LOL at atheist "logic" (more like nonsense!)

[RomanCrusader]

I love atheist “logic”. Atheists will constantly slander and insult Christians for believing in a “magical wizard” who created the world, yet at least we have an explanation in the first place!

The atheist belief is basically this:

Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don’t have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We’re looking into that one. Oh wait, we can’t do that, because we don’t have free will! Dang!

 

[sandmountainsli]

Right on RC!
Neal Boortz of all people (not a Christian by any sense of the word) was saying last week how only people with an IQ of 50 or less could truly be Atheists Then he went on to tell how the “something from nothing” made absolutely zero sense.
WP

 

[RomanCrusader]

Right on RC!
Neal Boortz of all people (not a Christian by any sense of the word) was saying last week how only people with an IQ of 50 or less could truly be Atheists Then he went on to tell how the “something from nothing” made absolutely zero sense.
WP

Man, even Neal Boortz disagrees with the atheists!

Its no coincedence that the majority of atheists are angsty leftist college-kids who cut their wrists in their spare time!

One atheist told me that Christians “invented” Jesus by copying the Aztec God Quetzucotel. The atheist said the Christians got the idea of a ressurection from Aztec legends. Funny, I thought, considering no Christian knew the Aztecs even existed until the 1500s! Just goes to show the intelligence of the average atheist .

 

[Mirdath]

Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don’t have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We’re looking into that one. Oh wait, we can’t do that, because we don’t have free will! Dang!

Wow, you made all that up? I’m not an atheist and that still makes less sense to me than the thought of some old white guy with a beard willing it all into existence six thousand years ago.

Point by point:

• the Big Bang starts with a singularity, not nothing
• fundamental laws of the universe are defined by the existence of matter and energy
• it’s called gravity. It’s a good thing.
• origin of life; we have water, we have lots of things out there, it’s about as plausible that these things bumped into each other to form amino acids as it is that God did it. With an infinite universe, no matter how unlikely something is, it has to happen somewhere by simple probability. It’s like monkeys and Hamlet.
• evolution: it happens, it’s been seen in progress (moths moving to urban areas and turning black to camouflage themselves in smog; vaccine- and antibiotic-resistant diseases)
• consciousness is a black box, and it isn’t all atheists who think it’s determined by the mechanics of the brain. Theologians know as little about what consciousness really is as scientists.
• why do we need someone to tell us we have a purpose? I at least am perfectly capable of coming up with many purposes for myself.

Neal Boortz of all people (not a Christian by any sense of the word) was saying last week how only people with an IQ of 50 or less could truly be Atheists Then he went on to tell how the “something from nothing” made absolutely zero sense.

Like I said… your version of events makes less sense to me. ‘The magical wizard did it’ isn’t an explanation. Throwing out accusations that all atheists must needs be retarded isn’t helping your cause either.

Its no coincedence that the majority of atheists are angsty leftist college-kids who cut their wrists in their spare time!

Hardly.

One atheist told me that Christians “invented” Jesus by copying the Aztec God Quetzucotel. The atheist said the Christians got the idea of a ressurection from Aztec legends. Funny, I thought, considering no Christian knew the Aztecs even existed until the 1500s! Just goes to show the intelligence of the average atheist

Some atheists are stupid. Some religious people are stupid.

 

[sandmountainsli]

RC’s post made perfect sense.
WP

 

[RomanCrusader]

Wow, you made all that up? I’m not an atheist and that still makes less sense to me than the thought of some old white guy with a beard willing it all into existence six thousand years ago.

I never said 6000 years. I personally don’t believe in a young earth.

Point by point:

• the Big Bang starts with a singularity, not nothing
• fundamental laws of the universe are defined by the existence of matter and energy
• it’s called gravity. It’s a good thing.
• origin of life; we have water, we have lots of things out there, it’s about as plausible that these things bumped into each other to form amino acids as it is that God did it. With an infinite universe, no matter how unlikely something is, it has to happen somewhere by simple probability. It’s like monkeys and Hamlet.
• evolution: it happens, it’s been seen in progress (moths moving to urban areas and turning black to camouflage themselves in smog; vaccine- and antibiotic-resistant diseases)
• consciousness is a black box, and it isn’t all atheists who think it’s determined by the mechanics of the brain. Theologians know as little about what consciousness really is as scientists.
• why do we need someone to tell us we have a purpose? I at least am perfectly capable of coming up with many purposes for myself.

1. The Big Bang is better proof for theism than atheism.
2. So according to you matter and energy always existed? Funny, because its already been proven that matter is finite!
3. What created the concept of gravity?
4. So they just randomly bumped and that randomness produced all the remarkable things in this world? Right…
5. I made no arguement relating to evolution.
6. So according to you everything in the universe has a purpose except humanity? Right…

Like I said… your version of events makes less sense to me. ‘God said so’ isn’t an explanation. Throwing out accusations that all atheists must needs be retarded isn’t helping your cause either.

God is the only rational explanation! Atheists refuse to see the obvious, so obviously something is holding them back mentally! I personally feel it is a psychological disorder in most. Some atheists are nice decent people, but their intelligence is lacking!

 

[Kevin42]

Man, even Neal Boortz disagrees with the atheists!

Its no coincedence that the majority of atheists are angsty leftist college-kids who cut their wrists in their spare time!

One atheist told me that Christians “invented” Jesus by copying the Aztec God Quetzucotel. The atheist said the Christians got the idea of a ressurection from Aztec legends. Funny, I thought, considering no Christian knew the Aztecs even existed until the 1500s! Just goes to show the intelligence of the average atheist .

Love is patient, love is** kind**. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. ** If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.**

-1 Corinthians 13:1-3

Charity please my friend. I have many friends who are atheist and are also incredibly intelligent, kind people. Faith has nothing to do with human knowledge. I am personally offended when you talk this way about atheists. They lack faith, and sometimes they may go directly against it, but that is no reason to be uncharitable.

 

[Mirdath]

I never said 6000 years. I personally don’t believe in a young earth.

Good, we agree on something at least, I guess?

1. The Big Bang is better proof for theism than atheism.

The Big Bang is a theory, it proves neither theism nor atheism; it doesn’t even imply either one.

1. So according to you matter and energy always existed? Funny, because its already been proven that matter is finite!

In what sense is it finite?

1. What created the concept of gravity?

The existence of mass. Objects with mass attract each other. Gravity is one of the four universal forces, the others being electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces.

1. So they just randomly bumped and that randomness produced all the remarkable things in this world? Right…

Sounds okay to me, given an infinite universe, like I said probabilities approach one. Did you know that the octopus’ eye evolved along a completely different path from the human, and that it’s actually better?

1. I made no arguement relating to evolution.

Really? And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans is what you said in your mocking of non-theists.

1. So according to you everything in the universe has a purpose except humanity? Right…

Nope, nothing in the universe has a purpose it does not generate for itself. Non-theists may simply be less afraid of not having all the answers immediately, and feel that taking someone’s word for it isn’t particularly productive.

God is the only rational explanation! Atheists refuse to see the obvious, so obviously something is holding them back mentally! I personally feel it is a psychological disorder in most. Some atheists are nice decent people, but their intelligence is lacking!

Faith is by definition irrational, as Kierkegaard wrote it requires a leap in judgement. God is not obvious; he is, after all, supernatural – cannot be seen, cannot be touched, cannot even truly be known to mortal minds. And mortal minds are all we’ve got, barring the postulated existence of an afterlife – by which time it won’t even matter.

Neither belief nor its absence is a mental disorder. What you do with them might be.

Can you stop calling non-theists stupid? They have not made an irrational leap of faith, which is perfectly within their rights, and are struggling for understanding in their own way. An average atheist is just as intelligent as an average Catholic.

Also, insults won’t win you any converts.

 

[Oneiron]

I love atheist “logic”. Atheists will constantly slander and insult Christians for believing in a “magical wizard” who created the world, yet at least we have an explanation in the first place!

The atheist belief is basically this:

Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a begining. I mean, who needs a begining! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something appeared one day. It just appeared, you see! It was called the universe. It just sorta came into being because it felt like it. And then these cool things called laws showed up out of nowhere. Cool, huh? These laws govern the universe. Anyway, trillions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the laws randomly made it happen. It has no purpose! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow! A comet just probably brought it over randomly or something. Who knows, who cares?! And then life randomly just changed over the years and eventually became humans. Consciouness is not real, its a bunch of different genes! We don’t have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We’re looking into that one. Oh wait, we can’t do that, because we don’t have free will! Dang!

Okay, So you believe that god made everything. What did god make everything out of? What is god? (And none of that god is bull, you’re attacking aetheist beliefs, defend your own.) What made god? If god made everything, why is there evil? (Every Christian I know preaches to me of a good god, and what omnibenevolent god would allow for evil?)
You honestly believe that there is no corrolation between genetics and the human body at all? You think aetheists are so stupid, you tell me what the consciousness is. And no, it’s your soul. Tell me what it is and how it works.

Bashing on aetheists… So do you know where the concept of good and evil came from in your religion? Do you know what sheol is, long before heaven and hell had been introduced? The saviour story came from another religions as well. So did one of the two creation stories in Genesis at the least have influence from another. Can you name that religion without using wikipedia to help you?
And if Adam and Eve were the only ones made by god, as it says in the Bible, where did everyone else come from? Where did the Aztecs come from, with their Quezacoatl?

here’s the big one. If you’re so smart about your own religion, then explain to me why the term Elohim is used alongside of YHWH and Adonai. If you can even explain what Elohim means at all.

because in my experience, most Christians I’ve met can’t exlpain those things, thereby making them as stupid as the aetheists you’re attacking.

 

[yessisan]

How sad

 

[Atreyu]

In what sense is it finite?

The Universe has a finite mass, this is a physical fact. Evaluating exactly what that mass is is still an unanswered question.

Faith is by definition irrational, as Kierkegaard wrote it requires a leap in judgement. God is not obvious; he is, after all, supernatural – cannot be seen, cannot be touched, cannot even truly be known to mortal minds. And mortal minds are all we’ve got, barring the postulated existence of an afterlife – by which time it won’t even matter.

I don’t agree with this reasoning. If you were to examine all the evidence there is for the existence of God, then it is a reasonable conclusion that God exists. If you hear hoofs behind you, then is it irrational to think that there is a horse walking behind you? It could be a zebra, but it is most likely a horse.

So what evidence is there? Well, the argument we seem to be focusing on in this thread is the Cosmological Argument. Why does the Universe exist? Why is there just nothing? It seems to me that if there were no God, then there should be just nothing - no existence. But there is a lot of other evidence as well.

Neither belief nor its absence is a mental disorder. What you do with them might be.

Very well said!

Can you stop calling non-theists stupid? They have not made an irrational leap of faith, which is perfectly within their rights, and are struggling for understanding in their own way. An average atheist is just as intelligent as an average Catholic.

Also, insults won’t win you any converts.

Again, well said - but I would disagree with the word “irrational”.

Oneiron:

What made god?

Nothing. The First-Cause or Cosmological Argument holds that what we call “God” is the “first-cause-without-a-cause”. If every effect has a cause, then there must be some first cause that did not have a cause. Theists call this thing “God”. Atheists must hold that there is some infinite progression of causes, since there can be no first-cause-without-a-cause. However, for me, this just moves the question back a step.

If god made everything, why is there evil?

Because of free will. Imagine for a second that there is a God, and that all of Creation exists for the sole purpose of creating humans - humans are the crown of this God’s creation. Now, imagine if you will, that because humans are the crown of creation, that God loves us more than we can possibly imagine, and His desire for us is that we love Him as much. You are now in the Christian world-view. Now throw in free will. True love does not force anything, and so God refuses to force us to love Him. Therefore we are completely free to not love Him. The result? Evil.

As for the rest of your post, Oneiron, I’m thinking you view Christianity as “borrowing” things (you might call them “myths”) from other religions. Is that what you’re saying? Well, this really isn’t a problem. In the Catholic understanding of other religions, we see each of these religions as containing parts of the Truth (and “Truth” is objective). Every single human that has ever existed has been moved in part by the grace of God, such that they’ve even stumbled across one or more of these objective Truths. Therefore, Catholics have every expectation that other religions contain parts of the Truth! It is not that Catholics “borrowed” or “stole” things from other religions - what happens is that all religions have the same source: God! The only difference with the Catholic Church is that the Church contains the fullness of the Truth, instead of parts here and there.

 

[Mirdath]

The Universe has a finite mass, this is a physical fact. Evaluating exactly what that mass is is still an unanswered question.

The universe has infinite boundaries from our frame of reference, but yeah, there’s only so much matter and energy to go around (hence entropy).

I don’t agree with this reasoning. If you were to examine all the evidence there is for the existence of God, then it is a reasonable conclusion that God exists. If you hear hoofs behind you, then is it irrational to think that there is a horse walking behind you? It could be a zebra, but it is most likely a horse.

What evidence? All we have to go by are some ancient texts written by human beings and more human beings now claiming that they must be right. I don’t hear any hooves, I hear people talking about hooves. And if the clamor around me dies down enough that I could hear those hooves, who’s to say it might not be a couple of Monty Python extras with split coconuts?

So what evidence is there? Well, the argument we seem to be focusing on in this thread is the Cosmological Argument. Why does the Universe exist? Why is there just nothing? It seems to me that if there were no God, then there should be just nothing - no existence. But there is a lot of other evidence as well.

Aquinas’ cosmological argument does not take into account the niceties of the creation of the universe; it only requires that the universe exist and postulates a Prime Mover. However, his beginning arguments are not flawless. First he says that everything must have a cause; then he states that if one follows the chain of effect to cause far enough one reaches a dead end, that being God. There’s no reason to think that chain isn’t infinite, nor is it reason to think that even if it does end, that that end is the Abrahamic God or anything remotely resembling a worshiped deity.

Very well said!

Thanks

Again, well said - but I would disagree with the word “irrational”.

That’d be the ‘will we survive religion’ thread rubbing off on me. I meant irrational in the sense that it is not a function of reason but of faith, not throwing stones at anyone

Nothing. The First-Cause or Cosmological Argument holds that what we call “God” is the “first-cause-without-a-cause”. If every effect has a cause, then there must be some first cause that did not have a cause. Theists call this thing “God”. Atheists must hold that there is some infinite progression of causes, since there can be no first-cause-without-a-cause. However, for me, this just moves the question back a step.

As I said above, either an infinite chain (which does move it back a step, forever and ever) or a meaningless end that bears no resemblance to anything humans have ever worshiped.

 

[Atreyu]

What evidence? All we have to go by are some ancient texts written by human beings and more human beings now claiming that they must be right.

I claim this as evidence. How so? Mainly because of the countless prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled by Jesus. You can read the gospel of Matthew for a brief overview of these. For me, the typological references of the Old Testament are the real killer. For example, Jonah and the whale as a type of Christ in the tomb and his resurrection, Abraham sacrificing a ram in place of Isaac as a type of Jesus being sacrificed in place of us (notice the ram is caught in briars = crown of thorns perhaps?), and there are many, many others. For me, there are just so many “coincidences”, that at some stage I just have to admit that there are *too many *coincidences for it not to have been contrived. Either the several authors of the New Testament and the early Christian fathers were the most brilliant and sneaky people to have ever lived and it is all an elaborate hoax, or they were inspired by God. I think this is a reasonable conclusion from the evidence available, however I won’t label the evidence as “proof”.

I don’t hear any hooves, I hear people talking about hooves. And if the clamor around me dies down enough that I could hear those hooves, who’s to say it might not be a couple of Monty Python extras with split coconuts?

Hehe! Occam’s Razor (again it’s not proof, just evidence and a source of motivation).

Aquinas’ cosmological argument does not take into account the niceties of the creation of the universe; it only requires that the universe exist and postulates a Prime Mover. However, his beginning arguments are not flawless.

I agree, however it provides is with a lot of motivation for further investigation. For me, the Cosmological Argument is really just a starting point from which we need to go elsewhere to discover the attributes that this “Prime Mover” has.

First he says that everything must have a cause; then he states that if one follows the chain of effect to cause far enough one reaches a dead end, that being God. There’s no reason to think that chain isn’t infinite

OK, but if the chain is infinite, then there must be a reason for that chain existing in the first place. If you think that this chain exists “just because”, then I will say that you believe this out of faith. This conclusion is not a function of reason but of faith every bit as much (more so, in my opinion, as God is a much simpler explanation) as faith in God.

nor is it reason to think that even if it does end, that that end is the Abrahamic God or anything remotely resembling a worshiped deity.

I completely agree. I simply think it is a starting point for further investigation. The “elsewhere” we call the revelation of God.

That’d be the ‘will we survive religion’ thread rubbing off on me. I meant irrational in the sense that it is not a function of reason but of faith, not throwing stones at anyone

That’s cool. However, like I said, I think one must have faith in something; it is simply unavoidable.

 

[Mirdath]

I claim this as evidence. How so? Mainly because of the countless prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled by Jesus. You can read the gospel of Matthew for a brief overview of these. For me, the typological references of the Old Testament are the real killer. For example, Jonah and the whale as a type of Christ in the tomb and his resurrection, Abraham sacrificing a ram in place of Isaac as a type of Jesus being sacrificed in place of us (notice the ram is caught in briars = crown of thorns perhaps?), and there are many, many others. For me, there are just so many “coincidences”, that at some stage I just have to admit that there are *too many *coincidences for it not to have been contrived. Either the several authors of the New Testament and the early Christian fathers were the most brilliant and sneaky people to have ever lived and it is all an elaborate hoax, or they were inspired by God. I think this is a reasonable conclusion from the evidence available, however I won’t label the evidence as “proof”.

Such prophecy-fulfillment imagery and foreshadowing is common across mythography of all cultures. And texts are changed over centuries and millennia, with later authors, transcribers, and translators editing and adding parts to fit – much like the inaccuracies Catholics decry in the KJV bible. There are very few religious texts with anything approaching a fully documented history of exact transcription; the only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the Quran, the teachings of Guru Nanak (the founder of Sikhism), the Book of Mormon, and the Principia Discordia.

Hehe! Occam’s Razor (again it’s not proof, just evidence and a source of motivation).

It’s no proof, but it is an indication of which option is less loaded with baggage that must be accounted for (in this case by faith, which makes no experiments work)

OK, but if the chain is infinite, then there must be a reason for that chain existing in the first place. If you think that this chain exists “just because”, then I will say that you believe this out of faith. This conclusion is not a function of reason but of faith every bit as much (more so, in my opinion, as God is a much simpler explanation) as faith in God.

That may be – personally, I don’t know if it is infinite or not, and while I’d like to know I have no logical means of discovering it at this time.

I completely agree. I simply think it is a starting point for further investigation. The “elsewhere” we call the revelation of God.

And that’s a revelation that must be taken on faith, which in this instance I don’t have – but I’m not about to get on your case for having it, if you like it great

That’s cool. However, like I said, I think one must have faith in something; it is simply unavoidable.

Well, I have faith in myself – does that count? And I’ve chosen to have faith in other people (well, some of them) – which is a logically invalid leap, but in this case I can know firsthand the existence of what I have faith in. Also having faith in one particular other person means I have a fiance

 

[havemercy]

LOL at atheist “logic” (more like nonsense!)

I laughed at that really hard. Phew. It was the “LOL” part. Gets me every time.

 

[Atreyu]

Such prophecy-fulfillment imagery and foreshadowing is common across mythography of all cultures.

I haven’t tried applying typological analysis to the Quran for example, but I’m told it doesn’t work. I have tried applying the same typological analysis I use for the Bible to extra-Biblical Christian writings (namely, the letter of Clement to the Corinthians), and I’ve found that it definitely doesn’t work. By “typological analysis” I’m talking about certain words and numbers being types for something else, whenever they are seen in the Bible. For example, when you see the word “fish”, this is a type for “a sinner” or “sin”. The number “two” is a type for “the Church”. There are many more of these, and the “proof” of these is in the pudding: when substituting these words for their typological equivalents, again and again and again we see pictures of Christ. And like I said, if you use the same analysis in non-Biblical writings, then it just doesn’t work. I don’t really expect you to believe me here, but I’m hoping I may have piqued your interest a little! Do you know much about the mysteries of the Rosary? This link shows many of the Old Testament references to those mysteries.

And texts are changed over centuries and millennia, with later authors, transcribers, and translators editing and adding parts to fit – much like the inaccuracies Catholics decry in the KJV bible.

Hence our desire to return to the “original” text. I don’t mind that we don’t have an exact replica of the original, so long as it is close enough. It is a problem, but not a problem we cannot overcome.

It’s no proof, but it is an indication of which option is less loaded with baggage that must be accounted for (in this case by faith, which makes no experiments work)

For me, it was precisely the answers to all this baggage which led me back into the Catholic Church. She has an answer for everything, it seems!

That may be – personally, I don’t know if it is infinite or not, and while I’d like to know I have no logical means of discovering it at this time.

Assuming it is not infinite, then you can still try to account for the metaphysical question as to why the Universe came into existence. But if the Universe is infinitely old, then you still need to account for the metaphysical question as to why the Universe exists. For me, this is the fundamental flaw of atheism. It does not nor could it ever have an answer to this most important of questions.

And that’s a revelation that must be taken on faith, which in this instance I don’t have – but I’m not about to get on your case for having it, if you like it great

Well, I have faith in myself – does that count? And I’ve chosen to have faith in other people (well, some of them) – which is a logically invalid leap, but in this case I can know firsthand the existence of what I have faith in. Also having faith in one particular other person means I have a fiance

Are you male? In that case you would have a fiancée! English does have some masculine and feminine words… Another example is blond/blonde. By the way, I also have a fiancée. It’s great, isn’t it?!

 

[Eden]

Atheists put way to much trust in the capacity of the human mind to understand our existence. If atheists could conceive of a creative mind behind our existence, would they really expect their minds to be as equally capable as God’s to comprehend Him? In rejecting their creator, they turn themselves into gods, worshipping at the fount of their brilliance for having deduced that God does not exist because they can’t see Him.

 

[Mirdath]

I haven’t tried applying typological analysis to the Quran for example, but I’m told it doesn’t work. I have tried applying the same typological analysis I use for the Bible to extra-Biblical Christian writings (namely, the letter of Clement to the Corinthians), and I’ve found that it definitely doesn’t work. By “typological analysis” I’m talking about certain words and numbers being types for something else, whenever they are seen in the Bible. For example, when you see the word “fish”, this is a type for “a sinner” or “sin”. The number “two” is a type for “the Church”. There are many more of these, and the “proof” of these is in the pudding: when substituting these words for their typological equivalents, again and again and again we see pictures of Christ. And like I said, if you use the same analysis in non-Biblical writings, then it just doesn’t work. I don’t really expect you to believe me here, but I’m hoping I may have piqued your interest a little! Do you know much about the mysteries of the Rosary? This link shows many of the Old Testament references to those mysteries.

I was brought up extremely hard-line Catholic, so yes I’m familiar with the mysteries of the Rosary

As to your word-substitution – I do not see how this is much different from the practice of gematria, which has been used to prove that Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist. While I can’t speak for the Quran, allegory in the form of hidden metaphors is hardly only a Christian invention, or only religious at all. Prophets and fiction-writers alike hide meaning in fable.

Hence our desire to return to the “original” text. I don’t mind that we don’t have an exact replica of the original, so long as it is close enough. It is a problem, but not a problem we cannot overcome.

Step 1, build a time machine! There really isn’t a way to tell if it’s ‘close enough’ without a copy of the original to go by.

For me, it was precisely the answers to all this baggage which led me back into the Catholic Church. She has an answer for everything, it seems!

Good for you It was the opposite for me.

Assuming it is not infinite, then you can still try to account for the metaphysical question as to why the Universe came into existence. But if the Universe is infinitely old, then you still need to account for the metaphysical question as to why the Universe exists. For me, this is the fundamental flaw of atheism. It does not nor could it ever have an answer to this most important of questions.

Actually this is one of the benefits of being non-theist – we’re allowed not to care why it exists! Rather the more pressing issue is that, since it does, what do we do now?

Are you male? In that case you would have a fiancée! English does have some masculine and feminine words… Another example is blond/blonde. By the way, I also have a fiancée. It’s great, isn’t it?!

I saw that in your sig, congratulations! Both of those words are actually on loan from French, and ‘blond/e’ are already losing their strict gender associations

Eden:

Atheists put way to much trust in the capacity of the human mind to understand our existence. If atheists could conceive of a creative mind behind our existence, would they really expect their minds to be as equally capable as God’s to comprehend Him? In rejecting their creator, they turn themselves into gods, worshipping at the font of their brilliance for having deduced that God does not exist because they can’t see Him.

I’ve yet to meet an atheist who claims to understand the sum and totality of human existence. They just don’t believe a deity specifically put them there and get along with their lives as best they can. Same as you, except they can sleep in Sunday mornings.

 

[Eden]

Actually this is one of the benefits of being non-theist – we’re allowed not to care why it exists! Rather the more pressing issue is that, since it does, what do we do now?

But why is this either/or? Isn’t natural for the human mind to wonder why we are here? And of course, all human societies have confronted the issue of “what do we do now”. This is not unique to atheists.

 

[Eden]

I’ve yet to meet an atheist who claims to understand the sum and totality of human existence. They just don’t believe a deity specifically put them there and get along with their lives as best they can. Same as you, except they can sleep in Sunday mornings.

No, that’s not the same as me because I believe I began as a thought of God. I believe He made my body and infused me with my unique soul at the moment of conception. I’m not a random collision of cells, but a being of both a spiritual and physical nature created by God Himself.