I am an atheist thread 3

[Pax]

… He created… sin. If not, someone more powerful did…

Please prove this.

 

[_A]

So, is this the “I’m an atheist heathen and I like to argue with so-called believers” thread?

How “tolerant” are you folks (the atheists here) at being called self-contradicting hyper-religious “anti-not-your-religion”-ists?

Also known as fascist would-be slavemasters of mankind?



Just curious.

I don’t know for sure (due to lack of clarity in your post) if you are aiming to insult me, though, you should report yourself to the moderators.
It’s the right thing to do.

 

[psyche23]

Belief gets in the way of learning.

I consider myself quite capable of learning actually…

 

[psyche23]

It is not our fault. It is not like some of us can just decide not to. He created death, and sin. If not, someone more powerful did.

Of course, there is always the possibility that he is just an imaginary friend that got out of hand…

Actually in the Catholic faith it is quite possible if you are perfect and do not sin that you will not die. Or at the very least die and then quickly come back to life… Take Mary for example, she was assumed into heaven body and all.

 

[_A]

Hi 659

Evidence you ask? Your god recreating the first 6 days of creation on the moon. Don’t brush this off. If you have a god this is just mere child’s play for him or her. It is a god, correct. It can do this with a snap of a finger.

In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered.

This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.

OK I would like to add that we could really enjoy the extra real-estate. I think it’s a great idea.

 

[psyche23]

Psyche23,

The Genesis account of creation cannot be taken in a “literalist” fashion. This becomes quite obvious when we look at the sequence of what God did day by day. There are actually two accounts in Genesis of what God did and the order in which He did it.

In the first account God creates man last[see Gen 1:26] In the second account we are told that God created the heavens and the earth and that he then created man followed by the plants and animals.[See Gen 2:7 and what follows]

This is the first and most obvious clue that the creation narrative is not to be taken in a literalist fashion. There is a purpose in the two accounts. They both show in their own way that man is the pinnacle of God’s creation. The two accounts are simply two different ways of making the point. Likewise, the accounts are designed to show that God created everything out of nothing and that God is the Supreme Being above all things.

Genesis also shows that there is a special relationship between God and man. The first account with its elaboration of days makes this quite clear to the Jewish reader. The seventh day is the key to this point. God made everything for man, but God made man for himself. God established a covenant relationship with man and Adam walked with God. We know that there is a covenant relationship because the number 7 is the number of the covenant. In Hebrew the word covenant literally means to “seven yourself.”

Man was made on the sixth day as were the beasts but man was made for the seventh day. This is also the source for the number 666. It’s origen can be found in the sixth day when the animals/beasts were made. God created man for the seventh day, but if man remains in the sixth day he is no better than the beasts. The language and numbers are significant and they tell us things about God and man. They are not to be taken in a literalistic fashion.

The days also represent the passage of time. They do not have to represent a 24 hour cycle. The apostle Peter tells us “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”[2 Peter 3:8]
The apostle is telling us how the Jews understood time in the eyes of God. The passage of time in Genesis is most likely extremely long and this is the way that the inspired writer would get the message across without attempting to give a precise historical and scientific time table. Afterall, the bible is a spirtitual book. Although it contains some scientific facts and many historical facts, it is not a science or history book. Anyone that fails to look at scripture this way will fail to see its truth and beauty.

I realize that Genesis isn’t to be taken literally. I knew most of this by the way, I just wanted to see if you or anyone else had anything else to add. There were a few things I hadn’t caught on to which you mentioned, so thanks for replying so quickly. The main thing was the 24 hour day. I just didn’t know how to explain it without reverting to, well this is what we believe and not having anything to back it up… That tends to be my main problem.

 

[psyche23]

I don’t know for sure (due to lack of clarity in your post) if you are aiming to insult me, though, you should report yourself to the moderators.
It’s the right thing to do.

I agree. That isn’t the way to start a conversation… Especially if they call themselves Christian.

 

[Pax]

psyche23;3243547:

I’m not saying an atheist has to be unhappy because they don’t believe, but I think it’s a different kind of happiness.

I like looking in the mirror in the morning and know what i am looking at. I see a bipedal primate, somewhere along the way we developed a self conscious, I know i am going to die. When i die i will cease to exist.

Not just simple though. Also beautiful and ennobling.

Just how enobling is this? Just how much credit are you willing to take? This is beginning to sound as if you’re making an idol out of yourself. I will put this in the most basic of terms that anyone can appreciate. We will not include God in this at all. Much of what you consider happiness is simply a by-product of the fortuitous circumstances of your birth. You are fortunate enough to live in a part of the world where creature comforts abound and a man is given numerous opportunities. I doubt that those that are considerably less fortunate than you, find the same kind of happiness that you do. Their poverty and lack of opportunity prevent them from having material happiness which seems to be what you possess.

 

[the_phoenix]

Nice to meet you, too. To be fair, and give credit where it is due, the pictures with me in them were taken by my sweetheart. She is a photographer, crocheter, tiler, painter, chem-tech, primatologist, cook and I feel like I am selling her short. She is simply wonderful. I thought it was that which made me think the photos were so good.

I hope you will join in as often as you can. I look forward to seeing you around the boards.

Good that you clarified … I see so many pictures on Flickr where the photographer does self portraits that I’ve gotten used to taking it for granted. IMHO then, if your girlfriend were to fine tune the composition just a tiny bit, she’d do well to submit shots of you holding your prize catch fish to magazines along the lines of outdoors, hunting/fishing, nature, travel / tourism.

And the picture of what I’m thinking to be a beaver (didn’t see a full tail or I’d know for sure) is especially excellent when it comes to clarity of detail and texture, particularly of the fur.

~~ the phoenix

 

[_A]

lkddav;3243969:

psyche23;3243547:

I’m not saying an atheist has to be unhappy because they don’t believe, but I think it’s a different kind of happiness.

Just how enobling is this? Just how much credit are you willing to take? This is beginning to sound as if you’re making an idol out of yourself.

Most certainly not. I think the same of you, or anyone.

 

[c659smith]

No, i read it correctly. Why would 6 million people admit to being catholic if it was going to bring prosecution on them?

The persecution of Christians is religious persecution that Christians sometimes undergo as a consequence of professing their faith, both historically and in the current era. In the two thousand years of the Christian faith, about 70 million believers have been killed for their faith, of whom 45.5 million or 65% were in the twentieth century according to “The New Persecuted” (“I Nuovi Perseguitati”).[1] Currently, persecution of Christians is most severe in North Korea.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

I would die rather than renounce the existence of Christ,

Why because I know Jesus and He knows me. I place my trust completely in Him and release all I have to him. For without Him I am nothing and with Him I have everything.

When I completely surrendered myself to Jesus a great weight came off my shoulders and have not stopped smiling inside and most of the time outside,

45.6 million Christians in the last 100 years have been killed not in war but in peaceful belief in and not denying our Lord.

I can see where Christianity can be scary for an Atheist.

 

[Pax]

Hi 659

Evidence you ask? Your god recreating the first 6 days of creation on the moon. Don’t brush this off. If you have a god this is just mere child’s play for him or her. It is a god, correct. It can do this with a snap of a finger.

In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered.

This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.

I will give you the same sort of answer that I gave to this sort of point in the first of the three threads. This kind of proposition is absurd. God answers prayers but he is not a sugar daddy that spoils his children, gives into idiotic requests, or does something that will have a an outcome that is not in keeping with his nature.

The apostle James addresses this kind of thing this way:

James 4:3-4
“You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

God is interested in a relationship with us. Your request and demand for the miracle you’ve described is not in keeping with any of this.

What you are attempting to do is “bring God down.” You are in no position to do such a thing, and your ridiculous demand for proof would actually make you greater than God.

Moreover, you probably know in your heart that this is a ridiculous request for proof, but it does illustrate just how steeped you are in unbelief that your mind is closed to the more obvious evidence before you. Please do not bother to ask me for more proof…you can read over the three threads. I believe ample evidence, but not absolute proof, has been given over the course of the three threads to establish the existence of God.

I would also point out something else I stated in the first thread concerning proof. Not all things are to be known by science and not all things are subject to science. Philosophy is another instrument for knowledge and proofs. Philosophy is suited for things that science is not suited for and science is suited for things that philosophy is not. God cannot be measured, quantified, or studied with scientific instruments. The components of His creation can be studied and they point to a creator. Philosophy embraces the data in a way that science does not. Science is not designed to look for God…that is not the job of science.

Unfortunately, the atheists on this thread have been doing an excellent job of deflecting the aforementioned truth. The insistence on scientific proof is a smoke screen. This demand was addressed early on in the first thread and I mention it again because no one will claim that a scientific proof is available. Science cannot prove that God exists. Likewise, science cannot prove that God does not exist.

I think it is time for the atheists to see that they are demanding proof by the use of an inappropriate tool. You do not use a chainsaw to weld up a metal framework, and you do not use science to prove the existence of God. There is a compatibility of science and religion. Recognizing the areas where they converge is important and useful. Where other things like philosophy come into play are also important and one must recognize those as well.

 

[psyche23]

I will give you the same sort of answer that I gave to this sort of point in the first of the three threads. This kind of proposition is absurd. God answers prayers but he is not a sugar daddy that spoils his children, gives into idiotic requests, or does something that will have a an outcome that is not in keeping with his nature.

The apostle James addresses this kind of thing this way:

James 4:3-4
“You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

God is interested in a relationship with us. Your request and demand for the miracle you’ve described is not in keeping with any of this.

What you are attempting to do is “bring God down.” You are in no position to do such a thing, and your ridiculous demand for proof would actually make you greater than God.

Moreover, you probably know in your heart that this is a ridiculous request for proof, but it does illustrate just how steeped you are in unbelief that your mind is closed to the more obvious evidence before you. Please do not bother to ask me for more proof…you can read over the three threads. I believe ample evidence, but not absolute proof, has been given over the course of the three threads to establish the existence of God.

I would also point out something else I stated in the first thread concerning proof. Not all things are to be known by science and not all things are subject to science. Philosophy is another instrument for knowledge and proofs. Philosophy is suited for things that science is not suited for and science is suited for things that philosophy is not. God cannot be measured, quantified, or studied with scientific instruments. The components of His creation can be studied and they point to a creator. Philosophy embraces the data in a way that science does not. Science is not designed to look for God…that is not the job of science.

Unfortunately, the atheists on this thread have been doing an excellent job of deflecting the aforementioned truth. The insistence on scientific proof is a smoke screen. This demand was addressed early on in the first thread and I mention it again because no one will claim that a scientific proof is available. Science cannot prove that God exists. Likewise, science cannot prove that God does not exist.

I think it is time for the atheists to see that they are demanding proof by the use of an inappropriate tool. You do not use a chainsaw to weld up a metal framework, and you do not use science to prove the existence of God. There is a compatibility of science and religion. Recognizing the areas where they converge is important and useful. Where other things like philosophy come into play are also important and one must recognize those as well.

Said it better than I ever could!

 

[the_phoenix]

I think it is time for the atheists to see that they are demanding proof by the use of an inappropriate tool. You do not use a chainsaw to weld up a metal framework, and you do not use science to prove the existence of God. There is a compatibility of science and religion. Recognizing the areas where they converge is important and useful. Where other things like philosophy come into play are also important and one must recognize those as well.

Hopefully my schedule will free up enough at some point so that I’d be able to delve into philosophy here in a worthy manner. As of late this afternoon I’ve managed to physically find the book I was thinking of called “The Nature of Belief” by D’Arcy … Now it’s a matter of finding the reference to the point I wanted to make from it. For some reason, GK Chesterton is coming to mind as well.

~~ the phoenix

 

[c659smith]

Including the prettiest of the greater apes - homo sapiens.

As far as the evolution I guess you are eluding to well we can go back and forth on that with theories on either side and posts from different sources. I am not interested in taking that much time on this issue and it is not a faith breaker or maker.

 

[c659smith]

“A”
Those were some beautiful pictures earlier and looked like alot of fun.

I do have a question though and that is when sitting down in the middle of all that beauty did you ever take it all in and ask yourself is it possible that all this happened by mistake .

That there must be something or someone out there that must have designed it all.

Have you ever in such a beautiful setting layed down in the grass closed your eyes,kept your mind open, and just contemplated how it all began.

 

[_A]

As far as the evolution I guess you are eluding to well we can go back and forth on that with theories on either side and posts from different sources. I am not interested in taking that much time on this issue and it is not a faith breaker or maker.

I don’t think anything I could say would be a faith breaker for you, so that should leave you free and comfortable talking about everything.

 

[_A]

“A”
Those were some beautiful pictures earlier and looked like alot of fun.

I do have a question though and that is when sitting down in the middle of all that beauty did you ever take it all in and ask yourself is it possible that all this happened by mistake .

Who is suggesting that it happened by mistake?

That there must be something or someone out there that must have designed it all.

That statement doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t see a reason why there ‘must have been a designer’.

Have you ever in such a beautiful setting layed down in the grass closed your eyes,kept your mind open, and just contemplated how it all began.

I have, I think many things, but that doesn’t make any of them real.
I have thought that we are part of a giant alien building project…
I have thought that it is all selection pressure and random events…
I have thought that there was a single designer…
The last of those seems the most ludicrous (least likely). Why do you think so many people accept it over any others?

 

[_A]

“A”
Those were some beautiful pictures earlier and looked like alot of fun.

Thank you very much. It was (and is ) a lot of fun playing around the Canadian north.

 

[c659smith]

I don’t think anything I could say would be a faith breaker for you, so that should leave you free and comfortable talking about everything.

you are right. If it was a half dozen years ago may have been a chance though.
Before that I was embarrassed to practice my faith in public. To talk about God. Would stand by and let others say as they pleased about Christ as I did not want to allow myself to be rediculed.

Then one day the Holy Spirit came a visiting to me and life has never been the same.

I just pray you may one day have this same joy.