ve been to a lecture of his and remember him calling himself a “Christian” but didn’t know that he was specifically Catholic.

Anyway, carry on.
 
I am curious to know how you (if you have read the Bible in any depth) explain to yourself the following;
  1. Through the profits, the OT in several instances speaks of the coming of our Lord, how He would be conceived, and much of what would happen to Him in His ministry often to specifics. The documentation has been scientifically and historically verified and much of the prophecies were made over many centuries before His Birth.
  2. In the NT gospels, Jesus Himself not only knew what His purpose was but asserted just about everything including those things that would happen before His return in His Church and among His followers, from the betrayals to the sifting of wheat compared to the splintering of the Christian faiths and much more.
  3. Now, if you consider that the apostles after Jesus was crucified went into hiding behind locked doors in total fear of their lives, then a very short time later took on the ministries (He returned from the dead) He sent them on, of which they remained dedicated through the most horrid tortures, sufferings and horrible deaths imaginable. What possible explanation is there for what could have occurred to change them from total fear to such martyrdom? There can be no other explanation other than He did in fact return from the dead when and as written, witnessed by the apostles and providing enough assurance in their minds and hearts of eternal life that they were eager to spread the truth to the point of sacrificing their own lives.
Perhaps you have some explanation for these things and of course your opinion is invited. If not, hopefully you will give it further thought.
🙂
I am presenting this to Hopefully Wild once again. I am truly interested in knowing your thoughts about this.
 
This seems quite vague - almost to the point of being meaningless. Are you looking for ‘independently verified’ empirical evidence - a sort of measurement of God? Are you looking for God to suddenly appear in Times Square demanding homage or else!? Please try to be precise as to what evidence you are looking for.

God did come and reveal Himself to mankind. We have numerous documents testifying to His incarnation, passion and resurrection. The most authoritative have been compiled in a single work - the New Testament. There is also the Sacred Tradition.

As for a biblical type event, one of the most recent was at Fatima. There, on October 13, 1917, in the presence of approx. 70,000 people - including many atheists who were there for the expressed purpose of disproving everything - God made the sun dance and rain drenched clothes and ground to instantly dry. This has been testified to by all present - even the atheists.
 
Some people don’t like the word “atheism” because they think it’s ugly or it presumes the existence of God, so to speak. What are your thoughts on “atheism”?
 
What are your 3 favorite days of celebration?

If you have time please tell me what you do on those days.
 
Just because somebody calls the bacerial flagellum irreducibly complex doesn’t make it so. The basic structure missing several components (i.e. reduced in complexity) is a kind of molecular syringe.

Here’s a 2 hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller (a catholic even), with a section specifically in regards to the bacterial flagellum, one of the cornerstone examples of the ridiculous irreducible complexity argument that was completely and utterly demolished in the Dover school board trial a couple of years ago:

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The piece regarding the bacterial flagellum starts at about 39:48.

Other amazing presentations of evidence in this lecture include several transitional fossils of whales, and the explanation why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas other great apes have 24 .

Your information was fallacious to begin with and is hopelessly out of date now.
I have watched the video of Kenneth Miller’s talk, at least most of it and not really surprisingly, I found that proponents of Darwinian evolution like himself have a knack for story telling… and twisting their “scientific facts” quite a bit in the stories that they tell.

For instance, in explaining why human beings have 46 chromosomes instead of 48 as in the case of apes, he says that “one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused” at some point along the evolutionary process.

Did he actually witnessed such a fusion taking place for him to be so certain of it?

And then he goes on to show a slide of such a “fused chromosome” whereby 2 centromeres would be present and also one telomere in the middle of the chromosome.

Well, sure enough there was a middle telomere in his slide of the particular human chromosome… but only ONE centromere was present and NOT two as expected.

And how does he explain this discrepancy?

Very simple actually, one of the two centromeres “must have” got deactivated and this means that only one centromere is now found in the chromosome… and thus evolution has indeed been “proven” to be true!

Is this not amazing story telling or what?? → Darwinian evolution must be true because of “scientific evidence” based entirely on “must have occured” reasoning such as this. 🤷

As for the case of the bacterial flagellum, how does he know that the type III secretory system “evolved” before the flagellum and not after as is more likely to be the case?

I think that this forum discussion does more justice to the subject than anything that I might be able to add.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top