How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[chris62]

An anonymous blog?
You’re getting your information from an anonymous blog?

Who wrote this?

I’ll take a look-see.

.

There are dozens of links to the NASA investigation of the Miracle.
I am surprised a CAF Prayer Warrior doesn’t know that.
You can take your pick if this one isn’t up to your standard.

 

[aclausen]

Yes. This is correct.

This is so odd to me to see.

I simply cannot fathom how thinking individuals can swallow the idea that something magically can come from nothing.

Perhaps the universe is eternal. That formula seems to satisfy believers in the Judaeo Christian deity.

Where else, in the entirety of one’s experience or imagination, could something ever come from nothing?

What does what you imagine have to do with anything? Do you think the universe is beholden to your preconceptions?

 

[chris62]

Do the two “matter” ones cancel each other out?

.

What? And you are a journalist you say?

 

[chris62]

He did win the Nobel prize. He also worked to develop nerve agents for the Nazis. But hey, only one of those tidbits gives the impression you’re looking for.

So, what are you saying. That he isn’t qualified too talk on matters Chemistry?:banghead:

 

[Bradski]

Once again, the anonymous atheist labels the professionals liars.
Pathetic, but oh so typical.

Hey, Chris, I am normally a pretty amenable type of guy. Honestly. I take offence very slowly and I try not to give it ever. I think about what I write and check it before I post it so that I’m sure it says what I want it to mean.

Now I want you to read again the post which I wrote where AGAIN you are accusing me of calling people liars. You will find that I am EXACTLY reporting what was written in the web page to which you linked earlier. I haven’t added anything, I haven’t exaggerated anything. I haven’t changed anything.

What I wrote is a reasonable accurate account of the tests that were done.

I personally consider the term ‘liar’ to be one of the strongest that you can use against someone. I can’t remember an ocassion where I have used it to anyone. Where I come from, to use the term generally means that you had better be prepared to consider the consequences.

Again, I would ask you again to read what I wrote and consider your response.

 

[chris62]

You must read the bit about the images in the eye. One eye was magnified to such a resolution that they could apparently make up 13 figures reflected in the iris. Pretty good, eh? And they could tell who was who. Because one was apparently Bishop Zumarraga so what they did was to magnify HIS eyes and discovered a reflection of the guy who presented the painting to the bishop - Juan Diego, back in whenever.

Not sure why they didn’t enlarge his eyes as well. Maybe because we’re down to the size of bacteria here. A dust particle would be about 100 times larger than the image of Snr Diego.

Once again, the anonymous atheist, somewhere in a Bondi nightspot, talking matters cricket over a few beers, is calling the professionals, who are on the spot conducting their research, liars, by belittling their findings.

 

[Bradski]

Once again, the anonymous atheist, somewhere in a Bondi nightspot, talking matters cricket over a few beers, is calling the professionals, who are on the spot conducting their research, liars, by belittling their findings.

Chris, I’ll be ignoring your posts for a while. I don’t put people on ignore because I think it’s rude but I think it’s only fair to let someone know that what they post isn’t worth a response.

We lost the cricket by the way. Good we didn’t go.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, Charlie…to burst your little bubble.
But since I didn’t say it’s what the Catholic faith teaches…I guess you’ll have to wipe that amusement off yer face

For the other part, I was referring to the writer many of us are discussing…who did say life was meaningless/pointless without a god. Another forum member posted his direct quote. He’s a former Atheist, now a Catholic.
So I guess what he’s saying is contrary to Catholic teaching?

And, just to correct you…I didn’t say “you will go to hell after you die”…I said, “you will most likely suffer eternal damnation after you die”.

I should probably point you in the direction of two other current threads…where a few of your comrades are, indeed, saying that if a person doesn’t believe, they go to hell.
Perhaps you can tell them it’s contrary to Catholic teaching?

I’ve tried…but they just accuse me of ironically “telling a Catholic what his faith teaches and knowing it better than he does.”

But it seems in this instance I do know what the faith teaches better than those Catholics?
And you pointed this out to me!
Oh, the irony!!!

.

Wow. What a weird response.

This would have been a more normal response:

DaddyGirl: Yes. Thanks for the tip, PR! I will keep this in mind for future use when in dialogue with Catholics. It is indeed fun to think that I know more about a Catholic teaching than some Catholics! Thanks again, doll!

 

[PRmerger]

LOL.
PRmerger, you just officially jumped the shark

I noticed you did not counter my position at all.

Interesting…

Think about this, DG: What about this person’s situation makes you think that he has a “deep psychological problem”. I’m pretty sure you don’t think that a man who wants to be a woman is problematic.

So it must be the Transagism?

Is that it?

Nothing wrong with wanting to be who you are, as long as it’s:
-wanting to have sex with someone of your own gender
-wanting to be another gender

But when you want to live your life as a different age, specifically, a grown man wanting to be a 6 yr old,* that’s *indicative of a “deep psychological problem”?

Now, why is that, do you think?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So, what are you saying. That he isn’t qualified too talk on matters Chemistry?:banghead:

You were previously talking about how his winning of a nobel prize make it less likely for him to be a liar. I pointed out his enthusiastic nazi membership as evidence that winning a Nobel prize does not make you morally impeccable. Now, however, you have shifted the goalposts back to competence.

As a final note on the subject, I will point out that modern chemical characterization techniques (i.e. laser-based spectroscopy) were not invented until the 1950’s. It is entirely possible that this man did give it his best, but that the techniques available to him were inadequate to correctly identify the materials.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not countering because I feel our back and forth–and with Chris62, as well–is beginning to derail this thread from the OP’s original question…so I think we should let it get back on track.

Besides, once someone jumps the shark…it can’t be un-jumped.

.

I find it amusing when posters who are generally quite liberal with their off topic conversations suddenly turf with “It’s off topic so I’m not going to comment.”

Clearly, when she feels she can refute the point, she has no problem addressing off topic posts.

Naturally, the conclusion I take when someone says “I won’t respond because this is off topic” is “Yep. My point was made but does not want to be conceded”.

Incidentally, discussion of transgendered individuals who want to live as a 6 yr old is quite on topic.

Remember, the OP said this:

“I am not religious because there is no evidence for it and it’s completely unreasonable. It also limits my freedom.”

Clearly, the above individual believes that it “limits his freedom” to be compelled to live his age and his gender. It follows an atheistic argument that this man is having his freedom limited.

Arguments as to why this is viewed as a “deep psychological problem” when it is argued that homosexuality, transgenderism is simply another life choice need to be forthcoming.

The position that one is fine and the other is not is untenable.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s a list of what Catholics in this forum consider the atheist’s lot (mine in particular):

I believe that nothing has value
I’ve been tricked.,
I think that life is Random.
I ignore evidence.
The only bonds I have with others are due to my selfish reasons.
My conscience has been socially engineered.
My values are fantasies.
I don’t consider evidence.
My beliefs are circular.
I am immune to reason.
I embrace hopelessness.
I am a nihilist.
I think that life is empty of reason.
I consider good and evil are not really relevant.
I claim to be righteous.
My spirit is weak.
I can’t be trusted with life.
I have no soul.
I’m dim and fading out of life (?).
I believe in dead matter.
My values are small.
I believe that nothing matters.
I have no direction.
Existence for me is meaningless.
My beliefs are inhuman and limited.
I am not philosophically adept.
I’m dishonest in some things.
I don’t accept that I exist.
I don’t read philosophy.

And all that from a few dozen posts in one single thread. It would seem that everyone in that thread thought that a belief in God would not result in any of those negatives. That a belief in God would cure me of those ills. I don’t think anyone actually said I was going to hell, but the message was loud and very clear.

If you don’t believe in God, then life is meaningless, values are fantasies, nothing matters etc etc ad nauseum.

I would add my own objections to the atheistic paradigm, which, curiously, you haven’t mentioned (besides the circular objection):

-there’s a glaring double standard

-it’s, ironically and amusingly, faith based

-it appeals to Science of the Gaps

-it’s peculiarly incoherent

-it stimulates so many moments of cognitive dissonance for me–“Really? A thinking person has embraced this idea?”

-it’s oddly gullible–“We believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing going on, because, after all, there’s a scrap–a scrap!!!–of papyrus that had the words ‘Jesus’ ‘wife’ ‘Mary’!”

-it’s acutely cynical–“But 4 gospel accounts, with eyewitness testimonies, and over 5000 extant manuscripts is simply unreliable. We really can’t know, can we, since it was so long ago, right?”

But then again, I’ve heard the same (flip-side) objections to being a Believer by atheists, so this type of tributary seems otiose.

 

[aclausen]

-it’s acutely cynical–“But 4 gospel accounts, with eyewitness testimonies, and over 5000 extant manuscripts is simply unreliable. We really can’t know, can we, since it was so long ago, right?”
:

I doubt there are more than a handful of scholars left who believe any of the Gospels were direct eye witness accounts. Nobody seems to be able to push any of them back further than the end of the First Century, and the only real account that even comes close to Jesus’ time was Josephus, who some very accommodating Sedxondy or Third Century writers tampered with, because even they didn’t think the Gospels were sufficient to make claims of miracles and a dead man coming back stick.

But go ahead, talk about atheist gullibility.

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt there are more than a handful of scholars left who believe any of the Gospels were direct eye witness accounts.

You are correct.

No reputable scholar that I have ever encountered asserts that the evangelists were “direct eye witnesses”.

But they do record the eye witness testimony of hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection.

So suddenly, there’s a peculiar skepticism on this…“eye witness testimony is sooooo unreliable”…

When ON ALL OTHER AREAS of events of antiquity, eye witness accounts are deemed credible by atheists.

Why is this, one has to wonder?



#amusingdoublestandard

 

[PRmerger]

This is factually incorrect.

Your assertion is that “if the universe is infinite then there exists a past time from which it is impossible to reach the current time.”

Let us define the current year as year = 0. Next year will be year 1, and last year was year -1. By numbering the years this way, all years will receive a number, n, such that n∈ℤ (that means that n must be an integer.)

Returning to your assertion, can you please provide number of the year from which it is impossible to reach the current year? Keep in mind that ∞∉ℤ

You are doing this backwards, JK.

You need to start from eternity, if, as you posit, the universe is eternal. And give me the integer you have to add to get to today.

So what number would that be again?

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s a list of what Catholics in this forum consider the atheist’s lot (mine in particular):

I believe that nothing has value
I’ve been tricked.,
I think that life is Random.
I ignore evidence.
The only bonds I have with others are due to my selfish reasons.
My conscience has been socially engineered.
My values are fantasies.
I don’t consider evidence.
My beliefs are circular.
I am immune to reason.
I embrace hopelessness.
I am a nihilist.
I think that life is empty of reason.
I consider good and evil are not really relevant.
I claim to be righteous.
My spirit is weak.
I can’t be trusted with life.
I have no soul.
I’m dim and fading out of life (?).
I believe in dead matter.
My values are small.
I believe that nothing matters.
I have no direction.
Existence for me is meaningless.
My beliefs are inhuman and limited.
I am not philosophically adept.
I’m dishonest in some things.
I don’t accept that I exist.
I don’t read philosophy.

And all that from a few dozen posts in one single thread. It would seem that everyone in that thread thought that a belief in God would not result in any of those negatives. That a belief in God would cure me of those ills. I don’t think anyone actually said I was going to hell, but the message was loud and very clear.

If you don’t believe in God, then life is meaningless, values are fantasies, nothing matters etc etc ad nauseum.

I would add my own objections to the atheistic paradigm, which, curiously, you haven’t mentioned (besides the circular objection):

-there’s a glaring double standard

-it’s, ironically and amusingly, faith based

-it appeals to Science of the Gaps

-it’s peculiarly incoherent

-it stimulates so many moments of cognitive dissonance for me–“Really? A thinking person has embraced this idea?”

-it’s oddly gullible–“We believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing going on, because, after all, there’s a scrap–a scrap!!!–of papyrus that had the words ‘Jesus’ ‘wife’ ‘Mary’!”

-it’s acutely cynical–“But 4 gospel accounts, with eyewitness testimonies, and over 5000 extant manuscripts is simply unreliable. We really can’t know, can we, since it was so long ago, right?”

But then again, I’ve heard the same (flip-side) objections to being a Believer by atheists, so this type of tributary seems otiose.

Oh, and I forgot another one…

Most atheists I’ve encountered couldn’t offer an articulate summary of the arguments for God’s existence.

And, a corollary…

Most atheists have rejected some weird form of Christianity and couldn’t offer any reasonable apologia for a single Catholic teaching.

IOW: atheists reject what they don’t know.

Or, as Fr Barron likes to say, “I reject that same version of god that you do”.

 

[aclausen]

You are correct.

No reputable scholar that I have ever encountered asserts that the evangelists were “direct eye witnesses”.

But they do record the eye witness testimony of hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection.

So suddenly, there’s a peculiar skepticism on this…“eye witness testimony is sooooo unreliable”…

When ON ALL OTHER AREAS of events of antiquity, eye witness accounts are deemed credible by atheists.

Why is this, one has to wonder?



#amusingdoublestandard

It may be the Church’s claim that some late 1st century writers were recording previous eye-witness accounts, but the Documentary Hypothesis throws into question even the origins of those accounts. Other matters of antiquity are treated with similar caution unless multiple independent sources can be found. We can talk with some certainty about events like the Peloponnesian War, Alexander the Great, or Augustus Caesar because there were multiple accounts that do not appear to have been constructed from the same writer.

Let me repeat this. There is no evidence that the Gospels are eye witness accounts. About the best the New Testament can provide is that some of the letters of St. Paul are genuine, but then again, he wasn’t an eyewitness either.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me repeat this. There is no evidence that the Gospels are eye witness accounts. About the best the New Testament can provide is that some of the letters of St. Paul are genuine, but then again, he wasn’t an eyewitness either.

Well, there ya go, folks!

In no other events of antiquity is this level of denial asserted.

QED.

 

[aclausen]

Oh, and I forgot another one…

Most atheists I’ve encountered couldn’t offer an articulate summary of the arguments for God’s existence.

And, a corollary…

Most atheists have rejected some weird form of Christianity and couldn’t offer any reasonable apologia for a single Catholic teaching.

IOW: atheists reject what they don’t know.

Or, as Fr Barron likes to say, “I reject that same version of god that you do”.

Yes, many atheists are ignorant of theology. But certainly not all, and this looks more like a “They must be wrong, because they can’t make my argument for me.”

Tell me, then, since you seem to believe, as I do, that being able to summarize your interlocutor’s argument is rather important, what are the arguments for atheism.

 

[aclausen]

You are doing this backwards, JK.

You need to start from eternity, if, as you posit, the universe is eternal. And give me the integer you have to add to get to today.

So what number would that be again?

Doesn’t the same problem apply to God?