My attempt to defend Christianity from Atheist (replies greatly appriciated)

[MindOverMatter2]

http://twistedsifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/hubble-ultra-deep-field-image.jpg

that is why it is not so simple

Do you actually look at that picture and think that there is no purpose or meaning behind things?FONT]

 

[lemondiesel]

Do you actually look at that picture and think that there is no purpose or meaning behind things?

That picture simply shows humans are a grain of sand in a dessert. What makes you convinced this ENTIRE universe was created by God for humans to enjoy?

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/images/PaleBlueDot.jpg

That’s Earth…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That picture simply shows humans are a grain of sand in a dessert. What makes you convinced this ENTIRE universe was created by God for humans to enjoy?

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/images/PaleBlueDot.jpg

That’s Earth…

God created the whole universe for humans to enjoy?

Even if that’s true, i don’t see why us being as small as a grain of sand would have any relevance. You are assuming that somethings value is determined by its size. That’s very simplistic thinking, although its not uncommon. The fact is that we experience other things that would suggest that there is something behind nature that is intelligent. But we will leave the proofs for Gods existence for now. Instead lets concentrate on the question below about what we experience when we open our eyes.

Question 1. So you are a bunch of mindless individual atoms that has an opinion about something, having reasoning capabilities and a desire to be loved, and you don’t find that bizarre?

 

[lemondiesel]

God created the whole universe for humans to enjoy?

Even if that’s true, i don’t see why us being as small as a grain of sand would have any relevance. You are assuming that somethings value is determined by its size. That’s very simplistic thinking, although its not uncommon. The fact is that we experience other things that would suggest that there is something behind nature that is intelligent. But we will leave the proofs for Gods existence for now. Instead lets concentrate on the question below about what we experience when we open our eyes.

Question 1. So you are a bunch of mindless individual atoms that has an opinion about something, having reasoning capabilities and a desire to be loved, and you don’t find that bizarre?

You live in a physical, natural universe that obeys observable laws. Claims need to be substantiated by positive evidence in order to be considered.

Answer 1. No, I do not find that bizarre at all. When a baby is born is it born with these capabilities to reason? No, they are learned during development which is easily influenced. Desire to be loved? Many different types of atoms combine to make up our brain and body and these also produce certain moods, reactions, and feelings. Research Neurotransmitters.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Claims need to be substantiated by positive evidence in order to be considered.

I understand what you mean here?

Answer 1. No, I do not find that bizarre at all.

You take it for granted i see.

When a baby is born is it born with these capabilities to reason? No, they are learned during development which is easily influenced.

They have a natural potentiality to reason. That they require development before they can be fully actualized has no bearing on the fact that it is in their nature. Influence can cause us to reason wrongly

Desire to be loved? Many different types of atoms combine to make up our brain and body and these also produce certain moods, reactions, and feelings. Research Neurotransmitters.

They do not create from nothing certain moods or feelings and neither do they experience them as individuals, you are assume that association equals an ultimate cause to their existence. I certainly agree that physical reality is the medium through which we express ourselves. However you have not faced the reality of my question. That a mindless group of individual atoms should have experiences, emotions and feelings that are meaningful ought to strike you as strange given that you appear to believe that all things are physical.

 

[tonyrey]

You live in a physical, natural universe that obeys observable laws. Claims need to be substantiated by positive evidence in order to be considered.

How do you know you live in a physical, natural universe? Only because you infer that it exists from your perceptions. What you regard as “positive evidence” exists in your mind - not in external reality. And you are the one who interprets the evidence… Which is more important and significant - persons or things?

 

[lemondiesel]

You take it for granted i see.
incorrect. I said its not bizarre that humans think the way they do. We may be human, but we are still mammals. Mammals raise their young through the developmental stages and stay with their young longer than other species. How can you prove to me another mammal cant have the desire to be loved? If you would like to debate this, I have many videos of animals reacting to certain situations that would indicate a thought process involved and how to react to certain things. My apologies for making this one long haha.
MindOverMatter2;6487140:

They have a natural potentiality to reason. That they require development before they can be fully actualized has no bearing on the fact that it is in their nature. Influence can cause us to reason wrongly

Influence to reason wrongly?
youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac
It all depends on how one is raised man. Human brains are like a clean slate when born, and we learn from our environment and influences on how to survive in this world.

They do not create from nothing certain moods or feelings

and neither do they experience them as individuals, you are assume that association equals an ultimate cause to their existence. I certainly agree that physical reality is the medium through which we express ourselves. However you have not faced the reality of my question. **That a mindless group of individual atoms should have experiences, emotions and feelings that are meaningful **ought to strike you as strange given that you appear to believe that all things are physical.

1. The energy and chemicals they release (when they are all formed together as a brain) create certain moods. Have you ever used a mood ring? (if you believe they work or not) They react to body temperature and chemicals your body releases, telling your mood. So to say your body does not release chemicals is irrational, but i guess we all have our own beliefs.
2. So other animals don’t have experiences? Our perception is based on thought processes. If we experience things, we think about them, but you have no evidence that humans are the only ones allowed to do this.

How do you know you live in a physical, natural universe

? Only because you infer that it exists from your perceptions. What you regard as “positive evidence” exists in your mind - not in external reality. And you are the one who interprets the evidence…** Which is more important and significant - persons or things?**

1. Our universe is natural. Whatever humans do, it will have no affect on our universe as a whole. It is naturally expanding. Stars explode and reform. There is no outside influences that affect that.
2. I am sure if i say persons you will say because we have our consciousness. I am simply going to say “nothingness” is more important than anything.

i will explain later if needed, i was really rushed on this post because i have class in 2 min. If you don’t get the meanings to me post, my apologies, i will try and explain them a little bit better when I am out of class…

…of to Geology, Hope you all had a Great Easter by the way!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2;6487140:

You take it for granted i see.

incorrect. I said its not bizarre that humans think the way they do. We may be human, but we are still mammals. Mammals raise their young through the developmental stages and stay with their young longer than other species. How can you prove to me another mammal cant have the desire to be loved?

What difference does it make to my specific argument whether or not an animal wants to be loved?

If you would like to debate this, I have many videos of animals reacting to certain situations that would indicate a thought process involved and how to react to certain things. My apologies for making this one long haha.

Your straw-man is irrelevant to my argument. So ha ha to you to.

Influence to reason wrongly?
youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

It all depends on how one is raised man. Human brains are like a clean slate when born, and we learn from our environment and influences on how to survive in this world.

I don’t fully understand the relevance of what you are saying here? Are you saying that there is no such thing as reason?

1. So to say your body does not release chemicals is irrational, but i guess we all have our own beliefs.

I never said that the brain doesn’t release chemicals or that those chemicals do not correspond to the “actuality” of emotion or experience. However, the experience of emotions contain meaning that cannot be fully explained by simply stating that some atoms interact with other atoms to produce an effect. That is only one part of the explanation. Our experience reveals a meaningful reality that transcends the explanation of mere cause and effect. You cannot find the emotional “experience” called “love” in the physical brain, no more then you can find an idea. You can only find that which actualizes the emotional experience - as in, the particular chemical triggers. The “atoms” themselves are not love, knowledge, freewill, truth or experience. They are just atoms; not experiences. Science has shown that certain 3 dimensional physical “patterns” and “structures” actualize various qualities and potentialities. That is all. Cut open the brain and tell me when you find an experience of love. You won’t. Such experiences are intangible

1. So other animals don’t have experiences? Our perception is based on thought processes. If we experience things, we think about them, but you have no evidence that humans are the only ones allowed to do this.

I have not argued that animals do not have experiences or that there are not other species in reality that have the ability to think abstractly; however like you said, there is no certain proof either way. Since i only know about my human experiences; i am talking about what i know; rather than what might be possible.

1. Our universe is natural. Whatever humans do, it will have no affect on our universe as a whole. It is naturally expanding. Stars explode and reform. There is no outside influences that affect that.

I never said that there was outside causes manipulating natural events, but there is a big difference between saying that the universe evolves naturally according to the principles of nature, and saying all that which exists is physical or the universe brought itself into existence. I am a Christian naturalist in so far as i accept that the development of nature occurred according to the principles of nature. However i do not think it reasonable to believe that the universe as a whole can account for its own existence or the meaning we find in it.

of to Geology, Hope you all had a Great Easter by the way!

Yes; thank you. enjoy the rest of you Easter holiday.

 

[lemondiesel]

What difference does it make to my specific argument whether or not an animal wants to be loved?

it plays to the argument of why are humans so special? i mean i agree humans are the superior minds on this planet, but once again how does ANYONE know other species cant do the same?

Your straw-man is irrelevant to my argument. So ha ha to you to.

you should still watch some of the videos, they are quite interesting.

I don’t fully understand the relevance of what you are saying here? Are you saying that there is no such thing as reason?

I’m terrible at putting thought into words It just seems our thinking processes are influenced during our developmental stages

I never said that the brain doesn’t release chemicals or that those chemicals do not correspond to the “actuality” of emotion or experience. However, the experience of emotions contain meaning that cannot be fully explained by simply stating that some atoms interact with other atoms to produce an effect. That is only one part of the explanation. Our experience reveals a meaningful reality that transcends the explanation of mere cause and effect. (1) You cannot find the emotional experience called “love” in the brain. You can only find that which actualizes the emotional experience - as in, the particular chemical triggers. (2) The “atoms” themselves are not love, knowledge, freewill, truth or experience. They are just atoms; not experiences. Science has shown that certain 3 dimensional physical “patterns” and “structures” actualize various qualities and potentialities. That is all. (3) Cut open the brain and tell me when you find an experience.

1. Pheromones?
2. I never said there were hidden elements on the periodic table called Love, Knowledge, etc. They all make up our brain, which allows us to store memory. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, show that rewiring of the brain involves the formation and elimination of synapses, the connections between neurons. (How brains rewire themselves due to experiences) You probably think this has no relevance to this #, but oh well
3. Once again, experiences are lived. You get a first person view of your experiences, and you are allowed to ponder over them. All i was trying to say is that our brain reacts to these experiences.

I have not argued that animals do not have experiences or that there are not other species in reality that have the ability to think abstractly; however like you said, there is no certain proof either way. Since i only know about my human experiences; i am talking about what i know; rather than what might be possible

As long as you allow it to be possible:clapping:

I never said that there was outside causes manipulating natural events, but (1) there is a big difference between saying that the universe evolves naturally according to the principles of nature, and saying all that which exists is physical or the universe brought itself into existence. I am a Christian naturalist in so far as i accept that the development of nature occurred according to the principles of nature. (2) However i do not think it reasonable to believe that the universe as a whole can account for its own existence or the meaning we find in it.

1. I have tried and tried to get someone on this forum to watch, but go to Youtube and watch “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawerence Krauss (hosted by Richard Dawkins). If you watch it, i will gladly have a discussion on this topic much further.
2. Let me ask you this then. How do you even know there is a meaning to our existence?

Thank you for replying. I would love to discuss all of this further and have one actually discuss and understand a different view point then making irrational claims towards some of the information, because i guarantee there are some here who have no scientific knowledge yet try to refute it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. Pheromones?

That’s just a name that we give to the substance that triggers the emotional experience.

1. I never said there were hidden elements on the periodic table called Love, Knowledge, etc.

You would have to if you think that only physical reality exists.

They all make up our brain, which allows us to store memory.

Atoms make up our brain, not subjective experiences.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Your correct; it has no relevance to the logical implications that i am making. My argument is not meant to be a refutation of the fact that we are physical beings that happen to process information physically. The argument is a refutation of the belief that we are only “physical” or that we are only made of atoms.

1. Once again, experiences are lived. You get a first person view of your experiences, and you are allowed to ponder over them. All i was trying to say is that our brain reacts to these experiences.

That was not all you where saying. You were questioning the obvious implication that we are more than physical beings.

Individual atoms are not conscious and neither is “experience” a group of atoms. If our brain is simply and only a complex grouping of atoms; then how is it logically possible that there is such a thing as experience? How is it logically possible that there is such a thing as the experience of love and freewill. One would have to assume that these things come out of nothing if they are not prepared to say that there is an atom or atoms that is objectively “experience” or is objectively freewill.

What is “it” and where is “it” that is having the experience? Where is the idea of an elephant in the brain if all is physical? Wouldn’t there be a miniature elephant in the brain if all things are objectively physical? An elephant certainly isn’t any individual atom in the brain and thus it makes no sense to say that a grouping of atoms is consciousness or intellect. To claim that a specific grouping of atoms allows the actuality of consciousness cannot answer the question accept to show that particular conditions must be met in order for consciousness to be actual. This isn’t a scientific problem; its a philosophical one. You are making the connection between experience and the brain without recognizing the implications involved in making the two synonymous.

1. I have tried and tried to get someone on this forum to watch, but go to Youtube and watch “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawerence Krauss (hosted by Richard Dawkins). If you watch it, i will gladly have a discussion on this topic much further.

If its trying to argue that the universe came from nothing, i am not interested. It is necessarily an irrational point of view and is thus a waste of my time. It is also false to consider such a point of view to be a valid Scientific theory or even a hypothesis. However i don’t know the context of the the video and so i am not going to push the issue any further. Also, let me point out to you that i did not say that “Science” (rather than some kind of philosophical naturalism) said that the universe popped out of nothing. I am saying that the belief that only physical reality exists necessitates the consequence that either the world infinitely regresses, is infinitely cyclic or the universe popped out of nothing. These are the only options that an atheist has, and they are all irrational, since all of them imply that the potentiality of the universes existence came out of nothing.

1. Let me ask you this then. How do you even know there is a meaning to our existence?

There is evidence of objective meaning “in” existence. In other words; in order for our brain to communicate the experience of love to us, there would have to be an eternal objective language by which physical reality renders that experience intelligible. Otherwise we would not be able to differentiate the difference between different emotional experiences. To put it another way; when Dna creates biological organisms (persons) that function to particular ends such as run, jump, attack, look up or look down, this presupposes a language that has an objective meaning, its existence of which is transcendent of my creative imagination. I.e my willing to jump crawl or attack requires that my brain can understand what i mean and thus can communicate that meaning to the rest of my body. If my willing something is just a product of my imagination rather than an objective language, the truth of which is eternal, then how does a mindless body execute commands that it cannot possibly understand or recognize? I cannot make something real by subjectively willing its existence and meaning. If all there is mindless physics, cause and effect or random events, then how is it possible that there is also a transcendent meaning to biological actions. A meaning is not physical. If physical reality has no meaning to its existence, then why do we find meaning in it? Out of nothing comes nothing, and no potential reality can be the cause of a timeless meaning or truth.

Before you reply, please think long and hard about the implications of what i have just written.

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you actually look at that picture and think that there is no purpose or meaning behind things?FONT]Yes.

–AntiTheist

EDIT: Alright, I’m going to ruin my own amusing post by qualifying my answer. I don’t actually think the picture itself is evidence that “there is no purpose or meaning behind things.” I simply don’t accept the claim that the vastness or complexity of the universe in any way implies purpose or meaning.

Apparently, from what you’ve said, you think the existence of warm and fuzzy emotions means that there is purpose or meaning. Your argument doesn’t work, and it’s frankly bizarre.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes.
Apparently, from what you’ve said, you think the existence of warm and fuzzy emotions means that there is purpose or meaning. Your argument doesn’t work, and it’s frankly bizarre.

The teaching of making well constructed refutations, which follow the rules of logic rather than assertions and strawmen, is truly lost on you. But thanks for the reply anyhow.

 

[AntiTheist]

The teaching of making well constructed refutations, which follow the rules of logic rather than assertions and strawmen, is truly lost on you. But thanks for the reply anyhow.

You yourself wrote the following:

So you are a bunch of mindless individual atoms that has an opinion about something, having reasoning capabilities and a desire to be loved, and you don’t find that bizarre?

You apparently – and I did write “apparently” – think the existence of emotions (“a desire to be loved”), which I have correctly characterized as “warm and fuzzy feelings,” is evidence for some kind of purpose. In addition – and I’ll grant you that I did not mention this next point – you seem to think the existence of human reason (“reasoning capabilities”) is another piece of evidence in support of the claim that the universe has a purpose.

If I have mischaracterized your argument, please feel free to explain, but as it is, I can see no connection between the existence of properties that we would expect to see in brains and claims about purpose.

 

[Betterave]

1. You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and Church history – but you still call yourself a "Christian"

  i don't admit to knowing much but I consider myself much more informed than the majority of my Christian friends. That is for sure.

But you’re not informed enough to respond to this canard? Yikes! (With all due respect, I suspect your Christian friends may be exceptionally ignorant.)

Try this one for comparison:

1. You actually know a lot less about atheism and agnosticism than many theists – but you still call yourself an “anti-theist/acgnostic [sic]”?

As for your genuine fascination with religion, I suspect it is superficial at best (you’re hardly into religion like Einstein was into physics!). If you are seriously interested, forget about posting silly lists like this and work on acquiring a basic understanding of the subject at hand, *before *attempting to broach such arguments. Then you would realize they’re stupid mischaracterizations that aren’t worth even responding to.

I’m curious: what is your knowledge of Christianity based on?

 

[lemondiesel]

But you’re not informed enough to respond to this canard? Yikes! (With all due respect, I suspect your Christian friends may be exceptionally ignorant.)

Try this one for comparison:

1. You actually know a lot less about atheism and agnosticism than many theists – but you still call yourself an “anti-theist/acgnostic [sic]”?

As for your genuine fascination with religion, I suspect it is superficial at best (you’re hardly into religion like Einstein was into physics!). If you are seriously interested, forget about posting silly lists like this and work on acquiring a basic understanding of the subject at hand, *before *attempting to broach such arguments. Then you would realize they’re stupid mischaracterizations that aren’t worth even responding to.

I’m curious: what is your knowledge of Christianity based on?

LOOOOOOOOOL for starters I am not answering many of these questions with true responses because i thought athiest threads were automatic bans lol

my knowledge of Christianity comes from 18 years of school, church, sunday school, reading the bible many times. These arguments are not suppose to appeal to every christian, just the group that claims to be Christian yet have no idea about their faith.

If you would like to me to come into this forum.catholic and attempt to bash every one of your beliefs then I will, but I am only here to get a different perspective because as I said, like 1% of my friends actually knows how to have a decent argument about religion. I am not here to cause any arguments, so don’t assume my “dumb” answers means i have no knowledge about religion

My religious views are simple bro, I still believe there is something behind creation. Our universe had vast amounts of potential energy, but someone had to have caused it change. I am antitheist because i believe religions are so far off of what they were originally tended. Religion (to me) seems like an easy way to get into daily lives of followers and govern their daily lives, with calling it a form of government.

 

[Betterave]

LOOOOOOOOOL for starters I am not answering many of these questions with true responses because i thought athiest threads were automatic bans lol

LOOOOOOOOL? Please translate. (lol)

Your response here is very strange. “I am not answering many of these questions with true responses because i thought athiest threads were automatic bans” - how does that even remotely make any sense? What are you doing here…?

my knowledge of Christianity comes from 18 years of school, church, sunday school, reading the bible many times. These arguments are not suppose to appeal to every christian, just the group that claims to be Christian yet have no idea about their faith.

…So you were hoping to strike up a conversation with a bunch of morons? - whatever for? (and sorry to disappoint you). You might want to (okay - you definitely should) widen your reading base. Bible alone just don’t cut, bro.

If you would like to me to come into this forum.catholic and attempt to bash every one of your beliefs then I will, but I am only here to get a different perspective because as I said, like 1% of my friends actually knows how to have a decent argument about religion. I am not here to cause any arguments, so don’t assume my “dumb” answers means i have no knowledge about religion

Bash? That seems obviously a stupid idea. Discuss things in an intelligent way? - *that *I would appreciate. I hope you don’t take offense, but honestly, you have posted some very silly comments (regardless of what nonsensical reasons you want to offer to ‘justify’ your having done so). And please don’t be afraid to start arguments; just try to be aware of the rules governing rational argument.

My religious views are simple bro, I still believe there is something behind creation. Our universe had vast amounts of potential energy, but someone had to have caused it change. I am antitheist because i believe religions are so far off of what they were originally tended. Religion (to me) seems like an easy way to get into daily lives of followers and govern their daily lives, with calling it a form of government.

Simple indeed (*too *simple, dare I say?). Also, I’m confused: are you anti-theist or just anti-religion? It sounds more like the latter from what you wrote here.

 

[Areopagite]

1. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
   If i believed in God, i would know God is everything, so then the thousands of gods (sun, wind, rain, etc) are all part of my God. We’re all worshiping the same fundamental idea. God is everywhere.

What you are advocating (or pretending to advocate) is pantheism … the belief that God IS everything. Christianity, on the other hand, believes that God and creation are separate. With that said, it is also true that God constantly acts in creation, such as with miracles and (very importantly) constantly sustaining everything in existence (e.g. if He were to withdraw his power from even an atom … it would cease to exist). Theologically speaking, wherever a spirit acts (whether it be God, angel, or demon), that spirit is said to “be” there. Since God acts everywhere in Creation, He is thus said to “be” everywhere. That is what is meant when we say “God is everywhere.”

What you were representing here was identical to Hinduism, which believed everything is God, even other gods, and hence worshipping one of them (or worshipping anything) is worshipping the One God. Very different from Christianity.

Another important thing to note is this … in some way, Christianity doesn’t “deny” the existence of other gods but simply denies that those gods should be worshipped. Scripture indicates that pagan gods are actually demons sometimes that have manifested themselves to humans. Christianity doesn’t deny the existence of demons but denies that they should be worshipped as deities. I could go a little more into this if you want.

9. You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
This is one I do not how to properly answer. If anyone can your (name removed by moderator)ut would be greatly appreciated.

As said before, the Catholic Church doesn’t oppose the theory of evolution. Various protestants do, however.

With that said, Catholics oppose the idea that humans are merely animals, distinguished only by different genes. Catholics believe that God created humans with a distinctly rational soul. If evolution is true, and humans evolved from lower animals, God somewhere inserted the soul at one point … but how and/or when that was done is not known (and is subject to endless speculation).

8. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God.
God is not broken down into anything. The Trinity simply explains how god can be everywhere. The Father, meaning God’s “personality” that planned salvation and grants forgiveness. Father just indicates deep affection and intimacy towards his creations. The Son, is God’s human form, a way of allowing him to personally connect with his creations by experiencing all the temptations we as humans have to deal with. (Hebrews 2:17-18) The Holy Spirit, which is God inside of humans, allowing him to know everything about humans so if they dont know how to express themselves to God, he still understands their needs. (read romans 8:26-27) Sorry for the rant, “I know God is not broken down into anything” would not have really answered this very well haha

Interesting answer … but Catholics would say this:

There is one God … but God exists as three distinct divine persons. God the Father divinely and eternally begets the God the Son, and together, the love between the Father and the Son “spirates” God the Holy Spirit. How all that works is a mystery for humans, though more and more of it can be supernaturally understood through spiritual experience (achieved commonly through prayer).

It is a misconception that Catholics believe that God the Son is merely God Incarnate (i.e. Jesus). God the Son always existed independent of the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is God the Son plus a human nature. Likewise, the Holy Spirit isn’t merely God residing in us … the Holy Spirit exists independently as the Holy Spirit without humans needing to exist.

**
7. Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the first-born babies in Egypt in “exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” – including women, children and animals!**
God works in mysterious ways. haha about all i can do to say on this. If someone can help me, thanks. I would like to be able to defend this without using Bible quotes.

Catholics believe that God has the authority to end anyone’s life at any time … because what God has given, God can take away. The same thing can’t be said about humans … humans do not have the authority to execute merely anyone. However, if God grants them authority to execute someone in a particular circumstance, then they can … because it would be God acting through a willing human agent.

With that said, we condemn Muslims who murder in the name of Allah because we believe God never granted them the authority to do that.

I could possibly say more on that if you want.

 

[Areopagite]

6. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with mortal women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a “man-God” who got killed, can back to life and then ascended into the sky.
This goes back my 3 response. You say Holy Spirit as something completely opposite of God. God impregnated Mary, because the holy spirit inside his creations is God. Jesus is not a man-god superhero. Jesus more symbolized God coming to earth as a man to help save the world of sin. It was God showing that he would die for everyone of his creations. The one time God comes to Earth, he is willing to die for the sins of the world. The reason God had to be sacrificed in Jesus was because Jesus was perfect, if he wasn’t then he would simply be an extraordinary human, but not a God.

One reason why we condemn the Greek mythological idea that divine beings went around sleeping with people (and why Plato and Aristotle at the time condemned it too) was that they weren’t acting divine at all. They clearly were beings that had human faults, particularly lust … far from being perfect entities.

Nonetheless, it does show the human desire for God to become man … which eventually happens, according to the Catholic belief, in Jesus. Mary is said to be the spouse of God … not the victim of a random act of divine fornication as depicted in Greek myths. This is also why Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.

Your (pretend) response still looks a lot like Hinduism. You see, we DO believe Jesus was a God-man superhero … and he wasn’t just a mere symbol of God coming to earth … no, Jesus WAS God … He was God with a case human nature attached to Him.

5. You are willing to spend you life looking for littele loopholes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is only 6000 years old!
Science is knowledge, no doubt there. “When learned men begin to fall into error, they are driven by the devil to display even greater amd more grievious folly than the illiterate.” which is not a Bible quote.

Once again, Catholics are allowed to believe in an old earth.

With that note, the Jews were not “Pre-historic tribesmen” since they knew how to write. Pre-history is defined as the period before which writing was invented.

**
4. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs – though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend enternity in an infinite hell of suffering. Yet, you consider Christianity the most “tolerant” and “loving”.**
But they are still given the opportunity to believe in God until the very end of days. God is patient, merciful and just. He will wait patiently to see if one turns around and believes.

Yes, your answer is good.

3. While modern science, history, geology, biology and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor “speaking in tongues” may be all the evidence you need.
I don’t know quite what this meant. I was thinking it meant that science is proving biblical stories wrong. So i answered it like this. Taking the Bible too literal is peoples main problem. The Bible should be viewed as God’s “Journal.” Although, he did not write it himself, it provides a portrayal of who God is and what makes him work. Reading the Bible allows one to discover what is important to God and how he relates to people and also his future plans for this world. It is a way to achieve eternal life with him.

Your answer is pretty good.

For “Speaking in tongues,” check out this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=NZbQBajYnEc

2. You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the “will of God”.
I can not try and begin to defend this, my apologies. I do not pray at all (even in sports games) so ill just someone else take care of that.

Skeptical scientists like to throw numbers out to try and show prayer doesn’t work. I frankly don’t know where they get those numbers … I’ll I can say is that it works in my own life and I’ve seen it work elsewhere … a lot.

1. You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and Church history – but you still call yourself a "Christian"
i don’t admit to knowing much but I consider myself much more informed than the majority of my Christian friends. That is for sure.

“Knowing a lot about the Bible, Christianity, and Church history” doesn’t make or unmake you a Christian. It’s whether you follow Jesus and teachings. That should be pretty obvious. So, I’m not quite sure what this point is talking about.

And in my experience, the people I know who are learned in the Bible, Christianity, and Church history are people who are themselves Christian. In fact, at least in the circles I travel, my Catholic friends are generally more intellectual and well-educated than the non-believers I come across. I do admit, however, that I’ve been involved in “Catholic Academia” quite a bit. So, perhaps that’s the reason.

 

[redhen]

I’m assuming that many young atheists have been influenced by the “new atheists”, i.e. the Four Horsemen, aka Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and Harris. Except for Dennet, these guys are really not qualified to teach philosophy of religion. Dawkins is a biologist and Hitchens is an old drunk writing for Vanity Fair.

These "new atheists’ arguments, along with tripe like the Internet video Zeitgeist are simplistic, juvenile outbursts, that have embarrassed other atheists.

Here’s a little video that explains it better than I could; wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Father-Barron-on-The-New-Atheists.aspx

Another one on some of the “Youtube heresies”

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Father-Barron-Against-The-YouTube-Heresies.aspx

Take a look around that website for other commentaries, that should get you started.

 

[lemondiesel]

Sorry been busy getting ready for finals, haven’t been able to check this in awhile. I will try and address all the replies.

Your response here is very strange. “I am not answering many of these questions with true responses because i thought athiest threads were automatic bans” - how does that even remotely make any sense? What are you doing here…?

already stated why i am here, learn to read…great thanks

…So you were hoping to strike up a conversation with a bunch of morons? - whatever for? (and sorry to disappoint you). You might want to (okay - you definitely should) widen your reading base. Bible alone just don’t cut, bro.

once again, your a ****ing idiot (dont take offense to that). just because i said ive read the bible doesnt mean its the only thing ive read…hense going to sunday school/catholic school/and other classes…good attempt though

Bash? That seems obviously a stupid idea. Discuss things in an intelligent way? - *that *I would appreciate. I hope you don’t take offense, but honestly, you have posted some very silly comments (regardless of what nonsensical reasons you want to offer to ‘justify’ your having done so). And please don’t be afraid to start arguments; just try to be aware of the rules governing rational argument.

Your idea of God is silly, sir. PM if you would like to discuss more. Please don’t’ talk about anything rational, you’ve clearly let that idea go.

Simple indeed (*too *simple, dare I say?). Also, I’m confused: are you anti-theist or just anti-religion? It sounds more like the latter from what you wrote here.

antitheist because i do not believe in a higher power or “God.” My “God” is the universe, and I am not worried to answer why were are here, I only care about how.
Antireligion because religions are corrupt and MAN MADE. I would love to discuss more, but it would turn into a rant, so PM me if you would like to discuss this.

I’m assuming that many young atheists have been influenced by the “new atheists”, i.e. the Four Horsemen, aka Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and Harris. Except for Dennet, these guys are really not qualified to teach philosophy of religion. Dawkins is a biologist and Hitchens is an old drunk writing for Vanity Fair.

Dennet is always interesting, but why is Dawkins thrown out? Science as a whole is knowledge and understanding of our universe and how it interacts. Biology plays a role in that as well, but I do agree that I wouldn’t take his philosophy of religion 100% serious, but its still always an interesting read or watch from him.

Areopagite; thank you so much for your replies. I thoroughly enjoyed reading them and thank you for not being a complete ******* like Betterrave. Once again, thank you.