Atheist mega-"churches"
- Thread starter JesusChica1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
You have no proof of that. I could come up with a convoluted fantasy story where a building can form naturally, but that doesn't make it true. However, since I never met the builder of my house, why then would it be improper for me to come up with such a story, when there's no evidence of a builder other than the building?
There are hospitals in Russia, China, Albania, and Japan. I'm assuming at least one of those
hospitals was constructed by an atheist. Hospitals wouldn't really be much help without the
medicine and medical procedures that were invented by those Godless heathen scientists!
Star formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's some other proof you can look up:
Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[video=youtube;_mcC8kFacrk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mcC8kFacrk[/video]
As for humans:
Let me google that for you
The key here is OBSERVATION.
Astronomers Observe a Possible Planet-Forming Disk around the Young Star RY Tau | SciTech Daily
Planet Formation Observed Around Massive Stars
Astronomers Observe the Birth of a Massive Star in the Milky Way | SciTech Daily
Fertilization (Conception) - YouTube
I can point you to many instances of a house being built from start to completion - every step
of the way. Can you point me to one demonstration of a biological organism being created by
a supernatural entity?
It's ironic that you say I "have no proof of that" when in reality it's your position that has
no proof. Your position relies solely on a faith based belief.
Essentially what you're positing is a "god of the gaps" fallacy.
God of the gaps - RationalWiki
You can keep pressing your "argument from design" until you're blue in the face.
You'll still be stuck there holding an empty sack.
M
Typical atheist nonsense. I don't feel like doing this for the thousandth time. It's nothing more than "the atheist is always right becuase they're right and the Christian is always wrong because they're wrong and the scientist said so." If you want to buy into the whole nonsense of naturalism where the universe and life just magically poofed itself into existence over "billions of years," then go ahead. You know the truth and you know your outcome. You're the one that has to live your life. If you want to stick your head in the sand and cling to your "millions of years of the gaps" fallacy, then I don't need to bother.
AS i posted in the news section, Breaking News, national organisation decided to hold meetings on a Sunday.
Athiest movement is coming across like an attention seeking teenager who is always right regardless. Also just like teenagers this movement is doing all it can to provoke and cause confrontation.
If atheists want to meet on a Sunday and effectively do church but without God or calling it church, then just let them get on with it.
Athiest movement is coming across like an attention seeking teenager who is always right regardless. Also just like teenagers this movement is doing all it can to provoke and cause confrontation.
If atheists want to meet on a Sunday and effectively do church but without God or calling it church, then just let them get on with it.
Yeah the more I think about it the more it doesn't sit right with me. We often ask why are we labelled with the term 'atheist' when you wouldn't label someone who didn't believe in elves or dragons etc.
But personally i think if a group of people who didn't believe in elves got together once a week id think it was quite odd lol
But personally i think if a group of people who didn't believe in elves got together once a week id think it was quite odd lol
Last edited:
That's because you're not using logic.
Buildings are man made objects. Humans, planets, and stars are not. Surely,
you agree with that.
You're guilty of making a false analogy. Buildings are assembled by humans,
while every living thing that has ever been observed was NOT assembled by
anyone. Living things are the product of blind chemistry. If you want to argue
that sometime ago, some organisms were poofed into existence by God instead
of being the product of biological development we see now, you need evidence.
Pointing to designed objects that are not analogous to living things in any way
is fallacious.
I've already asked once, but I'll ask again. Where can I observe evidence of
a biological organism being created by a supernatural entity?
Buildings are man made objects. Humans, planets, and stars are not. Surely,
you agree with that.
You're guilty of making a false analogy. Buildings are assembled by humans,
while every living thing that has ever been observed was NOT assembled by
anyone. Living things are the product of blind chemistry. If you want to argue
that sometime ago, some organisms were poofed into existence by God instead
of being the product of biological development we see now, you need evidence.
Pointing to designed objects that are not analogous to living things in any way
is fallacious.
I've already asked once, but I'll ask again. Where can I observe evidence of
a biological organism being created by a supernatural entity?
Christians believe biological organisms were indeed poofed into existence by God.
However, atheists believe they were poofed into existence by NOTHING.
When you get right down to things like first cause, and the actual first origins of life... the atheist has nothing.
The atheist has a lot of argumentation... argumentation which defies all laws of logic, and defies all laws of physics, and NONE of it with any proof.
In short, the atheist has nothing.
However, atheists believe they were poofed into existence by NOTHING.
When you get right down to things like first cause, and the actual first origins of life... the atheist has nothing.
The atheist has a lot of argumentation... argumentation which defies all laws of logic, and defies all laws of physics, and NONE of it with any proof.
In short, the atheist has nothing.
Last edited:
Here's the difference: very few people in the world actually believe in elves, and the elf believers are not attempting to promote their beliefs about elves in secular schools in place of, or along side that of science. I read the article and what the promoters appear to be hoping for is that they might provide some of the social cohesion that does arise from church fellowship. I'm not sure that they will be successful for longer than the short haul; but perhaps it is worth trying out -- at least once a year. 
How do you know what ALL atheists believe? The only thing all atheists have in
common is that they don't believe in a god. Everything else after that depends
on the person.
This is all copy paste but it's content and links are very good.
The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
Note 2: Cosmogony is the scientific study of the origins of the universe.
See also: Carl Sagan on the topic (a must watch), Hitchens, Hawking – Did God Create the Universe? (a must watch), BBC Horizon – What happened before the big bang?, BBC Nothing (a must watch) and ‘A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss (a must watch).
common is that they don't believe in a god. Everything else after that depends
on the person.
This is all copy paste but it's content and links are very good.
The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
Note 2: Cosmogony is the scientific study of the origins of the universe.
See also: Carl Sagan on the topic (a must watch), Hitchens, Hawking – Did God Create the Universe? (a must watch), BBC Horizon – What happened before the big bang?, BBC Nothing (a must watch) and ‘A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss (a must watch).
No, you have that wrong. Many Christians also accept the Big Bang theory. If it's correct, then the universe, not life, came suddenly into existence. You have to get your facts straight. Biological organisms are thought to have arisen millions of years after the earth itself formed.
Again you are wrong. First, its not just the atheists saying this, millions of Christians accept it as well. You have to get over the idea that only atheists accept the science, multitudes of your fellow Christians do as well. You may think they believe wrongly, but they do believe.
Secondly the scientific minded (atheists and theistic evolutionists alike) have a lot of evidence, hypotheses, and theories, on their side. It is the Christian literalist who has nothing to offer except faith. You reject the science simply because it doesn't support what you believe.
My goodness, Maxwell! It’s the physicists who developed the theory in the first place. Are you saying the physicists are contradicting the laws of physics? I think, as my mother would say, 'You are talking through your hat!'
Max, I am not convinced you are familiar with the material you are attempting to discus. You've made a number of erroneous claims. Your facts are not straight.
Again you are wrong. First, its not just the atheists saying this, millions of Christians accept it as well. You have to get over the idea that only atheists accept the science, multitudes of your fellow Christians do as well. You may think they believe wrongly, but they do believe.
Secondly the scientific minded (atheists and theistic evolutionists alike) have a lot of evidence, hypotheses, and theories, on their side. It is the Christian literalist who has nothing to offer except faith. You reject the science simply because it doesn't support what you believe.
My goodness, Maxwell! It’s the physicists who developed the theory in the first place. Are you saying the physicists are contradicting the laws of physics? I think, as my mother would say, 'You are talking through your hat!'
Max, I am not convinced you are familiar with the material you are attempting to discus. You've made a number of erroneous claims. Your facts are not straight.