-
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
Hi Tintin, thank you for your question.
I have, I was raised Lutheran. I attended Sunday school as well as vacation Bible study in my childhood. I completed the requisite classes to be confirmed in the Lutheran church in my adolescence and participated in several church retreats. I was very active in my teen years and still stay in touch with a lot of old church friends. Of course that's not really exploring the Bible 'for myself', but in more of an institutionalized setting.
In the last couple of years I have set myself the goal of reading the entire Bible. Even if one refuses it as either the historical truth or the word of God, it is an extremely important work. It has influenced centuries of thought and is alluded to in literature, music, drama, philosophy, etc. heavily in Western culture. It is therefore on my must-read list.
I have not fully succeeded in my goal yet. I have read the entire New Testament, all five books of the Torah (since I'm mostly reading in a literary capacity, I figured I would go with the most culturally influential passages as top priorities), as well as bits and pieces of the rest of the Old Testament. Mainly the more oft-studied books - Ecclesiastes, Job, Psalms, Proverbs come to mind. I have every intention of finishing it within the next year or two.
I'm certainly not unlearned in Christianity, my extended family is mostly devoutly Christian, I can still recite the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, Lord's Prayer, as well as all the books of the New Testament in order. I still take part in religious ceremonies such as Christmas and Easter services with family, friends, girlfriends, etc. as well as Passover with my many Jewish friends, although most people who know me well are aware of my lack of faith.
In college, I very nearly majored in religious studies and took several religious studies classes, some of which focused on Christianity. I went to DePaul University, a Roman Catholic institution, so my professors in these classes were clergy members. Much of the culture there is based around the Vincentian tradition. I ultimately majored in Economics but had not lost interest in religion, making a point to take Economics of Religion when I had the opportunity (it wasn't about monetizing religion or anything sinister like that, it was more about what sorts of conditions factor into peoples' selection of religion).
I have, I was raised Lutheran. I attended Sunday school as well as vacation Bible study in my childhood. I completed the requisite classes to be confirmed in the Lutheran church in my adolescence and participated in several church retreats. I was very active in my teen years and still stay in touch with a lot of old church friends. Of course that's not really exploring the Bible 'for myself', but in more of an institutionalized setting.
In the last couple of years I have set myself the goal of reading the entire Bible. Even if one refuses it as either the historical truth or the word of God, it is an extremely important work. It has influenced centuries of thought and is alluded to in literature, music, drama, philosophy, etc. heavily in Western culture. It is therefore on my must-read list.
I have not fully succeeded in my goal yet. I have read the entire New Testament, all five books of the Torah (since I'm mostly reading in a literary capacity, I figured I would go with the most culturally influential passages as top priorities), as well as bits and pieces of the rest of the Old Testament. Mainly the more oft-studied books - Ecclesiastes, Job, Psalms, Proverbs come to mind. I have every intention of finishing it within the next year or two.
I'm certainly not unlearned in Christianity, my extended family is mostly devoutly Christian, I can still recite the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, Lord's Prayer, as well as all the books of the New Testament in order. I still take part in religious ceremonies such as Christmas and Easter services with family, friends, girlfriends, etc. as well as Passover with my many Jewish friends, although most people who know me well are aware of my lack of faith.
In college, I very nearly majored in religious studies and took several religious studies classes, some of which focused on Christianity. I went to DePaul University, a Roman Catholic institution, so my professors in these classes were clergy members. Much of the culture there is based around the Vincentian tradition. I ultimately majored in Economics but had not lost interest in religion, making a point to take Economics of Religion when I had the opportunity (it wasn't about monetizing religion or anything sinister like that, it was more about what sorts of conditions factor into peoples' selection of religion).
D
Q: just curious: why do you think we, as christians, have questions we want ask you, as an atheist? 
When I was even younger than you are now, Matthew, I 'experimented' with atheism too, but didn't really like it. Atheism as a world view is just boring, I think. So: been there, done that, it's just a phase you're going through.
And, ofcourse you can read the bible as literature, but you will only be able to TRULY understand it when you're enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That's only possible if you truly believe in God.
When I was even younger than you are now, Matthew, I 'experimented' with atheism too, but didn't really like it. Atheism as a world view is just boring, I think. So: been there, done that, it's just a phase you're going through.
And, ofcourse you can read the bible as literature, but you will only be able to TRULY understand it when you're enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That's only possible if you truly believe in God.
what makes you think you're qualified to decide whether there is a God or not?
do you think 18 years of life outweighs thousands of years of recorded history in which greater than 98 % of the billions of humans who ever lived have believed in a Theos, and millions of philosophers have debated but found that reason alone cannot one way or the other decide, nor can experience, if God is or isn't?
does the presumptuousness bother you at all, or is it something you've considered? are you comfortable with your unbelief itself being a matter of faith?
i know this sounds like a 'loaded' question, and it is, but it's an honest one. i myself, even without the surety, can't fathom considering my own intellect, nor any mans, being capable of definitively settling the question of existence. though i can readily understand how a man could presume as much about his own thinking, i can't accept that that man's thinking is unquestionably valid.
i just wonder if you've considered this or not, and what your attitude towards it is.
do you think 18 years of life outweighs thousands of years of recorded history in which greater than 98 % of the billions of humans who ever lived have believed in a Theos, and millions of philosophers have debated but found that reason alone cannot one way or the other decide, nor can experience, if God is or isn't?
does the presumptuousness bother you at all, or is it something you've considered? are you comfortable with your unbelief itself being a matter of faith?
i know this sounds like a 'loaded' question, and it is, but it's an honest one. i myself, even without the surety, can't fathom considering my own intellect, nor any mans, being capable of definitively settling the question of existence. though i can readily understand how a man could presume as much about his own thinking, i can't accept that that man's thinking is unquestionably valid.
i just wonder if you've considered this or not, and what your attitude towards it is.
R
Well what is the meaning of Atheism? Atheism is a denial of God that requires faith. Many people are misunderstanding the meaning of atheism.
The most common misunderstanding about atheism involves the definition. Many people insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism.
[h=3]What do Dictionaries Say About the Definition of Atheism?:
[/h]Comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries use "disbelief in God or gods" when defining atheism. When we take a closer look at "disbelieve," we find two senses: an active and a passive. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" - thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This broad definition of atheism is not new: atheists have been using it since at least the mid 18th century and dictionaries have been using it since at least the late 19th century.
[h=3]What's the Difference Between Belief & Disbelief?:
[/h]Is disbelief in an idea the same as believing that the idea isn't true? No: mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition is not equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. I may lack enough information to test your claim. I may simply not care enough to think about it. There are a variety of reasons why I might disbelieve something and the most basic meaning for disbelief is to simply lack belief.
[h=3]What's the Difference Between Atheism & Agnosticism?:
[/h]Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as some assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence and the absence of a belief in some sort of god exhaust all of the possibilities; thus everyone either has or lacks such a belief. There's nothing in the middle. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who does not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
[h=3]What’s the Difference Between Strong Atheism & Weak Atheism?:
[/h]The more common understanding of atheism among atheists, "not believing in any gods," is often called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. The popular misunderstanding of atheism as the denial and explicit rejection of gods is often called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. The division is not absolute: many people may be weak atheists in general, but strong atheists when it comes to specific gods. Few people are weak atheists with all possible gods; not many more are strong atheists with all possible gods. Much more common is a mix of the two, with each being adopted based upon circumstances.
[h=3]Atheism Requires Faith and Atheists Are as Dogmatic as Theists:
[/h]Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This claim often relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and mistaken ideas about the definition of atheism. Disbelief in gods does not require faith and disbelieving in the existence of gods does not make a person dogmatic.
Sorry for the long post. But my question. does all this relates to your atheism?
The most common misunderstanding about atheism involves the definition. Many people insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism.
[h=3]What do Dictionaries Say About the Definition of Atheism?:
[/h]Comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries use "disbelief in God or gods" when defining atheism. When we take a closer look at "disbelieve," we find two senses: an active and a passive. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" - thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This broad definition of atheism is not new: atheists have been using it since at least the mid 18th century and dictionaries have been using it since at least the late 19th century.
[h=3]What's the Difference Between Belief & Disbelief?:
[/h]Is disbelief in an idea the same as believing that the idea isn't true? No: mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition is not equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. I may lack enough information to test your claim. I may simply not care enough to think about it. There are a variety of reasons why I might disbelieve something and the most basic meaning for disbelief is to simply lack belief.
[h=3]What's the Difference Between Atheism & Agnosticism?:
[/h]Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as some assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence and the absence of a belief in some sort of god exhaust all of the possibilities; thus everyone either has or lacks such a belief. There's nothing in the middle. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who does not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
[h=3]What’s the Difference Between Strong Atheism & Weak Atheism?:
[/h]The more common understanding of atheism among atheists, "not believing in any gods," is often called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. The popular misunderstanding of atheism as the denial and explicit rejection of gods is often called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. The division is not absolute: many people may be weak atheists in general, but strong atheists when it comes to specific gods. Few people are weak atheists with all possible gods; not many more are strong atheists with all possible gods. Much more common is a mix of the two, with each being adopted based upon circumstances.
[h=3]Atheism Requires Faith and Atheists Are as Dogmatic as Theists:
[/h]Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This claim often relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and mistaken ideas about the definition of atheism. Disbelief in gods does not require faith and disbelieving in the existence of gods does not make a person dogmatic.
Sorry for the long post. But my question. does all this relates to your atheism?
Almost laughable.........really. I don't see any need to "wonder" about your beliefs, because your choice of SN's pretty much defines them does it not?
Matthew 6:25) Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Now, let us revisit the title of this OP: I'm an Atheist. Ask me anything.
Pretty much explains it all...................have a nice day.
If your answer is yes, here is a list that I have never had answered by any atheist...
Carbon 14 is a element that is in all organic living things... When you die the carbon 14 has a specific half life and is present in all organic matter under 80k years old... If there is no C14 a test would come back inconclusive and not read a result... For if you are doing a test about how many skittles are in a jar and there are none... Your answer would not be 50...
So with that basic understanding of C14 I think you should research August 10, 1990 Asu Allosaurus blind test...
Whenever a known dinosaur bone is found, we automatically assume it is older than 80k years old and negate the C14 test... For mainstream science says that would be a waste of a test... Se we strata test it in the rocks we find... Funny thing is though, any time we blind test (unknowingly test) a dino bone with C14, it comes back under 14k years maximum.... Like the August 10, 1990 ASU test came back with red blood cells, and spongy tissue... all of which to be impossible if evolutionary hypothesis are correct....
So next question is asking, are our modern dating methods correct/accurate? Since we don't use C14 on a C14 positive specimen...
Is strata testing accurate...???
Well in 1980's Mt. St. Helens erupted, and a funny thing occurred... Strata was laid in the matter of hours... Now scientists believe that the strata takes millions and thousands of years to accumulate under the earths environments... So if you find fossil A under 3 layers, it is most likely to be X years old and not under Y years old.... Then they test the rock and date it...
They believe that strata is a chest, locking in every millenniums mysteries and secrets... The thing that died first would be under the thing that died 5 years ago... Which makes sense... But then you get weird fossils such as the picture below... Which in order to stand directly strait up for that amount of strata to accumulate and layer above it... Would take tens of thousands of years...
Then you look back to the 2004 Tsunami of Indonesia, and what occurred was thousands of years of strata in the matter of hours... And the same with the Japanese tsunami, and any tsunami since... What we have found is large amounts of spontaneous water creates more strata then you could believe... And everyone knows about the story of the flood and Noah...
Staying on the topic of strata, the moon has a different kind... Before we ever set foot on the moon, evolutionary atheist's thought there would be at least a few feet of dust on that moon, given X amount of space dust falls on earth with a atmosphere and we have Y amount falling down each year, we can calculate the Z amount the moon should have... Only problem was, we don't know the exact age of the moon... SO there were two hypothesis' the first being there would be feet of dust on that moon, and that was given to the thought the moon was over a billion years old... The second was there should only be a few centimeters... That was given the moon would be under X years, a biblical view...)
Can you tell me how much dust there is?
Next on my topic would be Accombora Mexico... Before Mexico was ever brought into the light of archaeology a few strapping rich young archaeologists went down there to research there culture... What they found was staggering.... The found thousands of archaeological evidence that depicts dinosaurs... That shows men riding the brontosaurus... T-rex's hunting men.... In fact what is funny, is it wasn't like these things were forged... 1st of all, they are in tons of different locations that are proved to be untouched by modern humans... But secondly they are not shown as what the early 1900's archaeologists believed a dinosaur to look like... See we find dinosaur bones and put them back together and give the skeleton structure... But they gave some features that were made out of cartilage... E.g. Nearly every depiction had stegosaurus like triangles on their back...
Another thing which is cool, is we do not have to strata date these artifacts... For I hope you now see strata dating is very uncredible... But we can clay date these artifacts... And all date around a few thousand years old...
I hope after researching this, you do not say that well we just don't have any fossils between 150 million years and today...
So lets do some math... Very simple math any 5th grader could do....
So lets give these dinosaurs a hundred year life span... And lets say only 2 on the earth at 1 time, and they only breed and have offspring their 100'th year... This sounds a reasonably fair thing to say, for if anything... It will help lighten the blow on the numbers I will give you... So take 150,000,000 years into generations of a thing that has a generation of 100 years... This equals 1,500,000 generations which equals 3 million un found fossils... That is a lot of bones... And take in note, this a species who lives 100 years, dies and reproduces on their 100th year... So only 2 of that species are alive at once... Lets hope they do not breed like rabbits...
As you can see finding evidence of only 150,000,000 year old fossils is extremely unlikely...
There are some examples of Acomboro Mexico artifacts... Note the second is a engraved rock...
Carbon 14 is a element that is in all organic living things... When you die the carbon 14 has a specific half life and is present in all organic matter under 80k years old... If there is no C14 a test would come back inconclusive and not read a result... For if you are doing a test about how many skittles are in a jar and there are none... Your answer would not be 50...
So with that basic understanding of C14 I think you should research August 10, 1990 Asu Allosaurus blind test...
Whenever a known dinosaur bone is found, we automatically assume it is older than 80k years old and negate the C14 test... For mainstream science says that would be a waste of a test... Se we strata test it in the rocks we find... Funny thing is though, any time we blind test (unknowingly test) a dino bone with C14, it comes back under 14k years maximum.... Like the August 10, 1990 ASU test came back with red blood cells, and spongy tissue... all of which to be impossible if evolutionary hypothesis are correct....
So next question is asking, are our modern dating methods correct/accurate? Since we don't use C14 on a C14 positive specimen...
Is strata testing accurate...???
Well in 1980's Mt. St. Helens erupted, and a funny thing occurred... Strata was laid in the matter of hours... Now scientists believe that the strata takes millions and thousands of years to accumulate under the earths environments... So if you find fossil A under 3 layers, it is most likely to be X years old and not under Y years old.... Then they test the rock and date it...
They believe that strata is a chest, locking in every millenniums mysteries and secrets... The thing that died first would be under the thing that died 5 years ago... Which makes sense... But then you get weird fossils such as the picture below... Which in order to stand directly strait up for that amount of strata to accumulate and layer above it... Would take tens of thousands of years...
Then you look back to the 2004 Tsunami of Indonesia, and what occurred was thousands of years of strata in the matter of hours... And the same with the Japanese tsunami, and any tsunami since... What we have found is large amounts of spontaneous water creates more strata then you could believe... And everyone knows about the story of the flood and Noah...
Staying on the topic of strata, the moon has a different kind... Before we ever set foot on the moon, evolutionary atheist's thought there would be at least a few feet of dust on that moon, given X amount of space dust falls on earth with a atmosphere and we have Y amount falling down each year, we can calculate the Z amount the moon should have... Only problem was, we don't know the exact age of the moon... SO there were two hypothesis' the first being there would be feet of dust on that moon, and that was given to the thought the moon was over a billion years old... The second was there should only be a few centimeters... That was given the moon would be under X years, a biblical view...)
Can you tell me how much dust there is?
Next on my topic would be Accombora Mexico... Before Mexico was ever brought into the light of archaeology a few strapping rich young archaeologists went down there to research there culture... What they found was staggering.... The found thousands of archaeological evidence that depicts dinosaurs... That shows men riding the brontosaurus... T-rex's hunting men.... In fact what is funny, is it wasn't like these things were forged... 1st of all, they are in tons of different locations that are proved to be untouched by modern humans... But secondly they are not shown as what the early 1900's archaeologists believed a dinosaur to look like... See we find dinosaur bones and put them back together and give the skeleton structure... But they gave some features that were made out of cartilage... E.g. Nearly every depiction had stegosaurus like triangles on their back...
Another thing which is cool, is we do not have to strata date these artifacts... For I hope you now see strata dating is very uncredible... But we can clay date these artifacts... And all date around a few thousand years old...
I hope after researching this, you do not say that well we just don't have any fossils between 150 million years and today...
So lets do some math... Very simple math any 5th grader could do....
So lets give these dinosaurs a hundred year life span... And lets say only 2 on the earth at 1 time, and they only breed and have offspring their 100'th year... This sounds a reasonably fair thing to say, for if anything... It will help lighten the blow on the numbers I will give you... So take 150,000,000 years into generations of a thing that has a generation of 100 years... This equals 1,500,000 generations which equals 3 million un found fossils... That is a lot of bones... And take in note, this a species who lives 100 years, dies and reproduces on their 100th year... So only 2 of that species are alive at once... Lets hope they do not breed like rabbits...
As you can see finding evidence of only 150,000,000 year old fossils is extremely unlikely...
There are some examples of Acomboro Mexico artifacts... Note the second is a engraved rock...