Is there such a thing as an atheist?

  • 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.
JesusLives

JesusLives

Senior Member
#1,481
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,172
113
#1,481
Here are a few reasons why I love the Bible.

It tells me where I came from.
It tells me how the earth, animals, bird, fish, humans and the heavens were created.
It tells me how I have a 7 day week along with changing seasons and keeping track of time.
It tells me that the rainbow is a promise from God.
It tells me about who God is and that He is love.
It gives me a set of rules to live by.
It tells me God loved me so much that He sent His Son to save me from the wages of sin which is death.
It tells me God seeks me to save me.
It tells me that Jesus will come again and that sin and death will be done away.
It tells me that He is preparing a home for me.
It tells me that I will live with God forever.
It tells me I must love my enemies and do good to those who mistreat me.
It tells me I must share the good news with my fellow brothers and sisters.

Theses are just a few reasons that the Bible makes sense to me and why I believe that the words written in it are true. Some of the words are parables to teach me how to treat people better, for me not to be selfish and how to learn to love God and that I need a Savior.

[h=1]2 Timothy 3:16[/h]Viewing the King James Version.

[h=2]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:[/h][h=3]2 Peter 1:21[/h]Amplified Bible (AMP)

[SUP]21 [/SUP]For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so—it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.

 
I

IntoTheVoid

Banned
#1,482
Sep 14, 2013
915
5
0
#1,482
Here's what the bible tells me..

Snakes and donkeys can talk.

Light can exist and the day/night cycle can pass without the sun.

There are magic trees

Dead people can come back to life.

People can turn into salt.

Fire breathing sea monsters!

Flaming Swords!

Virgin women can give birth.

Hell is below the surface of the earth.

Angels, demons, devils and giants!

To name but a few...
 
Z

Zinzerio

Banned
#1,483
Mar 21, 2014
1,322
8
0
#1,483
No to to the op its either a Canaanite or an unbelieving christian who does not follow the word according to the word, or it is a confused christian, which you may at this point say i should pray for them ? but what about the poor other guys , ?
we know that God said to Cain you will not be harmed in the wilderness ???

me myself am neither im Kopite one of shanklys boys, under an Arabian sun
 
Timeline

Timeline

Senior Member
#1,484
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38
#1,484
IntoTheVoid said:
Here's what the bible tells me..

Snakes and donkeys can talk.

Light can exist and the day/night cycle can pass without the sun.

There are magic trees

Dead people can come back to life.

People can turn into salt.

Fire breathing sea monsters!

Flaming Swords!

Virgin women can give birth.

Hell is below the surface of the earth.

Angels, demons, devils and giants!

To name but a few...
Click to expand...
And this would be a problem for a God that created everything in 6 days?
 
R

robbomango

Junior Member
#1,485
Feb 11, 2014
29
2
3
#1,485
IntoTheVoid said:
Here's what the bible tells me..

Snakes and donkeys can talk.

Light can exist and the day/night cycle can pass without the sun.

There are magic trees

Dead people can come back to life.

People can turn into salt.

Fire breathing sea monsters!

Flaming Swords!

Virgin women can give birth.

Hell is below the surface of the earth.

Angels, demons, devils and giants!

To name but a few...
Click to expand...

You believe quantum fluctuations produced a beautifully ordered Universe and that mindless chemicals formed every living thing around us, fruits, trees, birds, people etc... Talking animals shouldn't be to much of a stretch for you.
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#1,486
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#1,486
robbomango said:
You believe quantum fluctuations produced a beautifully ordered Universe and that mindless chemicals formed every living thing around us, fruits, trees, birds, people etc... Talking animals shouldn't be to much of a stretch for you.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem.... there is no evidence of talking animals, there is quite a bit to the contrary actually.
So no you are right the basic idea that quantum fluctuations and mindless chemicals could produce talking animals is not a stretch, but there are an infinite possible things that could be produced. That is why when asking what really happened, you must look at evidence.

Many things in the bible are not backed by what the current evidence tells us.
 
mustaphadrink

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
#1,487
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
371
83
#1,487
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#1,488
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#1,488
JesusLives said:
I am pretty certain that Jesus knew He was God's Son.

John 17:1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."
Click to expand...
Possibly but you are looking at it from the view that what is written in gospel of john is absolute truth.
Maybe Jesus did not actually say those words, according to biblical scholars the book of John was most likely written after 100AD

If you could demonstrate that a person Jesus lived and actually said the things ascribed to Him in the bible concerning his deity then there is a valid argument for whether either he is crazy or lying or really the Son of God.

Until then though there is another option, Jesus was none of these things. The words and actions attributed to him in the bible may be embellished stories from oral tradition.
 
mustaphadrink

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
#1,489
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
371
83
#1,489
Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.





 
mustaphadrink

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
#1,490
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
371
83
#1,490
Scientists of the past believed in a Creator

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early



The Age of Newton


  • Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
  • John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
  • William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
  • Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
  • John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
  • John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
  • William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
  • John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
  • Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
  • Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
  • Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
  • Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
  • William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
  • John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
  • John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin


  • The 19[SUP]th[/SUP] Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
  • Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
  • William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
  • Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
  • Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
  • John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
  • Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
  • Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
  • John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
  • Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
  • Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
  • Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
  • David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
  • Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
  • John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin


  • Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
  • Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
  • Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
  • James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
  • Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
  • Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
  • James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
  • James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
  • James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
  • Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
  • Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
  • George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
  • John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
  • Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
  • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
  • Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
  • William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
  • William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
  • Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
  • Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
  • P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
  • John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
  • John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
  • Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
  • Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
  • A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period


  • Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist (1919–2005)
  • George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
  • L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
  • Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
  • Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
  • Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
  • Dr Frank Marsh, Biology (1899–1992)
  • Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
  • Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
  • William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
  • William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
  • Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
  • Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
  • Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
  • Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
  • Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (1928–1998)
  • Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#1,492
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#1,492
mustaphadrink said:
Science and creation....

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Creation Science Today - Scientific evidence for creation

Creation scientists - creation.com

Evolution Science and Creation Theology

Is creationism compatible with science? The evidence says yes.
Click to expand...
what are you trying to prove?

Many scientists believe different things yet are still very good scientists.

Evidence is evidence, facts are facts despite how many smart people agree with a certain position.
 
mustaphadrink

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
#1,493
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
371
83
#1,493
Peer pressure and truth

by Ross S. Olson
Several years ago, Christianity Today published a series of articles entitled, 'How It All Began: Why Can't Evangelical Scientists Agree?'[SUP]1[/SUP] It is a shame that Christians are divided on the issue of origins. Let me suggest a reason why they are.

I was a theistic evolutionist during my college and medical school training. After going through a time when even looking at scientific creationist literature made me feel ill, I began to consider the evidence. What I saw astounded me. I had never been told that there is design in life that cannot be accounted for by chance. After years of further study, I have also been convinced that although there are some problem areas for the young-earth position, the total scientific case for it is much stronger than that for an old earth.

Why do others not think so? There is strong peer pressure, even a herd instinct, in science. 'Progressive creationist' Professor Pattle Pun, Professor of biology at Wheaton College in Illinois, in his section of the Christianity Todayseries, was honest enough to say this: 'I hate to hear the name creationist, because I am a creationist—but I don't want to be treated by my colleagues as a cultic person.' In many cases it amounts to more than just being looked down upon. Dr Jerry Bergman, himself a victim of persecution, documents many instances of withholding degrees, terminating positions and denying tenure to creationists.[SUP]2
[/SUP]
Creationist articles have rarely been accepted for publication in secular refereed journals. Because of this, most creation scientists do not submit them any more. And creationist journals are unavailable in most public and college libraries. An exception is that some of the work of Dr Robert Gentry on polonium haloes was published before its creationist significance became clear to the scientific community. Afterwards, Dr Gentry was treated very shabbily by those 'objective' scientists who control the flow of information.[SUP]3
[/SUP]
Because of all this, it is very unlikely that an outspoken creationist could get through the system intact. Christians often take on 'protective colouration' by accepting scientific orthodoxy but adding a Christian footnote to it. This is no threat to their peers because it fits the prevailing cultural idea that something can be 'true for you, but not for me'.

REPORT SCIENCE LIKE POLITICS

While we may have respect for scientists generally, both believers and unbelievers, it is healthy to recognize the human tendency for covering ulterior motives. If reporters used the same suspicious nature in their reporting of science news that they usually reserve for politicians with whom they disagree, we would have Pulitzer Prizes for an exposé of 'Evolutiongate'. I have had discussions with people who could run intellectual circles around me, and yet I have seen them become infantile when logic led to an uncomfortable conclusion.

This is an important issue. It is at the root of the conflict between our culture and the Gospel. Our age does not believe there is objective reality behind religious pronouncements. Yet the evidence for a young earth and recent creation marks the Bible as credible and universally applicable.

However, many Christians fear that the Gospel will be discredited if it is tied to literal acceptance of Genesis. In fact, it does not need to be 'protected' from science any more than it needed to be protected from history in the time of Swiss theologian Karl Barth, who stated that even if there was no historical Jesus, the Gospel was valid. The Jesus whose existence could not be confirmed soon became equivalent to a Jesus who did not exist, and Barth's theological grandchildren later proclaimed that God was dead.

The Christian faith is not a leap in the dark, but rests on solid evidence and calls for a commitment to the true and living God. This requires distinguishing truth from error. God makes His existence clear and accredits His Word. He then holds people accountable for response to the light they have been given. God's revelation can stand the test of scrutiny.

HARMONIZING EARTH'S AGE

Some say the biblical data allow for an old earth, therefore an old earth should be the preferred position. However, this ignores the problem of the alleged long ages of death and suffering (allegedly represented by the fossil layers) before man. I think it would be safe to say that if it were agreed by secular science that the earth is young, there would be absolutely no problem harmonizing that with the Bible.

Some have expressed concern that there was not enough time in a 24-hour sixth day of creation for Adam to name all the animals. This worry diminishes when one recognizes the nature of Genesis 'kinds'. There was tremendous potential for variability built into the original living creatures that allowed a relatively smaller number of 'kinds' to branch out into the plethora of life we see today. It does not allow macro-evolution (the alleged evolution of one major type of creature into a very different type), because there are limits. Also, Adam's brain at that time had not been subject to the decay that has come over time because of sin, so his thought processes would have been much better than ours.

There are warm-hearted, clear-headed Christians with scientific credentials who will disagree with me on these points. Many of them are far more spiritual than I am.

But how ever much they may have contributed to God's Kingdom, theistic evolutionists and even long-age creationists are wrong on this one major point, as I see it. Their compromise of truth is probably understandable to many, and I cannot say that in similar circumstances I would have done any better. Still, it must be seen for what it is. They have uncritically accepted the intellectual milieu of their peers. In the process, they have been forced to mistrust the Bible. The effects may not be immediately apparent, but the danger lies down the road. And for a significant number, it has already led to the rejection of other vital biblical doctrines.

Romans 1:18-22 says: 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.'

A scientist who is a Christian needs to consider whatever conclusions the evidence seems to justify. However, conclusions depend powerfully upon presuppositions. Beginning with the rock of the Scriptures as the foundation of his thinking, with all their credentials, he may become aware that some of the conclusions of the scientific establishment are questionable.

He should not disregard the evidence. Rather, he must critically examine it and look for those suppressed truths that Paul writes about. This should be done regardless of potential disapproval by the scientific community.
As Paul wrote further in Romans 12:2: 'And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.'

REFERENCES


  1. 'How It All Began: Why Can't Evangelical Scientists Agree?', Christianity Today, August 12, 1988.
  2. Jerry Bergman, The Criterion: Religious Discrimination in America, Onesimus, Richfield (Minnesota), 1984.
  3. Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, 1986.
 
Cycel

Cycel

Banned
#1,494
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
#1,494
AgeofKnowledge said:
While some Christians eventually fall away from the truth into a false worldview, the vast majority of atheists abandoned atheism and most eventually do today as well.
Click to expand...
I don't personally know a single atheist who has returned to religious belief. So while you claim the vast majority of atheists return to the faith, I don't know of a single instance of this happening. I suspect the claim is greatly overstated.

If this reversal were common I should by now have seen evidence of it occurring several times.
 
R

robbomango

Junior Member
#1,495
Feb 11, 2014
29
2
3
#1,495
doseofreality said:
Here is the problem.... there is no evidence of talking animals, there is quite a bit to the contrary actually.
So no you are right the basic idea that quantum fluctuations and mindless chemicals could produce talking animals is not a stretch, but there are an infinite possible things that could be produced. That is why when asking what really happened, you must look at evidence.

Many things in the bible are not backed by what the current evidence tells us.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence for life from non-life, it's an unobserved faith based belief.

We all have the same facts and evidence it's our interpretations that differ.
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#1,496
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#1,496
robbomango said:
There is no evidence for life from non-life, it's an unobserved faith based belief.

We all have the same facts and evidence it's our interpretations that differ.
Click to expand...
Well its a logical assumption, life must come from somewhere.
Either life arose from non-life OR there has always been a form of life.

You are creating a straw-man here, I was not addressing abiogenesis, the issue was talking animals i believe.
 
R

robbomango

Junior Member
#1,497
Feb 11, 2014
29
2
3
#1,497
doseofreality said:
Well its a logical assumption, life must come from somewhere.
Either life arose from non-life OR there has always been a form of life.

You are creating a straw-man here, I was not addressing abiogenesis, the issue was talking animals i believe.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out the nature of beliefs on both sides can come across quite strange and that either side has no evidence to support certain claims.

In regards to talking animals, I don't believe the bible teaches that animals walk around talking, there are a couple of instances where this happens as it pertains top a story or event. To say the bible teaches that snakes and donkeys talk is not true, at least I didn't walk away believing that, lol.
 
notforgotten

notforgotten

Banned
#1,498
Feb 25, 2013
436
0
0
#1,498
​For a person to knowing say there is no God, he would have to be in all places at all times like God Himself.
 
doseofreality

doseofreality

Banned
#1,500
Dec 9, 2013
753
5
0
#1,500
notforgotten said:
​For a person to knowing say there is no God, he would have to be in all places at all times like God Himself.
Click to expand...
What if you could demonstrate that it is impossible to be at all places at all times, then you could conclude the "God" having that attribute can not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.