Ask an Atheist

[JMJ_coder]

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.

 

[Allnamesused]

Originally Posted by JMJ_coder
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.

Oh yes, of course he did, how foolish of us. Of course by the same evidentiary standard: Zoroaster existed; Mohammed acceded into heaven: Horus died upon the cross and resurrected 3 days latter. According to the Hindus, each of their deities came to earth and revealed himself to mankind (in fac they continue to do so) they’ve written numerous books about all of this. Now, it is true that the entire New T was written by individuals who had never even met Jesus.

 

[hopefully_wild]

Ok can you define what you mean when you say athiest? Is it simply and only that you do not be in anything that can be considered divine?

I do not believe that there is any such thing as God, Zeus, Noah’s Ark, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, leprechauns, telepathy, magic or miracles.

 

[hopefully_wild]

Atheism is a belief, agnotism is not.

And as for anyone who chooses to follow a belief, the real question would be:

Why do you WANT to be an atheist?

I cannot CHOOSE to believe in God any more than you can CHOOSE to believe in the tooth fairy. Beliefs are not choices.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Oh yes, of course he did, how foolish of us.

Your foolishness will be forgiven this time.

Really, your profile says you’re Catholic - is that true?

Of course by the same evidentiary standard:

By the same evidentiary standard, you can’t prove that George Washington existed, or Napoleon, or any other historical figure.

Now, it is true that the entire New T was written by individuals who had never even met Jesus.

Huh? Saint Matthew, Saint John, Saint Jude, Saint James, and Saint Peter were Apostles; Saint Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus. It is possible that Saint Mark and Saint Luke were disciples during Jesus’ public ministry.

Zoroaster existed; Mohammed acceded into heaven: Horus died upon the cross and resurrected 3 days latter. According to the Hindus, each of their deities came to earth and revealed himself to mankind (in fac they continue to do so) they’ve written numerous books about all of this.

All such claims to link Christianity as a product of paganism or variations of other myths have been thoroughly debunked and exposed time and time again.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Beliefs are not choices.

Yes they are.

 

[sambos671]

I do not believe that there is any such thing as God, Zeus, Noah’s Ark, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, leprechauns, telepathy, magic or miracles.

Ok. We’ve established what you don’t believe. So what do you believe? Or do you just define yourself in the negative or by what you don’t believe?

The classic philisophical statment is “I think therefore I am”. Do you suggest that “I don’t believe therfore I am”?

I’m not trying to be funny just curious.

 

[Allnamesused]

Your foolishness will be forgiven this time.

Really, your profile says you’re Catholic - is that true?

I am not a Catholic. I don’t remeber selecting that as an option. Is it the default? If that is what it says, then yes it is incorrect. I will attempt to alter it. I am an agnostic.

By the same evidentiary standard, you can’t prove that George Washington existed, or Napoleon, or any other historical figure.

Huh? Saint Matthew, Saint John, Saint Jude, Saint James, and Saint Peter were Apostles; Saint Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus. It is possible that Saint Mark and Saint Luke were disciples during Jesus’ public ministry.

I’m merely stating that just because there is a book of scripture written about Jesus that it is no more proof of the existence of a God than is the Koran; Book of Mormon; the various books of Hindu scripture; Avesta the book of Zoroastrian scriptures, etc.
You’re correct. I should have said the Gospels were written by people having never met Jesus…my error and I appologize. The fact that Paul claims to have seen a vision of Jesus does not put him in exclusive company…many loons have. I do believe that Jesus did exist, and was a great teacher…probably a Rabbi who served as a Pharasee. I believe that his followers probably greatly (I mean GREATLY) embellished the events of his life, and with each retelling the story got even bigger (and with more and more similarities to many other ancient messiah stories).

All such claims to link Christianity as a product of paganism or variations of other myths have been thoroughly debunked and exposed time and time again.

Point me in the direction of some of these texts as I will galdly read them.

 

[hamba2han]

I cannot CHOOSE to believe in God any more than you can CHOOSE to believe in the tooth fairy. Beliefs are not choices.

Beliefs are NOT choices, you say??

If you are one of the jurors in a trial, you MUST decide whether or not to believe in the guilt of the accused.

And how would you decide on his innocence or guilt?.. By the evidence presented in the trial, of course.

Since you say that God does not exist, then what evidence made you decide to believe this?

I think I know the kind of “evidence” that made you choose not to believe in the existence of God but I would still like to know your thoughts on the specific “evidence” that made you conclude that the Creator does not exist.

 

[JMJ_coder]

You’re correct. I should have said the Gospels were written by people having never met Jesus…my error and I appologize. The fact that Paul claims to have seen a vision of Jesus does not put him in exclusive company…many loons have. I do believe that Jesus did exist, and was a great teacher…probably a Rabbi who served as a Pharasee. I believe that his followers probably greatly (I mean GREATLY) embellished the events of his life, and with each retelling the story got even bigger (and with more and more similarities to many other ancient messiah stories).

So you’re basically saying that the Apostles suffered from telling ‘big fish’ stories? When was the last time you were willing to die to give that bass you caught a few extra inches?

Point me in the direction of some of these texts as I will galdly read them.

From the Library here: Is Catholicism Pagan?

Also, I would say look at the posts by PhilVaz. Here is one such post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4244204&postcount=37

 

[SimonArizona]

Originally Posted by JMJ_coder
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.

Oh yes, of course he did, how foolish of us. Of course by the same evidentiary standard: Zoroaster existed; Mohammed acceded into heaven: Horus died upon the cross and resurrected 3 days latter. According to the Hindus, each of their deities came to earth and revealed himself to mankind (in fac they continue to do so) they’ve written numerous books about all of this. Now, it is true that the entire New T was written by individuals who had never even met Jesus.

What separates Christ from all those other guys is He was pre-announced even by non-Jewish thinkers and philosophers. Any man can say “I come from God,” or “An angel gave me this book, I want you to read it.” If God was to send someone to us, the least He could do is annouce His coming so when He comes we can recognize the true messenger. This is the test of authenticity, None of those other guys were pre-announced.

“Look not for any end moreover to this curse until God appears, to accept upon his head the pangs of your own sins."-The Greek Aeschylus in his Prometheus 600 B.C.

Tacitus of the ancient Romans: “People are generally persuaded in the faith of the ancient prophecies, that the East was to prevail, and from Judea was to come the Master and Ruler of the world.”

In China, *The Annals of the Celestial Empire *contain the following statement:

“In the 24th year of Tchao-Wang of the dynasty of the Tcheou, on the 8th day of the 4th moon, a light appeared in the Southwest which illumined the king’s palace. The monarch, struck by its splendor, interrogated the sages. They showed him books in which this prodigy signified the appearance of the great Saint of the West whose religion was to be introduced into their country.” (Remember, the Middle East is west of China.)

Not only were the Jews expecting the birth of a Great King, a Wise Man and a Savior, but Plato and Socrates also spoke of the “Logos” and of the Universal Wise Man “yet to come.”

*Confucius *spoke of “the Saint”; the Sibyls, of a “Universal King”; the Greek dramatist, of a savior and redeemer to unloose man from the “primal eldest curse.”

All these were on the Gentile side of the expectation. What distinguishes Christ from all other religious leaders is that He was expected; even the Gentiles expected Him.

“If one searches out the various Messianic currents in the Old Testament, and compares the resulting picture with the life and work of Christ, can one doubt that the ancient predictions point to Jesus and the kingdom which he established?” Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

“I am the one the prophets foretold”- Christ Jesus

Another thing that really sets Christ apart is His power. “For the kingdom of God is not in words but in power”-St. Paul

Faith in Christ carries with it power to heal a person, transform their lives, empty the pernicious content inside them and restore their souls. Christ is the true light that shines into the hearts of men. Taste and see.

 

[Hislittlelady]

I cannot CHOOSE to believe in God any more than you can CHOOSE to believe in the tooth fairy. Beliefs are not choices.

I’d like to recommend two books to you that you might find very interesting.

The first one is “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

These authors have doctorates and one has written a whole encyclopedia on Christian Apologetics, among many other brilliant writings. I really think you would appreciate reading this.

The other book is equally outstanding. This one is called "Faith on Trial by Pamela Binnings Ewen. She is an attorney in an international law firm which specializes in finance. She’s on the board of directors of Junior Achievement in S.E. Texas. She does a complete case analysis of the gospels, the crucifixion, the resurrection and presents her case as she would at a trial. It is extremely interesting reading and very thought provoking.

I highly recommend these two books to you, especially the one written by the lawyer.

I hope you will read them and if you do, hope you will find some enlightenment through them. Good luck and God bless.

:curtsey:

 

[hamba2han]

LOL. You’re too cute.

I WANT to accept that which is well substantiated by physical evidence for two reasons:

1. To not look a fool in my profession.
2. To be that much closer to the truth.

Why do you WANT to hold onto your preconceived beliefs so badly as to be intentionally ignorant of evidence?

What exactly is the scientific evidence that has convinced you that the type III secretory system “evolved” first before the bacterial flagellum and not after it?

The evolutionary biology community is not clear which came from which, the flagellum from the secretory system or vice versa. According to Nguyen L, Paulsen IT, Tchieu J, Hueck CJ, Saier MH Jr. (Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems, J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 2000 Apr;2(2):125-44), the flagellum came first based on phylogeny comparisons of sequences.

Are you disputing the phylogenetic analyses – and I do not have a clue what it is to tell the truth – of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems that these particular scientists have done?

Or are you instead basing your arguments on the “It must have happened” approach that virtually every single proponent of Darwin’s ‘Theory of evolution’ has adopted as the foundation of all of their “scientific evidences” in support of Darwinian evolution.

And as with all false teachings, Darwinism has simply failed to withstand the test of time as can be seen in countless cases like the one below.

NEW FOSSIL DISCOVERY SINKS EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You do realize that the difference between monotheism and polytheism is just as vast as between atheism and polytheism, don’t you?

Pascal’s Wager ONLY carries weight if you can dismiss all other gods and only get down to the Trinity.

That’s all I’m saying. Nothing to do with polytheism.

From the position where the OP is, Thor has just as much a chance at being the “correct god” as does Jesus, hence Pascal’s wager is not logically sound.

Oh, another Thor worshiper! How cute.

Atheism is monotheism negated, not polytheism negated.

You apparently DON’T understand what monotheism is, in the first place, and why it is not a “minimalized” polytheism.

But, Pascal’s Wager DOES indeed presuppose that the “theisms” one is considering are either monotheism or neg-monotheism, aka atheism.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I WANT to accept that which is well substantiated by physical evidence for two reasons:

1. To not look a fool in my profession.
2. To be that much closer to the truth.

Why do you WANT to hold onto your preconceived beliefs so badly as to be intentionally ignorant of evidence?

Show me how holding to Catholic beliefs mean one is “intentionally ignorant (presumably to evidence which is contrary to those beliefs)”?

So, your worried firstly about “looking like a fool amongst your ‘in-group’”, and THEN your worried about not being as near to truth as you might be? Seems you may have your “priorities” a bit askew, no?

You also don’t seem to understand, no doubt from simple lack of interest, for whatever reason, that no Catholic dogma contradicts a single scientific fact, or whatever it is that you’re talking about by saying “physical evidence”, in any way whatsoever.

You might want to bone up on your education in that area, so as not to appear the fool to those who are more educated than yourself there.

 

[jen_fla]

Point me in the direction of some of these texts as I will galdly read them.

you wrote:

“I am not a Catholic. I don’t remeber selecting that as an option. Is it the default? If that is what it says, then yes it is incorrect. I will attempt to alter it. I am an agnostic.”

it is my understanding you actually have to type in manually what your religion is otherwise it is left blank. if you need help changing it, i will be happy to help you, because as of now it still is reading Roman Catholic.

thanks.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I cannot CHOOSE to believe in God any more than you can CHOOSE to believe in the tooth fairy. Beliefs are not choices.

Poor fellow.

“Beliefs are not choices.”

He has no idea his religion is a belief in non-belief, as well as the belief in his choice to believe in non-choice.

Poor fellow.

This is no atheist. This is a complete automatonic nihilist, “saving” himself from both free will and any faith [verb] in one fell swoop!

Fascinating.

:shamrock2:

 

[Allnamesused]

you wrote:

“I am not a Catholic. I don’t remeber selecting that as an option. Is it the default? If that is what it says, then yes it is incorrect. I will attempt to alter it. I am an agnostic.”

it is my understanding you actually have to type in manually what your religion is otherwise it is left blank. if you need help changing it, i will be happy to help you, because as of now it still is reading Roman Catholic.

thanks.

I would appreciate your assitence in this matter. I would prefer to be listed as an agnostic or a deist.
thanks.

 

[Allnamesused]

So you’re basically saying that the Apostles suffered from telling ‘big fish’ stories? When was the last time you were willing to die to give that bass you caught a few extra inches?

Ok, first of all we are talking about more than a few inches. Secondly, history is filled will tales of powerful cult leaders leader people into all sorts of insanity. Why were the disciples willing to die? Ask yourself, why were the followers of David Koresh at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco willing to die for him? Your answer to that question is my answer to your question.

From the Library here: Is Catholicism Pagan?

Also, I would say look at the posts by PhilVaz. Here is one such post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4244204&postcount=37

 

[JMJ_coder]

Ok, first of all we are talking about more than a few inches. Secondly, history is filled will tales of powerful cult leaders leader people into all sorts of insanity. Why were the disciples willing to die? Ask yourself, why were the followers of David Koresh at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco willing to die for him? Your answer to that question is my answer to your question.

David Koresh brainwashed those in Waco. The Apostles were definitely not brainwashed. Your portrayal of Catholicism as a cult is idiotic - and been tried before - and failed at every attempt. Catholicism is the only true faith - revelation, history, and reason all attest to this.