How do I turn the table on atheists?

[tqualey]

Hi, Emisher,

You are more than welcome…

It is easy to forget to do things so that your post turns out the way you want it … ah, but there is a ‘safety valve’… Look at the bottom right and there is a button called “Edit” - hit that and you can make any corrections - just go and make your corrections and hit ‘Save Changes’ at the bottom to re-post your work. If you go out for a cup of coffee … you may time-out.

By the way, did you have a chance to look at this link:
Dr. Peter Stoner, a mathematician, did an analysis of just 8 of the most specific prophecies which you can find here. sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Chr…_Prophecy.html

God bless

Thanks, I appreciate your comments

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tonyrey,

I think you are quite right about it being more pernicious. It sounds s-o-o-o-o sophisticated that ‘…we just do not know enough…’… But, when you consider how long mankind has been around - and virtually all of these ancient civilizations had a belief in several gods.

Thinking of which … I always got a chuckle out of St. Paul in Acts 17 … it looks like the Athenian City Fathers were trying really hard to reign in the proliferation of gods. Sort of like today’s billboard advertising - it apparently had become an eye-sore! So, it lookis like the “Unknown God” altar was one of those political compromises … don’t know if it was with Athens City Hall or the Athens Chamber of Commerce - but, in any event, St. Paul acting under God’s direction was able to turn the tables on them…

Have a great day

God bless

Agnosticism is often more pernicious than atheism because a genuine agnostic would pray on the off-chance that God exists whereas in practice it is just a cloak for indifference and imagined invulnerability. However - as the atheist Sartre pointed out - it is impossible to remain uncommitted, echoing the words of Jesus:

“Who is not for me is against me.”

To describe oneself as an atheist is misleading if one is uncertain…

 

[karebear92]

Where did the prime mover come from? Who created the creator? Who created the creator that created the creator? If everything that exists must have a point of creation, you cant just conveniently drop that requirement for the creator. If the Creator exists, the question has to be asked who created them!

Well the creator HAS to have lasted for eternity, so either the creator is eternally created by something else who is eternally created by something else, or there is just one eternal creator. Does that make sense? I can explain my reasoning again if you want and how I arrived at this conclusion from a purely secular standpoint.

 

[karebear92]

If it is the Word of God, for all His people, shouldnt it be understandable?

That is the great thing about the Bible is everyone can understand it. It is written in a way that children can understand the basics of it, but they don’t understand it thoroughly. Imagine a book that described God (an essence that we still cannot fully understand). Nobody except maybe the most sophisticated scholars could understand it at all. But that is not what God want’s, which is shown by His choice in the Twelve.

 

[atheistgirl]

She’s gone, but her comment seems worth a comment.

Naw - after a few nice PM’s, and on reflection as to why I should allow just a handful of rude self important people (one in particular who is totally full of piffle lol and when you break down what theyre actually saying it make no sense what so ever on any level you care to examine it, (Ive forwarded some of the argumentation to others to help me understand, philosophers, who identified errors at all levels lol,) but this person is so puffed up on their own self righteousness it’s a marvel they can get their head through the door!) - why should I let them try to ruin what is otherwise a very enjoyable experience on the forum.

I’ve been pointed to the ignore function

Two now languish is atheistgirls objectively moral room of the plonked

Sarah x

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Noooooooooooo I cant believe you went there - the arguement from incredulity

Sarah x

Why not? Trying to make the odds of ‘us by chance’ seem reasonable has resulted in all sorts of hilarious arguments from mainstream atheism, Stephen Hawkings recent works of fiction not the least hilarious…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

I think there is a problem with your explanation.

Children’s Bible stories were developed out of the bible - but, the idea of children just picking up the bible and understanding it - even at their age level, I do not think can really happen.

Let me give you an example: take any one of Shakespear’s plays and have a child read it. Yes, there will be problems with language, vocabulary and just the flow of the story - some entire books have precious little character development… but, we will just sit down, you know, older adult without any real training in Shakespear in general or that play in particular and just explain the parts that the child does not know. There is a good chance that there will be precious little understanding but a real dislike for Shakespear may have taken root!

Now, there are several levels that trace Hamlet moving through - along with some really complex characters. And, there are various scholars that have taken different approaches to teaching Hamlet. But, you know, there just aren’t 40,000+ splinter groups protesting all of the different ways this play can be understood. Just look at all of the Protestants that think they can just pick up the Bible and they will understand it. They can’t - and that is why there are 40,000+ groups all saying that their view is the only view.

The Bible is really a very complex book. Not all Bibles have footnotes or explanations or authorized explantions. In addition to this, only the Catholic Church can guarantee that each book in the Bible is there because it is inspired, and no book is there that wasn’t inspired. The Protestants have the abridged version.

I am not saying that nothing can be understood by reading the Bible. What I am saying is that there is tremendous opportunity for misunderstanding. And if it is treated like a child can understand it - then, in my opinion, there will be a needless disaster.

God bless

That is the great thing about the Bible is everyone can understand it. It is written in a way that children can understand the basics of it, but they don’t understand it thoroughly. Imagine a book that described God (an essence that we still cannot fully understand). Nobody except maybe the most sophisticated scholars could understand it at all. But that is not what God want’s, which is shown by His choice in the Twelve.

 

[atheistgirl]

Why not? Trying to make the odds of ‘us by chance’ seem reasonable has resulted in all sorts of hilarious arguments from mainstream atheism, Stephen Hawkings recent works of fiction not the least hilarious…

However hillarious some whacky science hypothesis may be, they can be tested and results published.

The same can not be said for the claim there is a God, or in objective morality because it comes from God, or just about anything you introduce the concept of God into.

And I dont agree evolutionary biologists try to make the odds of us being here seem reasonable - they all say the odds are incredibly slim, and highlight where our population numbers were down to extinction levels - and if the tape of life was rewound the chances of us emerging again are as close to zero as its possible to get - no, they all agree what a marvel it is, which is why we should make the most of this life we have

Sarah x

 

[tqualey]

Hi,Atheistgirl,

Welcome back.

Now how about getting back to the logical presentation you made that we do not have enough evidence to prove God created the universe - but, there is enough evidence to say it just happened.

God bless

Naw - after a few nice PM’s, and on reflection as to why I should allow just a handful of rude self important people (one in particular who is totally full of piffle lol and when you break down what theyre actually saying it make no sense what so ever on any level you care to examine it, (Ive forwarded some of the argumentation to others to help me understand, philosophers, who identified errors at all levels lol,) but this person is so puffed up on their own self righteousness it’s a marvel they can get their head through the door!) - why should I let them try to ruin what is otherwise a very enjoyable experience on the forum.

I’ve been pointed to the ignore function

Two now languish is atheistgirls objectively moral room of the plonked

Sarah x

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Where did the prime mover come from? Who created the creator? Who created the creator that created the creator? If everything that exists must have a point of creation, you cant just conveniently drop that requirement for the creator. If the Creator exists, the question has to be asked who created them!

You can regress these things all you want, but all you’re doing is ignoring the fundamental issue - that it makes sense that there would be one. Could God create a second God (of the 3 'o’s)? Possibly. Do we have reason to think that happened? Well, actually we probably do… if you think there’s grounding in Greek/Roman legends…

However, there must have been something which did not have a point of creation.

There must also have been something that existed without having to have been started. Consciousness could decide to start, physical reactions would have to be started

Otherwise, why would anything come into existance, and what from? I think Hawkings has a hilarious answer to this one too, which I’ve had explained to me unconvincingly - I’m just waiting to see if someone can come up with a more convincing version…

Bring on the infinite series argument!

There is some fascinating work being done in the field of abiogenesis. The answers are some way off. What is illogical, is to fill in the ‘‘we dont know’’ gaps, with ‘‘a creator must have done it’’ answer. As the thread is about turning the tables on atheists, that particular line of arguement has been debunked a long time ago and just doesnt hold water for atheists.

Sarah x

Experiences of an apparent creator are relatively widespread in human experience, and have not been disproved. Experience of abiogenesis were thought to be far more widespread, but *have * been effectively disproved

God 1
Abiogenesis 0

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Naw - after a few nice PM’s, and on reflection as to why I should allow just a handful of rude self important people (one in particular who is totally full of piffle lol and when you break down what theyre actually saying it make no sense what so ever on any level you care to examine it, (Ive forwarded some of the argumentation to others to help me understand, philosophers, who identified errors at all levels lol,) but this person is so puffed up on their own self righteousness it’s a marvel they can get their head through the door!) - why should I let them try to ruin what is otherwise a very enjoyable experience on the forum.

I’ve been pointed to the ignore function

Two now languish is atheistgirls objectively moral room of the plonked

Sarah x

How rude! :tsktsk:

Well, maybe your philosopher chums should come onto the forum and see if their arguments stand up to scrutiny

 

[atheistgirl]

However, there must have been something which did not have a point of creation.

Years ago people could simply not conceive of any way lightening could exist, or how it could be anything other than the anger of the gods. Now we fully understand it. Perhaps the way we conceive things will develop to include concepts or processes hitherto unthought of? Perhaps if ‘‘God’’ is the entity that did not have a point of creation, we will be able to unearth why and how ‘‘God’’ can be replaced with ‘‘universe’’? Perhaps. Who knows.

Experiences of an apparent creator are relatively widespread in human experience,

Quite. Personal experiences of ‘‘an apparent’’ creator.

Sarah x

 

[Mystic_Banana]

However hillarious some whacky science hypothesis may be, they can be tested and results published.

The same can not be said for the claim there is a God, or in objective morality because it comes from God, or just about anything you introduce the concept of God into.

And I dont agree evolutionary biologists try to make the odds of us being here seem reasonable - they all say the odds are incredibly slim, and highlight where our population numbers were down to extinction levels - and if the tape of life was rewound the chances of us emerging again are as close to zero as its possible to get - no, they all agree what a marvel it is, which is why we should make the most of this life we have

Sarah x

Well, actually ,they frequently can’t really be tested - there are mountains of scientific theory which are little more than hypotheses beefed up to being “inferential knowledge”, that can’t be tested directly, and yet are believed to be true, and are certainly published as if they *were * effectively tested

I wasn’t particularly referrng to evolutionary biologists, by the way - I’m thinking more of Astronomers, who had a recent stab at arguing Class M planets (to utilize some handy geek speak) are far more common than previously thought, as if even that would make it all more likely. Seriously, this stuff is pushed aggressively at a popular level

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Years ago people could simply not conceive of any way lightening could exist, or how it could be anything other than the anger of the gods. Now we fully understand it. Perhaps the way we conceive things will develop to include concepts or processes hitherto unthought of? Perhaps if ‘‘God’’ is the entity that did not have a point of creation, we will be able to unearth why and how ‘‘God’’ can be replaced with ‘‘universe’’? Perhaps. Who knows.

Quite. Personal experiences of ‘‘an apparent’’ creator.

Sarah x

Do we fully understand it? I’d be wary of expressing such fullness of knowledge

What you are pushing at is ‘pantheism’ I believe, as a romantic / undeveloped understanding of monistic absolute, so I’d say it’s been conceived of for a long time, in fact, not least by your good self! It’s just a shame that this assumption that God can be replaced by Universe is never truly justified logically, yet is commonly believed to have been, and is promoted as having been, on a popular level

Personal experience of an apparant creator beats non-experience of abiogenesis

 

[atheistgirl]

Seriously, this stuff is pushed aggressively at a popular level

Perhaps, but as you well know, well done science is vigorously tested and retested peer reviewed and published and if errors are found they are corrected. You simply cant do that with a concept of ‘‘God’’.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

It’s just a shame that this assumption that God can be replaced by Universe is never truly justified logically, yet is commonly believed to have been, and is promoted as having been, on a popular level

That isnt my belief or position. It was by way of example.

Sarah x

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Perhaps, but as you well know, well done science is vigorously tested and retested peer reviewed and published and if errors are found they are corrected. You simply cant do that with a concept of ‘‘God’’.

Sarah x

And as you’ve said yourself, still involve a mountain of unknown. Why assume monism?

You can - just not really scientifically, except for inferentially. But why straightjacket yourself to science exclusively, and monism resultingly? If it fails to explain everything, including fundamental aspects of human experience? The exclusively scientific model fails too greatly to limit belief to what it can justify

 

[Mystic_Banana]

That isnt my belief or position. It was by way of example.

Sarah x

Fair enough!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mystic Banana,

There is a major illusion that not only is science honest, but self-regulating so that only the best comes out. Reality is a bit different - and even atheists suffer as a result of misplaced faith.

Remember Dr. Andrew Wakefield - the fraud who falsely linked childhood immunizations with autism? Yeah, that guy. news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-autism-doctor-accused-of-deliberate-fraud.html Many children suffered other-wise preventable injuries because their parents believed this fraud.

Remember Dr. John Bockris - the fraud who claimed he had developed ‘cold fusion’ - nuclear energy at room temperature? Yeah, that guy: nytimes.com/1990/06/15/us/fraud-in-a-cold-fusion-lab-is-a-concern-magazine-says.html.

Remember some of the drug makers caught with their hands in the cookie jar - just plain old greed cause them to lie about everything they thought they could get away with? uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/pharmfraud.html And, of course, people’s lives and health are in the balance. How about one more from the other side of the world?

Now you probably never heard of Pattium Chiranjeevi - but, this individual was guilty of fraudently publishing 70 chemistry journal articles - with either falsified data and conclusions or plagairism. rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/March/25030801.asp Naturally people rely on trade journal articles -and everyone is at risk because of unproven ideas are passed off as safe.

For those who put their blind faith in science the rewards can be very sad. Yes, these frauds were found out (albeit after many people suffered - and some, in case of Dr. Wakefield, died) But, this is not a round up of all the mischief that devious scientists have pulled off - just 4 examples of the ones who were caught. No one really knows what else is a fraud that others are depending on… at least not yet.

Ultimately, the logic that we are getting closer and closer to knowing the ‘truth’ because, after all, look at how far science has taken us, has a major flaw. It depends of the goodness and honest of all participants. Point out major failures here - then that assurance that we are going down the right path is challenged. Make no mistake about it- these are not 4 examples of innocent or honest mistakes - these are examples of deceit and trechery to defraud innocent people.

And since God can not be put in a test tube or on a balance beam scale - He obviously does not exist because he can not be proven - by science. So we are now confronting truly amazing people like Stephen Hawking who is quite good at what he does - but, he personally does not believe in God - it is something that he will disparage although he can not prove God does not exist, either. (You just can’t prove a negative… )

Actually, Mystic, you presented a best case argument for how science can fail you - honest people just coming up short. But, either way, if you put all of your faith in science you will be disappointed - not that science is flawed (it is a true reflection of the God that made the universe) no, it is the scientists that are flawed. Here is where ‘the rubber meets the road’ when it comes to logic.

God bless

And as you’ve said yourself, still involve a mountain of unknown. Why assume monism?

You can - just not really scientifically, except for inferentially. But why straightjacket yourself to science exclusively, and monism resultingly? If it fails to explain everything, including fundamental aspects of human experience? The exclusively scientific model fails too greatly to limit belief to what it can justify

 

[karebear92]

Hi,
I am not saying that nothing can be understood by reading the Bible. What I am saying is that there is tremendous opportunity for misunderstanding. And if it is treated like a child can understand it - then, in my opinion, there will be a needless disaster.

God bless

Sorry, what I meant was they can hear the stories and understand that Jesus died on the cross. I have known the story for as long as I can remember, and as they age their understanding of what that means grows. I agree that they can’t interpret it all themselves, but everyone can read over and over until they have the entire Bible memorized, but they can still learn and understand it more deeply. This comes almost directly out of St. Augustine’s Confessions