C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Do try not to be funny. You have no flair for humor. :tsktsk:
- Status
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is a point I have made with you in other threads.
So glad to see you are getting it.
The truth of Genesis is that God intelligently designed and created the universe and everything in it.
He did not simply create it and roll the dice, with no knowledge or influence on how things would turn out. After all, God does not exist in time, so presumably with omniscience he see the history of the universe and everything in it all at once.
“Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared” Isaac Newton
T
tonyrey
Guest
Can you explain how freedom originated? If not why not?
NB "beliefs" - which doesn’t imply “all their beliefs”.
The topic is “The Absurdity of Atheism” not “The Absurdity of Atheists” :tsktsk:
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
Wherever you go there you are.
Not in some wherever, not there, but here.
Wherever you are you are always “here”.
And, whenever you are, whenever anyone who is, was and will be relative to this moment, they exist “now”.
We are in the moment, always. It is obvious.
You exist here and now.
Feel time pass, the hands on the watch revolving around their axis.
You can think, imagine whatever you want; however you want to conceptualize it, you will never exist but in the moment that you are thinking and imagining.
The Source of all moments resides in the ever-present Now that constitutes God’s eternal nature.
B
Bahman
Guest
I mean, how I could be guilty of my action if related decision is made rationally.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I certainly do believe in Santa, and you are a disgrace to the human race if you don’t.
N
Nixbits
Guest
Aloysium, I’m really struggling to understand what you mean (not for the first time).
Aloysium:
Aloysium:
Aloysium:
But let’s not embark on a long dull debate about ontology, in which I would quickly find myself out of my depth. It’s clear to me that we’re not going to find any common ground. I simply don’t understand your view that atheism is absurd and I can find no explanation in your posts or, at least, none of which I can make any sense.
I’m also aware that we’re having a very different discussion to the rest of the contributors and I don’t want to derail this interesting thread or clutter it unnecessarily with sub-topics. So I suggest we take it no further.
In not very many years time, a universe without you and me will exist, just as it did before you and me came into existence. The point, however, is that a universe without you and me could have come to pass. It didn’t, but it could have done. I find no difficulty in imagining a universe in which I had never come into existence. Whereas you said in a previous post that you could not imagine such a thing. I find that curious.
More precisely, my position is that I know of no sufficient evidence to support the claim that God exists. It is certainly true, however, that most of the ‘evidence’ put forward by theists in support of their God-claim does not conform to what I consider evidence within the reality I experience.
This has me completley mystified. Having established that I am an atheist, why would you suggest that I am trying to form a relationship with something that I do not believe exists? But for clarity, I am not trying to form a relationship with Him or any other supernatural entity.
You’ve completely lost me here. By giving the word ‘love’ a capital letter, do you intend it to have a different meaning in some way? How about ‘word’ and ‘existence’? In the reality that I experience, there is no evidence that any thing is required to maintain my existence from one moment to the next.
But let’s not embark on a long dull debate about ontology, in which I would quickly find myself out of my depth. It’s clear to me that we’re not going to find any common ground. I simply don’t understand your view that atheism is absurd and I can find no explanation in your posts or, at least, none of which I can make any sense.
I’m also aware that we’re having a very different discussion to the rest of the contributors and I don’t want to derail this interesting thread or clutter it unnecessarily with sub-topics. So I suggest we take it no further.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Because you’re not infallible!
T
tonyrey
Guest
What is your correction based on?
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Is that because you are an advocate of scientism?
A
antunesaa
Guest
Good point. In the end there is nothing more persuasive, more real, more undisputable than the conscious personal experience. (Some people will tell me that such intuition is an illusion. I don’t believe them.) The tragedy is that you cannot convey it to anyone in an even remotely faithful way. And, at least in my personal experience, consciousness is incredibly powerful when you are young - say, ten or twelve years old. The knowledge of yourself at that age is as pristine and sharp as a crystal mirror. Too bad the mirror becomes blurry as you grow older.
A
antunesaa
Guest
Quite a number of friends you have! Since the average person has between 100 and 200 acquaintances and atheists are a minority, unless yours is a very biased camaraderie you must have certainly more than a thousand friends. Or maybe you’re just exaggerating!
O
openmind77
Guest
She may or may not have hundreds of friends, but I have three close friends who are atheists and they are all quite humble and definitely more fulfilled in their lives than I am. Indian atheists maybe slightly different, because they all perform any religious ceremonies that their parents require of them without complaining too much (but they don’t hide their atheism). The reason they are fulfilled is because material success as well as family and fiends are enough for them (as they are for most people).Quite a number of friends you have! Since the average person has between 100 and 200 acquaintances and atheists are a minority, unless yours is a very biased camaraderie you must have certainly more than a thousand friends. Or maybe you’re just exaggerating!
I don’t think atheism is absurd at all, it is far more rational and logical than theism. My belief is totally based on emotion and some personal experiences (which can easily be explained away by science). But being a believer has not helped me that much, neither material success (such as it is) nor family and friends have been enough to fulfill me. So maybe theism is not that great after all (except in a foxhole - as they say, there are no atheists in foxholes)
B
Bahman
Guest
How this is related?
I
inocente
Guest
I think we’re now talking semantics, since ultimately nothing happens without God.
I
inocente
Guest
I understand that you’re free to believe genetics has nothing to do with it. But it does.We are unique, unrepeatable persons because God, not our parents, gives us an immortal soul.
I assume as a Baptist you understand this.
That truth cannot contradict truth is Logic 101, very obvious.
Intelligent design is one long argument from ignorance, neither good religion nor good science. As you like quotes from scientists, here’s a couple from the Catholic Monsignor Georges Lemaître:
“God cannot be reduced to the role of a scientific hypothesis.”
“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”
N
Nixbits
Guest
Charlemagne III:
No. It is, in my opinion, because of the weakness of the ‘evidence’ (both physical and philosophical) that has been offered.
- Status