Do I need to be born again?

[francisca]

Atheist-669:

No, you can and will not be born again.
Neither have you ever been reborn. This is your only life, when you die, it’s over. Believe me on this one: Have fun while you live! You are NOT going to live again, - ever.

• MJ - Atheist -

Yes we can be born again of Spirit and water. Jesus said so and we have to believe Him.

Being born again means one sees everything in a new light. Just like a newborn baby who sees the world for the first time. It changes a person in a very drastic way. It may refer to a certain experience (one time), or a process within a period that causes one change totally : to see his life in a new way.

Now regarding Atheism :

The reasoning of being an Atheist is written in the book of Wisdom chapter 2. And this passage wrote that such is a WRONG REASON to live.

Here is the passage :

Wisdom 2

1 they who said among themselves, thinking NOT aright: "Brief and troublous is our lifetime; neither is there any remedy for man’s dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from the nether world…
5 For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow; and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns.
6 Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things…
7 Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes, …
8 let us crown ourselves…
11 But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
…
21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.
23 For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.

Read the whole chapter here :
nccbuscc.com/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom2.htm
Wisdom 2:12-20 is direct prophecy about believer (who call “God as father”) agaist those who does not believe.

God bless.

 

[Atheist-669]

itsjustdave1988:

Atheist-669,
I have a question for you, if you have time with all the rest

I’m a spacecraft engineer and have had my fair share of science. I believe I too can be described as ‘pro-science’ as well. Yet, that doesn’t mean I’m anti-God.

OK, that’s good to hear.

itsjustdave1988:

Here’s my question …

Do you believe Man is merely the most fortunate animal on the planet? It seems the facts indicate man has the upper hand with regard to controlling his environment. However, do you believe that man is merely enjoying the fruits of mere random chance?

Yes, you got my point pretty exactly right there.

Our “upper hand” is the practical way our bodies are built, which we can thank the apes for (for beeing the first ‘specific’ creature in our “chain of evolution”). Now our brain have evolved high above their stadium too, but as I already mentioned, we do not have the most advanced brains on this planet. Our combination of a practical body with the ability to build and create, combined with our brain, which’s fantasy may guide us in creation.

itsjustdave1988:

Probability conditioned upon prior events is still probability. If man came to have the upper hand based purely upon random probability, without any outside intervention, then why is man an extreme outlier, statistically speaking?

For example, if man is in first place with regard to the ability to dominate this planet (either positively or negatively), then where’s the second place species? Man, it seems, is such an extreme outlier statistically speaking that it brings the theory of evolution by random processes into doubt. I don’t see that random processes can account for the statistical outlier called “man.” We have been to the moon. I would think the second place species would have at least discovered how to harness and exploit fire by now.

Well you don’t see any other species with our combination do you? And if there ever were such a species, we have probably killed the lot.

itsjustdave1988:

I love science. I’ve been a missile systems engineer and spacecraft engineer for much of my military career. It is my study of math and science which confirms in my mind that there is a God, a universal first cause, an intelligent designer.
(…) Random probability, even event conditioned, doesn’t support the gap between first place (man) and a second place species.Hear hear, but I still think we are just fortunate

itsjustdave1988:

Given enough events, the distribution fits the process. Pure random processes have a normal or Guassian distribution, for example. Extreme outliers, from my study of probability and statistics, always have to have a cause. Random processes do not result in extreme outliers like the one called ‘man’.

And why not? We sure look like it, and I don’t see a better explanation around (not even the Bible)

itsjustdave1988:

Therefore, man’s status as first place is no mere result of random variation, otherwise I would expect a distribution with the second place species as an outlier, but just a little less than that of man.

As mentioned I don’t think we ruthless humans would allow a second species to co-exist with us. But it is a little late to find out don’t you think ( ? ), considering “we” have already brought over half of the species on this planet to extinction (probably a lot more).

Had to cut, sorry!

 

[Atheist-669]

itsjustdave1988:

continued …

As I said, I’m trying to approach this methodically, given the tools of math and science which I’ve come to believe. Common evolutionary theories are based upon random variation. It should then match the laws of probability. Why the extreme outlier? I read “Beginnings” by my favorite atheist, Isaac Asimov. He does a great job explaining evolution. However, his explanation lacks an answer as to why man is the quintessential extreme outlier when compared to all other animals on this planet.

Life finds away to adapt and overcome. However, man has done so much better at “adapting and overcoming” than all others that have ever lived. The theory that “man” as the first place species is keeping the chimpanzee at a distant second, for example, and not allowing the random variations to work its way forward is unconvincing. Compare man’s dominance to the status of all species before man. Before man, was there an extreme outlier? Sure there was a dominant species, however, it doesn’t seem that they were so dominant that they were clearly an extreme outlier. This is not the case with man. We’re not like the best dinosaur. We are much better equipped, more advanced, etc. In short, there is no biological precedent compared to man in pre-human existence.

Random variation would not have resulted in such an extreme outlier. Check all known probability density curves where random variation is the supposed influencing process. The gap between first and second is never great. An extreme outlier always indicates some other influence.Could be anything, the odds for it beeing anything supernatural are “quite” small

itsjustdave1988:

Always. If I’m

going to stick to what I learned in probability and stats, I must admit this conclusion.

I pretty much explained what I think about random variation in my last answer to you. Purely an incident.

Now first of all, we are not the most advanced species. Whales are (except their rather clumsy body-form, but I will not blame them for that). Humans are on the edge of a breaktrough at science about the brain, and soon we WILL be able to connect small chips and devices to the brain, for example adding a fast caluclator (how practical wouldn’t that be ). Not picture how much we could learn if we could “chip” the whales, make them understand our language and give them the ability to communicate with us. Technically this IS possible, but it might be a little over the level we will ever reach… - Still, if we could have them help us with mathematical problems and such, they would have the possibility to take us to a whole(whale) other level.

– Now this might of course seem like a step way too long into “Futurama”, but I am only saying that because WE are NOT the most advanced species. Which again means we still have a lot to learn!

 

[Atheist-669]

itsjustdave1988:

Larson (1997) found that mathematicians are more likely to believe in God, while physicists are not.

Very interesting, kind of explains to me a question I have been asking myself lately. I’ll just read the rest before continuing:

itsjustdave1988:

In my experience, physicists are more likely to be persuaded by another’s “school of thought” than the more abstract and analytical brains of mathematicians. Plus, math guys are less likely to need to see it to believe it, as their body of study is abstract by its very nature. For example, the “moon” of the planet Pluto was mathematically proven to exist prior to our ability to verify that hypothesis through optics.

I guess I tend to think more mathematically. If the processes don’t fit the probability, then another more probable explanation is needed.

Now comes my point: It hit me when you told about the difference between mathematicians and physicians. Personally I’m into chemistry and physics. This might actually explain why you believe in god and why I don’t: (this is purely a psychological theory, I currently study chemistry and psychology ) I think that when you study maths, you will be impressed by how well it all fits. And I studied Scientific Maths at college, so I know how it was. I know it is incredible to see how perfect the ‘pattern’ of rules and formulaes and grids fit together in perfect “universe” of maths. One time it actually did strike me that it’s too perfect to be a coincidence. Still I relialized that these rules were only created by us humans to have an easy way to caluclate how you build f.ex. bridges, and surely rockets too . Still I found it kind of strange that there were not ONE single error or conflict in the entire subject, and if there were a conflict, it would always mean you got the wrong answer. All these impressions made me feel the world was pretty perfectly “built”.
As I studied physics and chemistry I learned something else, I found that the only perfect universe was in maths, the world is quite different, and all living ‘things’ are quite easily created with basic matters. I discovered how every living ‘thing’ only lived by itself, not like a big part of the ‘spectrum’. I learned about eletricity, and motion (a lot of that) and naturally the more advanced kvantum physics and nuclear physics. It might seem impossible and incredible for people who haven’t studied it, but I promise you all - it really isn’t that incredible… It’s all quite simple rules. The only hard thing is to keep all the little rules in your head at once when solving a problem… Therefore I stopped believing that there was “something” out there. Of course there are unsolved questions, but the capacity of our human brains don’t match the difficulty of those questions. So we will have to stick with what we can see for now.

Of course I don’t demand that you agree with me, it’s up to you.

 

[Atheist-669]

mlchance:

You haven’t actually told me anything. Please explain what the facts are that lead you to believe that you have only this one life.

– Mark L. Chance.

You just did not get it, did you?

What I see, read, hear, experience, is that when you die, it’s over. You will not get reborn or live again… - this is what every single one of all the people I know thinks. And most people actually do think this is quite correct. The one who says your “soul” is going to live again, or whatever you mean, is YOU! So YOU back it up!! If you still will not do that I have no more to say to you.

I am sorry for getting a little offensive now, but you are really starting to annoy me.

 

[Atheist-669]

Catholicvegan:

I would also appreciate your response to mlchance’s question. Also, could you explain why you are an atheist (what is your reasoning?)? I’m very curious.

I will not take up any more discussions now, sorry
About the atheism, see post #63, plus I have not seen any special evidence that there is a god (by that i mean like miracles, answer to prayers, supernatural events etc. etc.) Please do NOT comment what I just wrote! Because I don’t care about others opinion on that, it won’t change anything. And don’t be angry with me for this post! What I just wrote does not change anything either!

 

[Atheist-669]

SCTA-1:

I find it fascinating that a bunch of biological accidents like ourselves with absolutely no reason for existence can hold such a dialogue about “being” when there is no reason for being.

Hear hear! Aren’t we humans strange

 

[rarndt01]

I believe not only Catholics, but Lutherans and Presbyterians who are baptized as infants consider themselves born again. But yet their lives most of the time, do not prove this to be the case. They still live as the ungodly in this world. Some Catholics after their infant bapptism never attend mass for years and think little of going.
I am not denying the importance of Christian baptism, but if there is no change in the heart and life of the individual throughout their life, then what proof is there to show they truly were born again? One must be born of the Spirit as well as of water. Have you allowed the spirit of God to change your thoughts and desires? Does one pray, oh Lord give me a new heart and a desire to follow you? Is one truly repentant of their sins and makes pennance as one should? These are the marks of the new birth iin my thinking. When one is born again they are a new creation IN CHRIST.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Atheist, you must not read the Bible or other Christian books, if you say that "everything you <>"is that “when you die, it’s over”.

Some 2000 years ago, men not only saw but heard from Jesus Christ that when you die, it ISN’T over. In fact, He came back from His physical death resurrected, glorious, and triumphant, to let us know that we would ALL now be redeemed and would live forever.

That’s eyewitness testimony (from the apostles) and first-hand primary source (Jesus).

While you personally may not have “seen” a resurrected man, the fact remains that He existed then, and He exists now, in His transfigured body. He could be right there next to you right now and you might miss it. To put it in scientific terms, picture yourself. You live in a three dimensional world. A dot on a piece of paper “exists” in a one dimensional world; a line “exists” in a two dimensional world. WE can perceive both dot and line; the line could (if given the faculty of perception) SEE the DOT but not US, and the dot could not perceive either the line or us (again presupposing somehow the gift of the faculty of perception).

God must be “outside” our known dimensions if He exists, because He CREATED the dimensions. He could not be PART of the dimensions anymore than any part of a “creation” can be its creator. . .i.e., a note of music is part of a symphony, but is not the creator of the symphony.

How COULD we perceive something which is OUTSIDE our known dimensions? Well, in order to let us perceive Him, He sent His son to become one of us. Jesus is both true God and true man, Jesus has experienced being “outside” and “inside” the dimensions, and Jesus has shown us that the dimensions are here not “forever”–the universe WILL come to an end, but eternity/ God is MORE than the universe, for HE created it. . . ultimately, our souls–our immortal souls–will cease to exist in this physical plane on this physical planet and will exist “outside” the dimensions. . .either WITH God in Heaven, or WITHOUT God, in hell. Our choice.

 

[Atheist-669]

Riley259:

Yes, I’ve read and heard explanations about this theory but just like baby universes and the bubble theory it is highly speculative - there’s not a shred of evidence that this is what happens.

I just said there ARE evidence that supports this theory, that’s what makes it different from all the other theories. Evidence: ANTI-MATTER EXISTS, and there must per definiton be just as much anti-matter as “normal” matter. Or else the universe wouldn’t be circular, and we already know it is, because it WILL collapse within a “couple” billion years.

Riley259:

Atheistic scientists pull these things out when faced with more and more evidence against their biases.

I’ve already asked you not to take me, but the case. What I am and what I mean is irrelevant for the case itself.

Riley259:

Nonetheless, you could still ask the question where those processes came from and ad infinitum. The Big Bang and quantum processes in general (string theory included) actually point more to a transcendent force outside our own limited four dimensions. But be my guest and keep grabbing at straws.

Big Bang didn’t happen. The anti-matter theory proves it wrong. And just what do you suggest this “transcendent force” outside four dimensions is? I’d like to see it. Time is not a dimension, since it is only controlled by wheter atoms are spinning or not. (When no atom spins, time just isn’t. If the anti-matter theory is correct, then time is “reset” every time the two universes collapses).

 

[Atheist-669]

RNRobert:

Atheist 669-

I actually DID read your passage about my freedom ending where another person begins. However, you have not answered WHY I should respect another person. You say laws are the bottom line for a civilized society. What’s so great about a civilized society? If I am powerful enough to be above the law (or better yet, BE the law) then I should be able to do whatever I darn well please, no matter who it hurts.

Look, if you do not want to respect the law, please take it up with your local authorities or the police.

 

[Atheist-669]

francisca:

Yes we can be born again of Spirit and water. Jesus said so and we have to believe Him.

Being born again means one sees everything in a new light. Just like a newborn baby who sees the world for the first time. It changes a person in a very drastic way. It may refer to a certain experience (one time), or a process within a period that causes one change totally : to see his life in a new way.

Now regarding Atheism :

The reasoning of being an Atheist is written in the book of Wisdom chapter 2. And this passage wrote that such is a WRONG REASON to live.
God bless.

You are way to extreme for me to argue with you. Do not take part in this discussion if you want an answer from me. I do not respect, or discuss with, people who do not accept that others might have different meanings.

 

[Atheist-669]

Tantum ergo:

Atheist, you must not read the Bible or other Christian books, if you say that "everything you <>"is that “when you die, it’s over”.

Some 2000 years ago, men not only saw but heard from Jesus Christ that when you die, it ISN’T over. In fact, He came back from His physical death resurrected, glorious, and triumphant, to let us know that we would ALL now be redeemed and would live forever.

No I won’t read the Bible, thank you for informing me. And by the way archeologists have proved against some of the theories you just claimed about Jesus. He never leaved that grave.

 

[Atheist-669]

rarndt01:

I believe not only Catholics, but Lutherans and Presbyterians who are baptized as infants consider themselves born again. But yet their lives most of the time, do not prove this to be the case. They still live as the ungodly in this world. Some Catholics after their infant bapptism never attend mass for years and think little of going.

I am not denying the importance of Christian baptism, but if there is no change in the heart and life of the individual throughout their life, then what proof is there to show they truly were born again? One must be born of the Spirit as well as of water. Have you allowed the spirit of God to change your thoughts and desires? Does one pray, oh Lord give me a new heart and a desire to follow you? Is one truly repentant of their sins and makes pennance as one should? These are the marks of the new birth iin my thinking. When one is born again they are a new creation IN CHRIST.

Another extremist, I will not answer you either. I only answer to people who accepts that different meanings occur in a society. Please do not contact me in any way.

 

[RNRobert]

Atheist-669:

Look, if you do not want to respect the law, please take it up with your local authorities or the police.

You’re still dodging the question. IF I can get away with it, or I don’t care for the consequences, why should I obey the law? For example, gangsters like Al Capone or the Columbian drug lords were able to do what they pleased because they were able to buy off the authorities or kill them off. On the other hand, serial killers probably consider the death penalty or life in prison a fair price to pay for the joy they experienced in killing. Or supposing you live in a lawless society? In that environment, there are no authorities to determine right or wrong, and what you can or cannot do is based on nothing more than your own might.
Also, contrary to what you said in an earlier post, laws ARE simply the ideas of men. They are not fixed like the laws of physics, and can be made or unmade at whim. 150 years ago in this country, it was perfectly legal to own slaves. 80 years ago it was illegal to make or sell alcohol. Also, suppose the law allows you to violate another person’s freedom? In Muslim countries, a man can kill a female relative if he feels she violated the “family’s honor” and not be punished. Certainly, the woman’s freedom was violated, but the law gave the man the right to kill her.

SO, if we are nothing more than random collection of atoms, then WHY should I respect another person, who is nothing more than a another collection of atoms?

 

[Apologia100]

I am wondering why an atheist would even answer this question. I don’t go to my mechanic when I have a migraine headache, why would anyone listen to an atheist’s opinions about salvation and Christianity? Is this too obvious that it alludes people?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Atheist-669,

Well you don’t see any other species with our combination do you? And if there ever were such a species, we have probably killed the lot.

That’s not a very compelling explanation. Life finds a way to adapt and overcome. If it’s ONLY random processes, man is #1 by luck alone. However, whatever #2 is, even if not quite as lucky as #1 with the “random” combinations it developed, #2 must be a close second if indeed the processes were merely random. That’s what probability and statistics demands. The evidence shows that #2 is clearly a distant second, and by quite a bit. It’s clear there’s no biological precedent that is even close to man, statistically speaking, either before human existence or after.

Hear hear, but I still think we are just fortunate

It’s statistically impossible to infer that such an extreme outlier to be due to mere chance. Sorry, but it seems to me you have placed much “faith” in random chance. Mathematically, such faith is unreasonable.

Dave: Random processes do not result in extreme outliers like the one called ‘man’.

Atheist-669: And why not?

I can explain the laws of probability and statistics to you, but perhaps you ought to just take a course at your college. Random processes ALWAYS result in continuous statistical distributions. If there’s an extreme outlier, another processes is involved other than random chance. If you’d like to challenge that mathematical principle by inventing a “new math” by all means, make your case.

continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Atheist-669 said:

As mentioned I don’t think we ruthless humans would allow a second species to co-exist with us.

It’s not really up to us, if randomness is the only process. Conditional probability is that which is conditioned by prior events. Conditional probability based purely on chance NEVER produces an extreme outlier. Life finds a way to adapt and overcome. It seems UP UNTIL MAN, all the animals fit the normal bell curve pretty nicely. In the relatively short time that mankind has existed, he’s a biological anomaly. The 1st place animal cannot change the sole randomness of things. The theory that us humans are keeping the 2nd place species a distant second is inconsistent with random processes and the laws of probability and statistics. If luck is the only process, then a distant second is a mathematical impossibility. I don’t think you’ve taken enough time to think this through. Use any computer statistical model where the processes are random. Introduce new random events if you must, creating an environment of conditional probability. There’s never an extreme outlier. Never.

Could be anything …

Incorrect. It has to be “something” that is not random chance. That’s my point. Atheism relies upon a scientific explanation of the “success” of man based upon “luck” as their answer. That’s mathematically impossible. I make no scientific argument for the supernatural. I don’t have to. My point is that your worship of “science” in satisfactorily answering the cause of mankind is erroneous. It is no less a matter of “faith” than my religion. I argue for faith and science.

A. Einsten: “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

I pretty much explained what I think about random variation in my last answer to you.

Yes, but I don’t think you realize how mathematically impossible the current biological theories are. Mathematicians do. For example, biologists asked the mathematician Marcel Shurtzenberger to evaluate their neo-Darwinist theories. They didn’t like his answer. After his efforts, he concluded, “We believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. We believe this gap to be of such a nature [that] it cannot be bridged with the current conceptions of biology” (Schurtzenberger in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 73, 75).

continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

At the request of biologists, math guys have evaluated their theories and concluded that their theories are mathematically impossible. Yet, biologists simply ignore their conclusions. Why? Philosophical necessity. Observe,

Evolutionary Biologist, Dr. George Wald:

We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity.” It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation (*Scientific American, *1954, 191:46).

Philosophical necessity? Sounds like faith to me, misplaced as it may be.

Now first of all, we are not the most advanced species.

With respect to our ability to control our environment, yes, we are. To pretend otherwise is desperate and unconvincing.

picture how much we could learn if we could “chip” the whales, make them understand our language and give them the ability to communicate with us.

If the whales are so much more advanced than us, why don’t we just wait from them to invent a microchip so we can understand them. {he he he … sorry … couldn’t resist}

It might seem impossible and incredible for people who haven’t studied it, but I promise you all - it really isn’t that incredible… It’s all quite simple rules.

I have studied it. It’s not impossible. But it is mathematically impossible due to mere chance. Another who has “studied it” is Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most cited chemist in the world. He also disagrees with your conclusions.

Biochemist Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA stated:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle

, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Francis Crick, Life Itself, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),88)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Some quotes from other scientists you ought to consider …

From Astrophysicist, C.J. Isham,

“Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times, this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” (John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, (New York: Crossroad, 1994), xii.)

From Arno Penzias, Physicist and Nobel Prize winner:

**

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” (Malcom W. Browne, “Clues to the Universe Origin Expected”, New York Times (March 12, 1978)

**

Arthur Eddington experimentally confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated afterwards: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition:

“Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn’t. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.”

Nobel prize winning Chemist, Harold Urey:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it , the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.

We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It’s just that its complexity is so great, that its hard for us to imagine that it did" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan 4, 1962, p.4, emphasis added)

continued …