Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[Spokenpassage]

Then how can you not know that JK rowling was not being influenced by God when she wrote the harry potter series? Or the Mesopotanian writing which pre date the bible by thousands of years which tell stories of many gods, a different creation story. How are these not the writings of God as they were man's earliest recorded texts therefore should be the most accurate? So which is it? The incredible popularity and widespread adoption of the text (Harry Potter) or the ancient documents (mesopotanian textx)?

I do not know much about those writings, but it sounds to me that it no longer exist. Apparently God's Word has endured longer, because it is truth, and truth will endure time unlike those mythological writings.

In the midst of idolatry mentioned in the bible, God never failed to have a remnant of people who still held the truth. God will not let the truth perish with sinful man...

 

[Spokenpassage]

When I said it no longer exist, I meant the religion lol

 

[deepthought]

But it was not god who mantained and spread the word of the bible, but men. Through military conquest and slaughter over centuries. As with Islam now, or many otehr eeligions which have survived over history, it's philosophical Darwinism. If you want to see a real world example of this look how Islam is being spread by the Taliban. Follow or suffer. That was the same ethos of early christians from the Romans to the Puritans. Everything from the Spanish Inquisition, to the crusades to the Salem Witch Trials shows you how the most brutal religion will be the one which survives.

 

[Spokenpassage]

But it was not god who mantained and spread the word of the bible, but men. Through military conquest and slaughter over centuries. As with Islam now, or many otehr eeligions which have survived over history, it's philosophical Darwinism. If you want to see a real world example of this look how Islam is being spread by the Taliban. Follow or suffer. That was the same ethos of early christians from the Romans to the Puritans. Everything from the Spanish Inquisition, to the crusades to the Salem Witch Trials shows you how the most brutal religion will be the one which survives.

Actually the bible says that the gospel was spread through the apostles by teaching men, not slaughtering people. You can read that in Acts, and early church writings.

One of Islam influences is Christianity. This is not surprising that it is ever increasing, for the bible even says that we should not "believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out in the world." (1 John 4:1 NASB). Jesus even said Himself to "beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matt. 7:15 NASB)

Also...why are you using inquisitions and crusades, I am not Catholic neither did I support them in what they did. That's definitely not how the bible and God's word endured. Those were radical groups, even to the point of some of the Popes allowing such cruelty. I wonder if you have ever heard of the Reformation by chance?

 

[Spokenpassage]

By the way deepthought, don't forget the existence of Eastern Orthodoxy. Not all Christians were Roman Catholicism (if they really were Christian).

I just went and threw that out there to remind you if you had forgotten.

 

[Cycel]

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:20)

Genesis 1:20 tells us that God made sea creatures and birds in abundance. I agree.

Sea food continues to be harvested in abundance as it has been for centuries. Many fish remain in the oceans. Birds exist in abundance even in large cities.

Observations anyone could make. There is nothing here that looks inspired. My point, Genesis 1 adds nothing to our understanding. What we find in this chapter is a very ancient cosmology.

 

[deepthought]

By the way deepthought, don't forget the existence of Eastern Orthodoxy. Not all Christians were Roman Catholicism (if they really were Christian).

I just went and threw that out there to remind you if you had forgotten.

Oh I have not forgotten, but you must admit they share a common point of origin, and do we need to look in detail at an organisation that sings from the hymn sheet of Vladimir Putin?

 

[Jda016]

This conclusion is logical in your mind but not in mine or Void's. What questions does God as the architect answer? How did God create life? Biochemistry is working toward an answer. Why are there so many points of similarity in DNA between a mouse and a human? First, you must rely on science to even learn that DNA exists, now you must find an answer that doesn't contradict Genesis.

Jda, you may think crediting God with creating the universe answers the question, but does it, really? What can you tell me now about the creation of the universe now that you've pointed to God as the author? If I believed the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the creator, would I know any less than you about the universe's creation? Could either one of us account for the observed red shift of distant galaxies? Does Genesis account for it? Does scripture explain why Venus is rotating backward? The assumption that God gives you better insight is an illusion. If we want answers we must turn to science.


How did God create the universe? What method did he use?


And God said, "Let there be light..." That doesn't sound like magic to you?

"God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." (Genesis 1:16)

Well, that's not terribly informative, is it. Using this account of the Moon's creation how do you explain the differences in the near and far side? Science tries to account for both differences and similarities. Let me ask you if you think Genesis 1:16 was too in depth for a Bronze Age man to write? Did this sentence have to be inspired by God?

It is not just that I think that everything in Genesis 1 could have been written by a Bronze author, without inspiration, it is more that I think this chapter could only have been written by such a person.

I believe science reveals the deeper facets of how God created all things, but knowing "How" is not important to having a relationship with God. All the first writers would need was, "God created all things." They believed and trusted that.

I have faith, trust, and belief. It is all I need. I realize it is not enough for you and I know I can never convince you otherwise.

and my original point was that it is simply easier to accept that an infinite being created all things rather than that "Nothing" created all things. If you polled the world, I think you would find most people agree with me. =)

Sure there would be questions about an infinite being, but how does nothing create everything?

 

[Spokenpassage]

Oh I have not forgotten, but you must admit they share a common point of origin, and do we need to look in detail at an organisation that sings from the hymn sheet of Vladimir Putin?

I thought we are talking about inquisitions and crusades. You use a certain sect or group of people when labelling a whole people. If you say that, would it be wrong to use Stalin as a example of an atheist who was an atheist? Who killed more people than Hitler ever did.

By the way there is different branches of orthodoxy

 

[deepthought]

I believe science reveals the deeper facets of how God created all things, but knowing "How" is not important to having a relationship with God. All the first writers would need was, "God created all things." They believed and trusted that.

I have faith, trust, and belief. It is all I need. I realize it is not enough for you and I know I can never convince you otherwise.

and my original point was that it is simply easier to accept that an infinite being created all things rather than that "Nothing" created all things. If you polled the world, I think you would find most people agree with me. =)

Sure there would be questions about an infinite being, but how does nothing create everything?

If I may interject at this point. You are quoting 1 part of the big bang theory. It doesn't say there was nothing, it says there was a superhot super dense mass which likely reached a critical mass and exploded in the big bang. Now the movement of te galaxies is not at question due to observable evidence. But whatever theory you want for the start of the universe will be just that, a theory. Where did that mass come from? Well one theory is the cyclic theory that the universe expanded before , then contracted in on itself until it was a super mass again, then it exploded again. Another would argue that our universe in merely the output of a white hole. Another would say that our universe is but 1 being created and destroyed within the multiverse. Then of course there are the various quantum "holographic sphere" theories. So maybe a little more investigation into the various theories.

So the universe may not have started from nothing. Therefore no need for a creator. But let's say there was a divine creator who has created the universe as we know it within the Hubble Sphere (45 billion light years in Diameter, of course there may be more but we will never see it due to the speed of light). God created this entire universe yet we as humans are the chosen, intended residents of this universe. Let's think about that for a moment...

An average North American adult has a mass near 100 kg (actually a bit less, but people like to pretend all North Americans are fat).


The Mass of Earth is almost 6x10^24 kg.


Therefore, it would take
60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 average North Americans to have the same mass as Earth.


There are only 6,600,000,000 humans on Earth (and not all are fat North Americans). So the mass of all humans put together represent a little less than
0.00000000001% of Earth's mass.

So how does the earth compare to the known universe? Well it's a long subject but this website has some great diagrams to show comparisons.

How Big Is Earth Compared to the Universe?

Loosely speaking, there are over 10 trillion known planetary systems in the known universe. The earth is inside 1 of these planetary systems. 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000.

So does it seem logical to you? Imagine the biggest hotel you can think of. Now imagine that only 1 person was allowed to stay in it. That would not even scratch the surface on the scale of the Earth to the known universe. We as a galaxy are not significant to the universe, we as a solar system are not significant to the galaxy, and our planet is not significant to our solar system. There are over 7 billion humans on this planet and growing. Boxing day 2004 there were [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]275,000 persons killed in the Tsunami. How many of them did you mourn for? How much significance did their deaths bear down on your life?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Aye. There's the rub. If the lives of those people were no significant to you, then what makes you think that a whole universe which is exponentially greater in scale, was created for these insignificant primates on this insignificant rock. Does that seem logical to you?[/FONT]

 

[deepthought]

I thought we are talking about inquisitions and crusades. You use a certain sect or group of people when labelling a whole people. If you say that, would it be wrong to use Stalin as a example of an atheist who was an atheist? Who killed more people than Hitler ever did.

By the way there is different branches of orthodoxy

Ah and there in lies the difference. Atheism is not a religion. Just an absence of belief in a deity. It is not an organisation, just a state of mind. The eastern orthodox split from the roman catholic church around 1000 AD. With it becoming irreparable around 1500 AD. Strangely, have noticed a similar system where species that travel far enough away from each other develop over time into entities of their own right. Separate to the other entities but sharing a common ancestor. Same happens with languages and customs. You may know the chap, went by the name of Darwin?

 

[Spokenpassage]

Ah and there in lies the difference. Atheism is not a religion. Just an absence of belief in a deity. It is not an organisation, just a state of mind. The eastern orthodox split from the roman catholic church around 1000 AD. With it becoming irreparable around 1500 AD. Strangely, have noticed a similar system where species that travel far enough away from each other develop over time into entities of their own right. Separate to the other entities but sharing a common ancestor. Same happens with languages and customs. You may know the chap, went by the name of Darwin?

Actually no, orthodoxy has been around before that. The split between what is commonly known as eastern orthodox Christians and the oriental orthodox churches happened during the Chalcedon Council in 451 AD. The divide between orthodoxy and other eastern churches is said to came about between the first and seventh century. Roman Catholicism is western.

Darwin, the man who made up a even more ridiculous religion than the rest of ancient mythology? Yes I have heard of him. Is that your religion, that man is the superior being and that his origins are from primitive relatives to monkeys?

Have you heard of the chap named Charles Spurgeon by chance?

 

[deepthought]

Actually no, orthodoxy has been around before that. The split between what is commonly known as eastern orthodox Christians and the oriental orthodox churches happened during the Chalcedon Council in 451 AD. The divide between orthodoxy and other eastern churches is said to came about between the first and seventh century. Roman Catholicism is western.

Darwin, the man who made up a even more ridiculous religion than the rest of ancient mythology? Yes I have heard of him. Is that your religion, that man is the superior being and that his origins are from primitive relatives to monkeys?

Have you heard of the chap named Charles Spurgeon by chance?

I am aware of Charles Spurgeon. The Prince of Preachers. Protestant Baptist Reformist Preacher in the 1800's. Chances are he knew my Ancestor, Christmas Evans from the previous century. However I don't see the relevance.

I must admin I didn't realise the split started that early. There records of diagreements starting in the council around 700 AC but I could find no records prior to that date.

As for you statements on Darwin. He never made a religion, he proposed a logical way that nature could work based on observations. You may have forgotten this fact but I am an Atheist, one without the need of religion. You are very quick to soil his ideas yet I demonstrated how your religion has followed the same pattern, as has language, is it so difficult to image that the pattern repeats in nature? Incidentally, the theory is that we and current primates share a common ancestor. Looking at physicality, behaviour and even social factors, is it that hard to believe it as a possibility?

 

[Spokenpassage]

I am aware of Charles Spurgeon. The Prince of Preachers. Protestant Baptist Reformist Preacher in the 1800's. Chances are he knew my Ancestor, Christmas Evans from the previous century. However I don't see the relevance.

I don't know where you stand as an atheist, but if you are agnostic I thought I would share a quote from him.

"One walking with me observed, with some emphasis, “I do not believe as you do. I am
an Agnostic.” “Oh,” I said to him. “Yes. That is a Greek word, is it not? The Latin
word, I think, is ignoramus.” He did not like it at all. Yet I only translated his
language from Greek to Latin. These are queer waters to get into, when all your
philosophy brings you is the confession that you know nothing, and the stolidity
which enables you to glory in your ignorance." - Spurgeon

As for you statements on Darwin. He never made a religion, he proposed a logical way that nature could work based on observations. You may have forgotten this fact but I am an Atheist, one without the need of religion. You are very quick to soil his ideas yet I demonstrated how your religion has followed the same pattern, as has language, is it so difficult to image that the pattern repeats in nature? Incidentally, the theory is that we and current primates share a common ancestor. Looking at physicality, behaviour and even social factors, is it that hard to believe it as a possibility?

Technically speaking, they were his opinions, as far as I know there is no evidence for what he taught. His theory remains a theory, nothing more a religion than supresses the truth and downgrade God. Bible says anything that is put above God is idolatry, even self. You contradict in that which you stand. You hold an opinion of a matter, but you were never there to see it. Present observations doesn't always accurately depict the past, it's hypothetical. Then you turn around and try to tear us up because we actually have historical writings of what really happened. Is it hard to see the bible as the very truth that it is?

If anyone is listening to man's opinion, it surely is those who discount the bible as truth, listening to theories of a man.

 

[Spokenpassage]

I feel that the highlighted statement sums up a big problem with the misconceptions when it comes to Darwin. I have spent many years of my life researching religions from impartial and christian sources. Can I recommend you do the same for Darwin's theories before dismissing them as nonsense. The same as other scientific theories. In fact there is massive amounts of physical evidence. After all a judge, would pass opinion before considering all the facts. Should you do the same. We do not think ourselves as gods. Far from it. We are mortal. We are created and our fragile lives can be extinguished in an instant. Yes we create, Yes we destroy. But that is the only parity. It would put me in an awkward position not to believe in myself

There is massive evidence for God as well, why dismiss those? There is no solid evidence that God doesn't exist, but there is that He does. Darwin's theories have been ingrained in the science of most, if not all, of high schools and colleges.

Idolatry is man's religion deepthought. According to idolatry, it doesn't matter if you believe man is mortal or immortal, a deity or not, if your life revolves around yourself and your world, you worship yourself. As an atheist you are your own philosophy, your own moral standard in which you alone approve. Degrading God and elevating man. If you love material things more than God, your religion and deity is material things. The same goes for everything else in life. Someone who puts something or someone above everything else is making it out to be a god, an idol of their heart.

So yes, technically speaking atheism is a religion who lacks the belief in God but elevates man. Buddhism doesn't have a god, but it's an atheistic religion of philosophy, is not yours theoretical science?

I do not mean to bash on you personally deepthought, I speak the truth about what you believe in. Everything outside of God is idolatry. Someone else recommended me to read Darwin's book on the origins of species as well, I think it was Cycel.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

There is massive evidence for God as well, why dismiss those? There is no solid evidence that God doesn't exist, but there is that He does. Darwin's theories have been ingrained in the science of most, if not all, of high schools and colleges.

Idolatry is man's religion deepthought. According to idolatry, it doesn't matter if you believe man is mortal or immortal, a deity or not, if your life revolves around yourself and your world, you worship yourself. As an atheist you are your own philosophy, your own moral standard in which you alone approve. Degrading God and elevating man. If you love material things more than God, your religion and deity is material things. The same goes for everything else in life. Someone who puts something or someone above everything else is making it out to be a god, an idol of their heart.

So yes, technically speaking atheism is a religion who lacks the belief in God but elevates man. Buddhism doesn't have a god, but it's an atheistic religion of philosophy, is not yours theoretical science?

I do not mean to bash on you personally deepthought, I speak the truth about what you believe in. Everything outside of God is idolatry. Someone else recommended me to read Darwin's book on the origins of species as well, I think it was Cycel.

As I've repeated many times...

If you have this 'massive evidence' then we would all like to hear about it. As would every newspaper and every news station... If you have massive evidence then your on the cusp of changing the world and making history.


I'm waiting with baited breath!

 

[deepthought]

I second the motion of my good friend void.

I assure though I do not take it personally. That is the reason I am here is to debate after all .

You say we degrade god to a lower position. We do not do that. We se the existence of such a being as being near infinite improbability in the way that most theist believe. It is impossible to degrade something which does not exist. The world has presented present day physical evidence for the theories of Natural Selection and Genetics. As I have said many times before. The evidence most christians offer are the words of the bible.

So before I accept this as admissible evidence in this case, I would like to introduce to the legal concept of the chain of evidence or chain of custody as it is often known.

chain of custody legal definition of chain of custody. chain of custody synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Would you say that the bible meets the criteria of the chain of custody?

So I ask again, where is the irrefutable evidence of this almighty being. Also, please look at my post talking about the scale of the universe and solar system. Discuss?

 

[Spokenpassage]

As I've repeated many times...

If you have this 'massive evidence' then we would all like to hear about it. As would every newspaper and every news station... If you have massive evidence then your on the cusp of changing the world and making history.


I'm waiting with baited breath!

What does scriptures say?

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 NASB)

What else do we know?

God created the the heavens and earth --> Genesis 1:1
God gave man a conscience --> Romans 2:14-15
Man is corrupt --> Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:5, Etc
Man does not seek to find God --> Romans 3:10-18

The list can go on...

If you reject the basics, how will you believe the supernatural?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

What does scriptures say?

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 NASB)

What else do we know?

God created the the heavens and earth --> Genesis 1:1
God gave man a conscience --> Romans 2:14-15
Man is corrupt --> Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:5, Etc
Man does not seek to find God --> Romans 3:10-18

The list can go on...

If you reject the basics, how will you believe the supernatural?

The bible isn't evidence for a claim.

The bible IS the claim.


Shall we try again?

 

[Spokenpassage]

I second the motion of my good friend void.

I assure though I do not take it personally. That is the reason I am here is to debate after all .

You say we degrade god to a lower position. We do not do that. We se the existence of such a being as being near infinite improbability in the way that most theist believe. It is impossible to degrade something which does not exist. The world has presented present day physical evidence for the theories of Natural Selection and Genetics. As I have said many times before. The evidence most christians offer are the words of the bible.

So before I accept this as admissible evidence in this case, I would like to introduce to the legal concept of the chain of evidence or chain of custody as it is often known.

chain of custody legal definition of chain of custody. chain of custody synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Would you say that the bible meets the criteria of the chain of custody?

So I ask again, where is the irrefutable evidence of this almighty being. Also, please look at my post talking about the scale of the universe and solar system. Discuss?

"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12 NASB)