Dishonest Apologetics

[joe370]

Hey tqualey…you said:

You know, it takes so little to just look around and see that all of this precise interaction could not just ‘happen’. The fact that we have just had our next breath and heart beat should convince most that exchanging all of these chemicals just at the right moment - can not be ‘luck’.

I totally agree with you! I wish atheist, or any atheist for that matter, would explain to me just where all of this energy in the universe came from, and how it came to be! Discovering and defining LAWS of an unknown origin, that govern how the universe functions, is a far cry from finding the origins of these LAWS. Science has no clue where they came from! So, to placate themselves, they simply say that these laws, all of this boundless energy in the universe, “always existed,” removing the need to contemplate and consider the possibility of a creator outside the bounds of space and time. That to me seems rather disingenuous.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370

Thanks for the kind words.

Hey tqualey…you said: You know, it takes so little to just look around and see that all of this precise interaction could not just ‘happen’. The fact that we have just had our next breath and heart beat should convince most that exchanging all of these chemicals just at the right moment - can not be ‘luck’.

I totally agree with you! I wish atheist, or any atheist for that matter, would explain to me just where all of this energy in the universe came from, and how it came to be! Discovering and defining LAWS of an unknown origin, that govern how the universe functions, is a far cry from finding the origins of these LAWS. Science has no clue where they came from! So, to placate themselves, they simply say that these laws, all of this boundless energy in the universe, “always existed,” removing the need to contemplate and consider the possibility of a creator outside the bounds of space and time. That to me seems rather disingenuous. God bless

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TWB1621,

Actually, I would say that science is process of disproving one set of theories, replacing them with others and preparing to displace this set. “Scientific Truth” does not ‘own’ the shelf it is on … just merely renting the space until another tenant comes along! Anyone who really stakes his belief system on science is in this only for the short haul.

This is a completely false claim and history verifies itself on this. I say you do not want to find out because you fear what changes it will bring. Many theories have been proven to be false and many historic “facts” have been found inaccurate and correct. To say otherwise is nothing but denial.

In the scheme of things, we are to work with the lights we have - and, that would include scientific lights, to arrive at a knowingly temporary view of a truth (lower case “t”) Now, this does not mean that scientic fact is worthless or without meaning - only that our understanding of it is subject to change… and, often times, without notice!

Enjoyed your post.

Have a great day

Not to insult you but your responses reflect excuses and although you have 1001 of them you have not shown any true reasons. I would love to help you if and when you are ready to accept the outcome. That is truthful…

 

[twb1621]

Hi, TWB1621,

Actually, I would say that science is process of disproving one set of theories, replacing them with others and preparing to displace this set. “Scientific Truth” does not ‘own’ the shelf it is on … just merely renting the space until another tenant comes along! Anyone who really stakes his belief system on science is in this only for the short haul.

Absotively and posilutely my brother:thumbsup:

 

[Cinette]

Hello Everyone!

So you are still at it hey?!

You might be interested in another thread on the same subject

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=351875

As for me I KNOW that God exists - I feel Him all the time and I see the evidence all around me.

Call me crazy - I don’t care

Blessings
Cinette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Well… if this is what makes you crazy… then I guess I am crazy, too…

I seem to remember something about, those who do not received the kingdom of God as a child she not enter it!

God bless

Hello Everyone!

So you are still at it hey?!

You might be interested in another thread on the same subject

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=351875

As for me I KNOW that God exists - I feel Him all the time and I see the evidence all around me.

Call me crazy - I don’t care

Blessings
Cinette

 

[anEvilAtheist]

When we research something, it doesn’t take a full study of each entity to determine independent validity. I myself would like to know which religion pertaining to the belief in God you have looked into that through recorded history transcends that of the Hebrew and Christian faith inclusively. You express an unrealistic situation claiming you would have to study every aspect of each religion to determine which the right one is. They weed themselves out well on their own.

I wasn’t saying that I think there is definitely a religion that has more evidence for it than Catholicism, just that I think there is a decent bit of evidence against traditional Catholicism and not much evidence for it. In this sense, I think that a religion with little evidence in its favor, but that does not have much evidence against it would be more likely. How should I go about weeding out other religions? How would you prove that Mormonism is false for example? I think that if you start weeding out tons of religions that seem unlikely, you would weed Catholicism out as well.

It is selective to take my word that my name is Tom but not my word that God exists. Period. Fact. If I say God exists and although doubtful your desire to know the truth regardless of the out come is there, you would seek the answers just as dedicated as you would any other subject.

Maybe by some definitions of selective, this would be selective. But in that case, I think that such selectivity is a good thing. We can’t prove everything in this world, but I think it makes sense to be more careful when it comes to big decisions or when people make claims that are hard to believe. And I have sought the answers, far more diligently than I have on most issues. I just reached a different conclusion than you did.

This is a completely false claim and history verifies itself on this. I say you do not want to find out because you fear what changes it will bring. Many theories have been proven to be false and many historic “facts” have been found inaccurate and correct. To say otherwise is nothing but denial.

Pretty much nothing can be proven false with 100% certainty. Scientific theories rest on previous scientific theories. If you follow the chain back to the beginning, you’ll find that all scientific theories rest on certain assumptions. Imagine starting from a point of absolutely no knowledge. You’d have to make some assumptions in order to get anywhere. Many of the assumptions you make will probably be pretty reasonable, such as the assumption that if you get the same result over and over again, it is probably not just due to random chance, and the assumption that you can generalize from the behavior of objects in your experiment to the behavior of other objects. You also need to make some assumptions about the behavior of the objects you use in your experiment in order to reach conclusions about other aspects of their behavior. Some of our assumptions are so well established and have been so consistent with later results that it would be almost inconceivable for them to be false and it would probably take a complicated web of currently unknown forces in order to produce the results we observed if the assumption was false. This is normally what we mean when we say that something is proven. But since you think that scientific theories can be proven with 100% certainty, I would be interested in hearing you disprove a theory such as the theory that the earth is not round. For each piece of evidence you supply, I can ask why we know that that evidence is true. I can then proceed to ask “why” for each reason you give to defend those pieces of evidence. At some point we would reach unproven assumptions. Of course I do not think it is at all reasonable to believe that the earth actually is flat; I’m just trying to illustrate that science does not prove or disprove theories with 100% certainty.

Not to insult you but your responses reflect excuses and although you have 1001 of them you have not shown any true reasons.

I don’t believe in God because I don’t think that any of the evidence for his existence is good. There are certainly a lot of arguments people give for his existence, but I honestly do not think that they work. The mere existence of a lot of arguments is no proof that one of them is valid. For example, Carpenter provided 100 proofs that the Earth is not a globe (geocities.com/lclane2/hundreda.html), but after reading them carefully, I think it is reasonable to say that none of his proofs are valid.

Now if you define proof as 100% certainty, I think it is unreasonable to ask for proof of God. But none of the arguments for his existence that I have seen even establish very strong evidence that he did exist. Of course given the number of flawed arguments, it’s very possible that I was too quick to criticize one argument that actually does work. But if one of my responses was bad, I’d want that pointed out. I’ve made mistakes before and will probably continue to make mistakes, but this doesn’t mean that I should accept any claim regardless of how thin the evidence is.

I would love to help you if and when you are ready to accept the outcome. That is truthful…

I would similarly love to help you if and when you are ready to accept that God probably does not exist. Neither of us can be absolutely certain that we are right, but that doesn’t mean that people on the other side only believe what they do because they are not willing to accept the truth.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist:

I was not saying this claim would be equally reasonable to the claims made by Christianity. Circumstantial evidence is far better than no evidence at all. I was merely saying that there are also some very silly historical claims you couldn’t definitively refute, so this alone is not evidence that something is true.

Agreed, but this is where a person must use common sense. Claims are one thing but centuries of evidence to support its claims through history is another. Has there been any finding to discredit anything of Christianity? What are the odds only the positives would be found over this time?

I don’t think the Christian claims of what happened during Jesus’ life have substantial historical evidence in their favor. And I think it would be very unlikely for there to be strong evidence against Christianity even if it was false. If Christianity was false and Jesus was later mythologized, what are some archeological discoveries that could be made which you would see as strong evidence against Christianity?

anEvilAtheist:

So how do you think archeology provides evidence for Christianity and which discoveries do you find most compelling?

Why do you ask such a question knowing the answer. Archeology has provided evidence for the teachings of Christianity by providing physical findings that verifies the existence of the faith in each claimed historic era, dating of events, the religious practices of the faith, the locations of events verified according to records, the consistency of beliefs, the people spoken of and identified as the Apostles and their successors and the methods of their martyrdom, the people or persons who put them to death, the artifacts recovered and the parchments and scrolls recovered, and so on and so on…. Which locations? They are numerous and growing, included the recent finding of what is believed to be the interior location of the first church of Christian practice in Jordan dating around 70 AD. As you would expect from professionals, it is not verified as of yet but inside have been found artifacts as well. Or there are the findings regarding the city of David that many scholars denied existed. So all is being physically proven as time proceeds accept the people whom Jesus performed miracles on. I would hope you wouldn’t need them also when the time comes.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-…/1467474/posts

I know there’s evidence for the existence of Christianity, and for the existence of some of the people and places named in the Bible. What I meant was that I don’t think there’s been any good evidence that Jesus was divine or abnormally talented. The evidence you talked about would only be a problem for people who believe that the Bible was made up from scratch without even trying to tie it in with historical people and places.

If what you have presented as your “reasons” are you comparisons, I vehemently disagree with you. When you look at a locomotive, do you only look at the wheels and say “that is not a locomotive” or do you look at the entire vehicle and recognize it by its combined parts? Can you not admit that the idea of having to alter you entire way of life in order to have a relationship with God and save your sole from eternal hell is troubling to you?

I would look at the entire locomotive. I have tried looking for a locomotive and found nothing. I have tried asking people who claim to know there’s a locomotive and have found no locomotive in any of the places where they said it’s located. So at this point, I think it’s more likely that this locomotive is a non-existent entity like Bigfoot than that it actually exists.

The idea of having to alter my life is not troubling me at all. I think in many ways would embrace it. I don’t think it would be that hard to alter my life. All I can give you is my word, but I really do think that if I ever found a good argument that the Christian God exists, I would happily live as I thought God wanted me to. I just try to examine arguments carefully so I do not adopt a false religion.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The following links should shed some light on the possibility of theories being proved wrong as well as verification through archeology. This is a sample only.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050222113412.htm

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=2148.0.81.0

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-archaeology-find-threatens.html

http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

Thanks for the links. It’s definitely a controversial issue and there are also a lot of archeologists who think that the Bible is historically inaccurate. However, I thought your links made a great case that a lot of the events depicted in the Bible were true. But to me, it doesn’t really matter. Even if it could be proven that some of the key non-supernatural stories in the Bible were completely accurate, this would not provide evidence that Jesus was the son of God (Just as a book about a girl and her time-traveling unicorn would not be evidence that unicorns exist even if the other people, places, and events mentioned in the book all really existed).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No science can be proven 100%… Really, you sure about that? Science allows us to discover wonderful truths, some of which can be proven 100%. So, do you think in time that evolution will be a 100%er? Up until that point, you will have to have a little faith.

I explained in this post why science cannot prove things 100%. When something is extraordinarily well evidenced and when it has been confirmed by a variety of different means, it is often called a fact. By this standard, I think that the roundness of the earth is a fact, and I also think that evolution is a fact. Evolution has been evidenced by the fossil record, instances of bad design (which make more sense under evolution: eebweb.arizona.edu/michod/Classes/182/182%202006/Better%20human%20design.pdf ), how species are distributed around the world, molecular genetics, embryology, and the presence of vestigial organs. These independent lines of evidence all point toward evolution being true.

So, if you acknowledge that nothing is 100% (which I disagree with, but, I’ll go with you on this one) then all things in Mr. Evil’s world require faith. So, how am I different than you… us little peps who believe (with faith) in God. I look around and see all sorts of evidence… I see history, I see all cultures no matter where they are and in what time of history that longs to DISCOVER God. Don’t you find that a little odd? I see evidence, you see faith. What’s the difference with you and I, the only difference is our degrees. In your mind, evolution has more weight, therefore you accept it. Did I get that right? So, if more evidence was found about God, would you be consistent and change your view and acknowledge there is a God?

It depends how you define faith. If by faith you just mean believing that something is probably true when the evidence indicates that it is probably true, then I do indeed have faith. I guess we’re the same in that we both have beliefs and neither of us can prove them with 100% certainty, but this doesn’t mean that the evidence supports each of our beliefs equally. Someone may have reasons for believing that the world is flat, but this doesn’t mean that their opinion is just as likely to true as my belief that it is round.

You know my opinion, but do you believe we discover truth, or create it?

I believe we discover it. But there’s always a chance, no matter how infinitesimal, that we could be in error.

PS: You seem to be a seeker of truth, I would suggest more inquiry into Christianity and its foundations in history and faith. Review the Bible in length, read early Church fathers… If you have already read the Bible with a microscope, please forgive this suggestion, but if not, I would suggest that you spend more than a glancing read.

Is there anything in particular in the Bible or the early Church fathers that you think makes a good case that God exists?

PPS: Just curious, were you ever a person of faith? (not in science, because you have faith in science, but I mean in God).

Not really. I didn’t grow up as particularly religious or atheistic.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

*I don’t think that these show evolution to be false though. Science is always improving, and just because we don’t currently have all the answers, doesn’t mean that God must be the explanation for what we don’t yet know. *

You might consider whether there is another lesson to be learned from your own words: Just because we cannot answer all the questions raised by religion, it doesn’t follow that religion is false and that we must turn to science to answer the only questions that really matter.

Good point. I agree with you. The important issue is whether there are good reasons for holding a specific set of religious beliefs and whether those reasons are better than the reasons for not holding that set of religious beliefs.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Dishonest apologetics is a matter of pretending to have all the answers. No one has them all. Even the atheist, who believes it unlikely there can be a God, cannot be absolutely certain.

The fundamental issue of atheism is not whether intellectually one can see or not see God, but whether one wills or does not will to see God. Satan could certainly see that God exists, but he refused to submit himself to God’s will. So it is with atheism … the refusal to submit one’s will … and the need to justify that refusal by pretending (without absolute proof) that there is no divine Will to submit to.

But when the full circle of life is complete, when we rise up from the miracle of birth to descend into the miracle of death, something invariably happens I believe to every soul that ever lived.

HOPE!

It sounds like you are saying that we all really know in our heart that God exists and that those of us who claim to be atheists really just don’t want to submit to God’s will. Statements like that don’t mean much to people like me who sincerely do not believe that God exists but would be willing to submit to his will if we thought he did. From your perspective, I guess it is possible that every atheist who claims to sincerely not believe in God could be lying. But I know why I am an atheist and it’s not because of being unwilling to live by God’s rules.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Sorry but you are not responding to the points of the post. You are distorting the facts of many of the healings including those instantly healed and later supported in order to persist in your own line of thinking. The support for each case weighs greatly against the lack of support for your doubts. You have asked for reasonable support but deny the possibilites without credible reasons. I wish I had a smiley face with a negatively shaking finger…

In what way did I distort the facts?

Also, what do you think is the best documented example of a healing at Lourdes? I can’t thoroughly investigate every single claimed healing, but I’d be happy to research one of them in greater depth.
twb1621;5383216:

No, I said something a bit stronger than that actually.

And, I’d be willing to go further as well, though not quite as far as you might be willing to go.

The report on mother Teresa is of no interest at this point in in the sense that this is far from the only consideration to her Saint hood. More is required and it hasen’t occured yet.
I think you should be as scepticle with the media as you are with your belief in God or Believe in God at least as much as you do the media. At least that would be a start to go forward.

When was the last time a group of Catholics knocked on your door to convert you? they are not known to grab people off the street to convince them of their faith. Any reasonably knowledgeable person knows the Catholic Church is extremely critical of what it accepts because of those such as you which is why you can only doubt without support.

Ok, what experience? I know the track record of the discrepancies based on news reporting of events I was specifically involved in and they were frequent during my profession. I was the investigator of the events and I knew the facts. Can you say you have equivalent experience to refute this?

I am skeptical of the media in the sense that I don’t automatically assume that every story must be true. But whenever I have had firsthand knowledge of a story that the media is reporting on, they have done so accurately. So while I recognize that they are often wrong, I think that in general their stories are accurate. However, I have no reason to think that what the Catholic Church says is generally reliable. I realize that they are typically careful not endorse miracles that can be easily disproven, but this doesn’t mean that miracles actually occurred.

You see, it is based on your opinion. And it is not the Catholic Church that makes the claims. If you review the posts and the information offered to you you will see it is the Church behind the investigations and studies.
In regard to any of the appreciations, the Catholic Church does not require the Faithful to believe in those accepted anyway, it is a matter of each person’s choice.

I didn’t really understand what you were saying here, but I do know that the Church does not require people to believe in any given miracle.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Just a few names of Roman historians from that era you might look up information on that through their writings have verified the existance and provided support for some of the events involving the life of Jesus.
Some of the non-Christian historians from those times are Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Phlegon among others if you care to research them also.

I hope you see the value in resources you are being offered here by everyone. It would be more than a shame for it all to be discarded without due consideration.

I have already looked at these sources. I think they provide some evidence that someone by the name of Jesus existed, but no evidence for his divinity.

I do try to give everything due consideration. In some cases, I have seen a certain argument before and already thoroughly investigated the argument, its counter-arguments, and responses to those counter-arguments, etc. But I really do try to consider everything carefully, which is perhaps why I usually fall behind with my replies. Sometimes I have to spend a few hours responding to one post so I can look into the points that were made.

 

[Charlotte408]

My point was that I don’t think that Pascal’s Wager works because it says that it shouldn’t matter whether there is evidence. I agree that there are high stakes to choosing correctly, but not that one should disregard the evidence. Do you really think that Pascal’s Wager is a good argument? If so, I’d be interested in hearing why.

Ok, so, I’m not a priest, or even overly educated person, but it might be something like this…

Everyday, you live by laws, right??? Your not allowed to steal, murder, etc. And your not required to give money at the mass, so the only thing that your religion, or God, is really asking of you that goes above and beyond what your normal daily duties might be is to believe in Him and get up and go to mass.

Mass is trivial. Most people dont WANT to get up and go to work 5 days a week, but hey, guess what, you have to. As an atheist, you dont believe in God- that could pose a bigger problem. If you chose not to go to work, you could lose your home, starve-whatever…But if you dont believe in God, whoa…now your talking about your salvation, your SOUL, ETERNITY…

My Brother is one of those extreme/logic/rational thinkers and I try my best to put things in that perspective, even though maybe I’m not the best at it? But I would think that, being the human life span is what? 100 years?? and the possibility of eternity is what? infinite??? Logically, even if you are incorrect, wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry?? How much harm is it going to cause your life, because you spent a couple hours each sunday learning about how to be a better person?? idk…just my opinion…and I wouldnt disregard any evidence, but from what I understand theres not any DEFINITE evidence for either side…

I myself personally have felt Him so theres no question in my mind…I hope one day you find Him within yourself too <3

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I reviewed your last five posts and, honestly, you claim to look at something and then simply dismiss it because it does not have enough ‘evidence’ to satisfy your criteria.

I have already looked at these sources. I think they provide some evidence that someone by the name of Jesus existed, but no evidence for his divinity.

I do try to give everything due consideration. In some cases, I have seen a certain argument before and already thoroughly investigated the argument, its counter-arguments, and responses to those counter-arguments, etc. But I really do try to consider everything carefully, which is perhaps why I usually fall behind with my replies. Sometimes I have to spend a few hours responding to one post so I can look into the points that were made.

Without a doubt, your less then solid logic, misunderstanding of the works of others and dismissal of everything that points to a Power higher then yourself, Wiser then yourself and One Who does not explain Himself to you, has truly been a sad reading experience for me. I certianly hope for your sake that you are just saying this and are content to merely spread scandal and doubt amongst others.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I reviewed your last five posts and, honestly, you claim to look at something and then simply dismiss it because it does not have enough ‘evidence’ to satisfy your criteria.

I do not look at tons of evidence and then bemoan the lack of evidence. What I instead say is that I have not seen any good evidence that I would expect to see if there was a God, but would not expect to see if there was not a God. For example, historians who mentioned Jesus in passing did not say that he did anything supernatural. And regarding supposed medical miracles, I find that in many cases the evidence is not as good as it first appears (such as Benny Hinn’s “healing” of Evander Holyfield), which is why I try to see how much evidence there actually is for a claim instead of just relying on the version presented on a religious website. However, I’m sure there are cases where people recover and doctors do not know why. This has been documented in both religious and non-religious situations. The human body is so endlessly complex that I think we only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know. So I don’t assume that a recovery without a known cause is evidence of a supernatural entity. Additionally, unless the people who go to Lourdes recover at a significantly higher rate than people who don’t, I don’t see this as evidence that Lourdes has special curative properties. When someone makes a general claim, I typically offer a general reply, but when someone mentions a specific incident, I try to investigate it further.

Without a doubt, your less then solid logic, misunderstanding of the works of others and dismissal of everything that points to a Power higher then yourself, Wiser then yourself and One Who does not explain Himself to you, has truly been a sad reading experience for me. I certianly hope for your sake that you are just saying this and are content to merely spread scandal and doubt amongst others.

God bless

I am not trying to spread scandal and doubt among others. I am simply trying to explain my point of view, examine complex philosophical issues, and learn more about our world in the process. I wish you would focus on the arguments of mine that you disagree with rather than saying that I’m illogical. I am fallible, and no matter how much I try not to, I will sometimes make errors of logic, and will misunderstand the work of others. If you think I am in error, please point out to me where you think my errors lie.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Stephen Hawking ends his immensely popular book, A Brief History of Time, with several questions about what physics can tell us about “The Mind of God”.

“…We are now ready to answer Hawking’s questions about the Mind of God. It is the wave function of the universe. The wave function of the universe is in superspace that is literally beyond spacetime but it guides the evolution of our expanding universe in cosmic time. If we add the back-reaction of living matter on the wavefunction of the universe then we have a mechanism for communion with God.”

qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/godphys.html

Hawking spoke of God in metaphorical terms. Earlier in this thread I brought up quotations which show that the evidence points towards Hawking being an atheist or agnostic. But that’s a minor point.

Regarding the article you sent me, I found it fascinating. I think quantum mind theories are interesting, but I don’t think we currently have any data one way another. However, I’m not sure exactly what you’re driving at. I never claimed that it was impossible for a supernatural entity to influence the natural world.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Evilatheist,

OK … you’re on…let’s take a look at logic…

I am not trying to spread scandal and doubt among others. I am simply trying to explain my point of view, examine complex philosophical issues, and learn more about our world in the process. I wish you would focus on the arguments of mine that you disagree with rather than saying that I’m illogical. I am fallible, and no matter how much I try not to, I will sometimes make errors of logic, and will misunderstand the work of others. If you think I am in error, please point out to me where you think my errors lie.

Now, got to your post #804 where you make the following statement:

**Thanks for the links. It’s definitely a controversial issue and there are also a lot of archeologists who think that the Bible is historically inaccurate. However, I thought your links made a great case that a lot of the events depicted in the Bible were true. But to me, it doesn’t really matter. Even if it could be proven that some of the key non-supernatural stories in the Bible were completely accurate, this would not provide evidence that Jesus was the son of God (Just as a book about a girl and her time-traveling unicorn would not be evidence that unicorns exist even if the other people, places, and events mentioned in the book all really existed). **

You are commenting on 4 hyperlinks that have been sent dealing with science.

So, if I understand your statement correctly, truth does not matter. Here you are immediately granting that ancient records found in the Bible can actually be independently validated by ancient secular accounts of the same events - and then you dismiss it.

While you may find it convenient to equate the stories of Chist being the Son of God to a novel about a girl and time travel - no one is going to die for a fantasy. Do you know of anyone willing to die for this girl, time travel and her unicorn? And, while you may dismiss the Apostles as 12 crazy men without a life so that dying for a fantasy was simply inconsequential - thousands and thousands of Christians died under the rule of the pagan Roman emperors - and it could not erase Christianity.

A logical argument could not simply dismiss the supreme sacrifice made over and over again, under different tyrants - but, all with the same end: to abolish the message of Christ. No one dies for a myth. People do not die for the same myth century after century. Your little time traveling girl with the unicorn is not worth dying for - Jesus Christ is.

Are you willing to die for Athieism? If put to the test, I pray for the Grace to die for Christ.

And, there lies the difference.

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I think you have summarized about 80% of your position with this statement:

I don’t. I don’t know.

I have. I don’t see any evidence of God.

Most of the world is in a current econmic crisis. And, while every economist must be proficient in advanced math and science - they are all focused on making reasonable decisons (or, at least what seemed reasonable at the time! ) under conditions of uncertainty. You just do not hear someone way, “It is THIS and nothing else will answer the question!” Even economists have a type of Faith … ! If they knew how to solve the current problems (better yet - to have avoided them in the first place!) I have every confidence the problem(s) would have been solved by now. Normally, their solutions involve either money or credit - and government which usually has a lot of both (but, we are finding that this is not infinite, either - even if we do have the printing presses!) is not saying they will not act until such time as THEY HAVE PROOF!

Demanding such a degree of ‘proof’ is simply unrealistic - and, has no similar example in the real world where actual decisons must be made. God just won’t fit under any microscope we can build. But, we can certainly admire His handiwork with our eyes.

I don’t know how many of my posts in this thread you have read, but I have repeatedly said that I am not looking for proof of God, merely good evidence. I do not consider something good evidence if it likely would exist regardless of whether God exists.

No. I think you have a definitional problem here. With agnosticism one can NEVER KNOW because the knowledge is unobtainable. ( while there are many definitions, here is link to one: dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic )

The definition I subscribe to is that of not knowing whether God exists. Certain aspects of God’s existence may be unknowable, but there may be some that we can find evidence for or against.

The catch here is simple: who could blame someone for NOT knowing something when this knowledge just isn’t there? Well, no one, of course. The problem with that approach, however, is that it is similar to man who refuses to open his eyes while walking. Sooner or later he will fall - and, while he may marvel at his injury - no one else will!

Maybe this example applies to a certain breed of agnostic, but not to me.

Of course you don’t agree … doing so would total dismantel this system of absolute denial. And, is there any ‘relevant analogy’ that could ever be constructed to fit this system of negation. No.

We do agree that the universe is an amazing thing Chances are, the atomic clock ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Clock ) is considered an ‘amazing thing’, too. But, no one is saying it has always existed, was never created or will go on for all eternity. In the experience of everyone, EVERYthing came into existence at some point.

There is no evidence to support this claim. The universe may not have ever been a singularity. But even people like Stephen Hawking who thought that it once was a singularity do not claim that nothing existed in the natural world before that point, they merely claim that we have no idea what, if anything, did exist then.

Even astromers have identified the BIRTH and DEATH of stars ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nursery ) - and this is just what we can ‘see’ with the Hubble Telescope. Does anyone doubt that there is the possibility of more wonderous things ‘out there’ beyond the visual field of Hubble? No one in the scientific community is saying, “We do not have enough ‘proof’ that there is anything else out there!” These guys have Faith … and this is something to consider.

Maybe it is time to come in out of the cold.

God bless

You obviously think that I am the one who is not accepting reality and I think you are the one who is not accepting reality. If I felt cold and thought there was a warm shelter then I would gladly go inside.