atheists

[danschance]

All I know is an atheist and Christian are black and white. An atheist by definition is one who claims God does not exist while a Christian says God does exist and his name is Jesus Christ. Their is no such thing as a Christian-atheist, they are polar opposites. So I don't understand why you are attempting to blur the two, if that is what you are attempting.

 

[Miss]

To the atheist,

I know that you know that I know that you know there is One True God, The Creator of heaven and earth, The God of Abraham, and that He sent His only begotten Son here to this earth born to a virgin, gave his life (pure blood) for the propitiation of sin, and rose again, so that whosoever believeth in him would not die but have eternal life. Now you either have or are in the process of rejecting Him, so wouldn't your time or life (after all your only going to get 80 years or so if you are fortunate enough) be better spent in a chat room with like minded people, building wealth here on earth, you truly are wasting your time here, after all this is "your" only life before you turn to dust and are nothing.

sincerely with nothing but Love

 

[Cycel]

I feel like AvalonXQ is back.

Avlon was banned? He always seemed so reasonable. I am almost afraid to ask. What was his offense?

I will very much miss his contributions.

 

[megaman125]

Avlon was banned? He always seemed so reasonable. I am almost afraid to ask. What was his offense?

You shouldn't worry too much. I'm not a mod or in contact with the mod staff, but it seems to me he was banned for claiming to be a Christian and then having pretty much everything he said and did go contrary to that claim. I honestly don't believe he'd be banned if he wasn't claiming to be Christian. Looking around the site, I noticed a couple of other people claiming to be Christians also got banned.

 

[danschance]

Avlon was banned? He always seemed so reasonable. I am almost afraid to ask. What was his offense?

I will very much miss his contributions.

I have no clue what he did or why he was banned. Keep in mind it is a violation of the posted rules to question a moderator's decisions. If there is a person who is an atheist or posts like one, you might PM them and contact info. Many atheists get banned after a few weeks, mostly because they expand into posting the bible is wrong or Christianity is false or something along those lines.

The posted rules apply to everyone here. They are fair and violating them is not wise.

 

[Cycel]

To the atheist,

That would be me.

I am happy to make your acquaintance.

I know that you know that I know that you know there is One True God...

I know that you think you know that I know that there is a God. You are mistaken.

Now you either have or are in the process of rejecting Him

I have been an atheist since age sixteen.

... so wouldn't your time or life... be better spent in a chat room with like minded people, building wealth here on earth...

A friend once told my wife that I am one of those few people who is not motivated by money.

... you truly are wasting your time here, after all this is "your" only life before you turn to dust and are nothing.

If I enjoy the discussion why would you consider it as waste of time. I also go for walks, cycle, play chess, read, do photography and genealogy. Oh, and I Warcraft with a buddy. Are all of these also a waste of time?

sincerely with nothing but Love

Live long and prosper.

 

[Cycel]

I have no clue what he did or why he was banned. Keep in mind it is a violation of the posted rules to question a moderator's decisions. If there is a person who is an atheist or posts like one, you might PM them and contact info. Many atheists get banned after a few weeks, mostly because they expand into posting the bible is wrong or Christianity is false or something along those lines.

The posted rules apply to everyone here. They are fair and violating them is not wise.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Cycel]

You shouldn't worry too much. I'm not a mod or in contact with the mod staff, but it seems to me he was banned for claiming to be a Christian and then having pretty much everything he said and did go contrary to that claim. I honestly don't believe he'd be banned if he wasn't claiming to be Christian. Looking around the site, I noticed a couple of other people claiming to be Christians also got banned.

The only thing I noticed is that he fully accepted evolution, but this is the case for most every Christian I know.

I won't dwell any further on this.

 

[cordiolus]

Im not 'trying' to blur anything. I'm saying what I say because I believe it's worth saying, nothing more, nothing less.

It's very simple to look at a person on the outside and make judgements but it takes much more than just our own perception within a New-York minute to really understand someonefor what they are rather than what we might see initially.

To my eyes, honouring peace and showing love has very little to do with professions and labels. Pharisees before Jesus, from what I understand, had a very high and holy image in society. And yet wasn't it Jesus who said that the undesirables like tax collectors would see God before they would?

Just because an atheist vocally rejects the consensus on God, that does not mean that they do not feel right and wrong nor follow him unwittingly. And after all, common consensus is*hardly proven to be*fact. And many people who I know reject themodern consensus on God are seen as atheists. They dont go to church and they don't say they are christian or even religious but ask them for something and they'll do all they can to help. Ask them what drives their good nature and they'll say 'because I want to help'. To my eyes, that selflessness and humility are real earmarks of a person mirroring Jesus. Some people have the innate sense of right and wrong.

Jesus' God and the Pharisees' God were chalk and cheese. The pharisees professed all day long. They pretended. Exalted themselves. Looked down on others. They had a grand label and a grand outword persona. So elite.

The holy man washed the feet of people who thought they were unworthy. He humbled himself below them. He worked. He helped. He gave. It was Jesus' empathy and love, I believe, that were the traits of most importance to his character.

To put myself into the shoes of a loving father, I imagine that if my son didnt know I existed, did not believe i was real, didnt hear my instructions, yet helped anyone who needed help and empathized with others I would be very proud of him.

I also imagine that if I had a son who talked constantly about how well he knew me and what i wanted, about his love for me and his joy at being my son, wanting to retire and live in my 80,000 acre palace paved with gold, I would expect him to understand that his words mean nothing without the action that his brother is already taking.

After all, the world doesnt get better by him sucking up to me for his inheritance. And his brother is out there doing good deeds for free.

 

[Cycel]

In other words, you can only trust the pro-evolution material, but don't question it.

Did I say questioning was not allowed?

Meanwhile, automatically throw out anything and everything that isn't pro-evolution, because if it's not pro-evolution, then it must be false. Brilliant.

No, what I am saying is something quite different.

You wouldn't recommend that atheists only read books about Christianity written with the express purpose of undermining belief in God? An atheist, who's intent is to destroy belief in God may not say anything that contradicts his view. Similarly anti-evolution material, written with the intent of undermining evolution is not likely to build arguments that favour the theory. Are they? Nor would I recommend that anyone wanting to learn about Judaism read books written by antisemitic individuals. In all three cases, I argue, if you want a true picture it is best to go to the source.

Once we have examined the source material and have a good understanding of it then I think there is nothing wrong with exploring what the opposition has to say.

On a more serious note, anything can be convincing when you only choose to listen to one side and assume it's true and then proceed to reject anything that might oppose or question the side you believe is true.

This is true to a point, but once one has sufficient knowledge then it becomes possible to form independently critical views. Even toward different hypothesises within the theory of evolution.

But here's the kicker. Why would atheists such as yourself, who claim to be intellectually honest, tell us to only listen to one side of the evolution argument? That doesn't seem like intellectual honesty.

It doesn’t make sense because that is not what I am arguing. I am saying you are not likely to get the true measure of a position from only looking at material condemning it.

 

[Cycel]

On a more serious note, anything can be convincing when you only choose to listen to one side and assume it's true and then proceed to reject anything that might oppose or question the side you believe is true.

This, I think, is more true of creationist beliefs than of evolutionary ones. Evolutionary scientists, and laypersons such as myself, openly acknowledge that current hypotheses may be overturned or modified as better or more data comes available. Indeed, as there are currently a number of competing hypotheses within evolution this turn of events is inevitable. You have acknowledged in earlier posts that no amount of information can persuade you to change your mind. You do reject everything that isn't in agreement with your beliefs. This statement you made is far more true of your locked in views than it is of my open ended ones. Yes?

 

[Angela53510]

And strangely you just said you took enough geology to know this was wrong. So you were taught it. You seem to contradict yourself. You knew it because you studied geology, yet you were never taught it??? I don’t understand.

The point, in any case, is that if you knew this reasoning is contrary to the science of geology they why did you say this was "A weird sort of circular logic" when you knew full well that the claim is based on misinformation? I knew it was wrong. You knew it was wrong, but some others here might have been led astray by your comment.



Angela, I don’t believe carbon dating is used for measuring anything older than about 60,000 years. I don't think it is used by geologists for dating geologic formations. And yes, those who do use it are aware of its limitations.



I don’t understand why you see this as an issue, unless you think the earth is only a few thousand years old. Macro evolution requires many millions of years. Genetic variability occurs with every generation and given enough time members of the same species do diverge so that at opposite ends of their range they can come to look quite different. Humans are a good example of this. Creationists should try and explain the divergence that’s occurred among humans since the time of the Flood. They should send their paleontologists and geneticists out to locate the remains of that initial surviving group and track the changes, how quickly they occurred, and gather what other data they can find. I can think of a number of important questions to ask. Yet, no creationist group appears to be funding research of this type. Why not do research that backs the claims in Genesis?

Noah’s family members would have been one racial type. There were only nine of them? Yes? Why then did they not experience a genetic bottle neck like the cheetah? How quickly did today’s diversity arise and how did it arise when all human diversity had been wiped out by the Flood?

Evolution and natural selection must be a lot quicker than even evolutions suspect. The current evolutionary hypothesis holds that our present human diversity arose over a period of about 200,000 years. Creationists claim it happened in something less than 2000 years. Go figure.


I looked into this quickly but I think it’s only two finches that are being discussed. In general I have read a fair bit about the Galapagos finches and beak shapes change frequently based on food availability. This has been known for some time. It’s predicted.


Not.

That is what I was taught in first year biology and geology. That is when I began to wonder! I continued to take courses into my 4th year, but tried to stick with the environmental sciences and leave behind the evolutionary biology and geology courses.

And of course, I live in an area near the Rockies, with lots of sedimentary rocks and I have seen the dinosaur bones in Drumheller. I just don't accept the dates.

I just don't see any scientific evidence for macro-evolution. It continues to be the say so of scientists who try and prove it in a lab, with prior intelligence and power. Seems like an argument for creation, if I ever heard of it!

Still, I know Christians who are theistic evolutionists. They believe God was the mechanism for speciation. I think that is fine for them. But I think there are better explanations that support creation, but don't ask me for them. I have settled it in my mind, and have more important things to do, like helping people who are sick, old and disabled and/or dying. Ministry is so much more important to me than discussing paradigms that can never be correlated.

I did read God Delusion when I was doing an essay on the Problem of Pain a few years ago. It was so insulting and so poorly researched, I realized it really was not the best book to read from an atheist's standpoint. Several Christian scientists critiqued the book, and showed how poorly Dawkins understood even evolution. I didn't buy the book, just got it out of the university library. I wasn't contributing to his pocket, for sure!

 

[Cycel]

And of course, I live in an area near the Rockies, with lots of sedimentary rocks and I have seen the dinosaur bones in Drumheller. I just don't accept the dates.

Angela, are you a Young Earth Creationist? I may have asked this before. Would you put the age of the Earth around 6000 years?

 

[Cycel]

I did read God Delusion... a few years ago. It was so insulting and so poorly researched.... Several Christian scientists critiqued the book, and showed how poorly Dawkins understood even evolution.

Can you provide me with the sources?

 

[Cycel]

And of course, I live in an area near the Rockies, with lots of sedimentary rocks and I have seen the dinosaur bones in Drumheller. I just don't accept the dates.

What dates do you accept?

I just don't see any scientific evidence for macro-evolution.

Which I find astounding; but then you have a belief that requires you not to believe in evolution.

It continues to be the say so of scientists who try and prove it in a lab...

I think you've missed the mark. It's been accepted for 150 years. No scientist out there is trying to prove evolution. What they are doing is testing and developing hypotheses within the framework of evolutionary theory.

Seems like an argument for creation, if I ever heard of it!

Do you mean that it sounds like the kind of argument that creationists use, or that evolutionary arguments actually support creationism?

Still, I know Christians who are theistic evolutionists. They believe God was the mechanism for speciation. I think that is fine for them.

Many forum members insist evolution and Christianity are not compatible. Clearly, however, the two are compatible in the minds of perhaps millions of practising Christians. Back in the day when I was struggling with what to believe, evolution didn't really enter my thinking. It was astronomy that caught my imagination. Genesis and astronomy are like water and oil. The two just do not mix. I chose the only belief that seemed to make any sense. Had I been taught that God had honed the universe as theistic evolutionists believe he manipulated evolution, I might today still believe in God.

But I think there are better explanations that support creation, but don't ask me for them.

Okay, but the true nature of the creation account and the story of Noah's flood are pretty clear in my mind. It is not just that they run counter to most everything in science, they coincidentally line-up nicely with a particular ancient creation myth. Sorry, to use that word. I don't throw it out as an insult to your beliefs, but I have to call it as I see it. I won't pester you to talk about this, but I wanted you to understand what I think your are basing your opposition to evolution upon.

 

[Kerry]

Do the math, evolution does not compute. If we go by evolution there should be 200 billion people or way more on the earth. If we go from Noahs flood starting with 8 people and apply what science says that the population grows by 2.5% per annum knowing that the flood was approx 4,500 years ago. We about 8.6 billion which is close to what we have today. It does not stand mathematically nor does it make any sense to anyone who read mother goose.

 

[Kerry]

Okay, next.

 

[Cycel]

Do the math, evolution does not compute. If we go by evolution there should be 200 billion people or way more on the earth.

Oh dear, Kerry, you've jumped into the deep end of the pool with weights on your ankles and no life preserver.

Did you just make this up or did you read it somewhere? Surely you have heard of bubonic plague, smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, swine flu, strep infections, war, famine, and so on? Have you heard of the Irish potato famine of 1845? An estimate 1,000,000 Irish died. The 1918 flu killed more people than died in the First World War. I think about 20 million were killed in the war and then that number again the year after the war ended. Then a few years later 80 million were killed in the Second World War.

I could go on for a very long time.

If we go from Noahs flood starting with 8 people and apply what science says that the population grows by 2.5% per annum knowing that the flood was approx 4,500 years ago. We about 8.6 billion which is close to what we have today. It does not stand mathematically nor does it make any sense to anyone who read mother goose.

Think of the Black Death. There were plague years in which the total population precipitously dropped. You know this, I am sure, but you just were not thinking about it. Now I will throw something at you that you may not know:

The Great Famine of 1315–1317 (occasionally dated 1315–1322) was the first of a series of large scale crises that struck Europe early in the fourteenth century. Places affected include continental Europe (extending east to Russia and south to Italy) as well as Great Britain. It caused millions of deaths over an extended number of years and marks a clear end to an earlier period of growth and prosperity between the eleventh to thirteenth centuries.

Starting with bad weather in spring 1315, universal crop failures lasted through 1316 until summer harvest in 1317; Europe did not fully recover until 1322. It was a period marked by extreme levels of crime, disease, mass death and even cannibalism and infanticide. It had consequences for the Church, state, European society and future calamities to follow in the fourteenth century.

There were numerous events that caused population declines. The Antonian Plague in the 2nd century Roman Empire killed an estimate 1/3 of the population. I won’t take the time to list any further die-offs. You might be interested in reading Rats, Lice and History or any other number of books that detail these natural disasters.

Demographic history of Europe

The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:

280–400 (Late Antiquity): population decline.
400–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
1250–1350 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a high level.
1350–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline
1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.

We have mechanized farming now and agriculture has been raised to a science. If we returned to the agricultural practices of the Middle Ages with a world population of 6 billion, like we have today, the planet would suffer a major famine. What your figures do not take into account is that population growth must be matched by a stable growth in food production. If there is a failure in any year population will decline. The world will never support a population of 200 billion people.

 

[Cycel]

All I know is an atheist and Christian are black and white. An atheist by definition is one who claims God does not exist while a Christian says God does exist and his name is Jesus Christ. Their is no such thing as a Christian-atheist, they are polar opposites. So I don't understand why you are attempting to blur the two, if that is what you are attempting.

Yet, people do talk about Jewish atheists, yes? It's interesting that for a long time after I became an atheist I still thought of myself as Christian. Strip away a Christian's belief in God, but leave everything else intact and what do you have? You have an individual who still accepts most of the Christian morality. You see, Christian belief is also cultural belief and much of that survives intact and is passed on by atheist parents to their children. Things are not as black and white as you might think.

 

[Kerry]

Yet, people do talk about Jewish atheists, yes? It's interesting that for a long time after I became an atheist I still thought of myself as Christian. Strip away a Christian's belief in God, but leave everything else intact and what do you have? You have an individual who still accepts most of the Christian morality. You see, Christian belief is also cultural belief and much of that survives intact and is passed on by atheist parents to their children. Things are not as black and white as you might think.

Most Jews are atheist but not for long. Why would a person adhere to christian teachings and think its good for their kids when they reject the cross. Because you know in your heart that it is the truth but reject it for yourself so you can do what you want to do. If it is good for your children then it is good for you.

This makes no sense for an atheist. Do what the christians do but don't believe in their God. Yeah right.