Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[Jda016]

No I can't see how there is more evidence for god than any other myth. There's a lot of hearsay and confirmation bias. But no evidence.

A lot of Christians here have said only believers can see the evidence. But that's a catch 22 isn't it? Its like saying there's a cure for blindness but for it to work you need to be able to see first.

You may not want to read it, which is fine, but this article shows that the Bible predictated Israel becoming a nation again in 1948.

The Bible’s Most Amazing Prophecies :: Yeshua scroll down to the "Restoration of Israel."

The proof of fulfilled prophecy is there (just one of hundreds I might add that are in the Bible) , but say you don't read it, but lets assume the Bible did predict 1948.

the athiest would have to believe it is simply a colossal coincidence, right?

 

[Jda016]

I will prolly have to go soon for the night, but thank you for the conversation today, IntotheVoid. =)

 

[Jda016]

Its like saying there's a cure for blindness but for it to work you need to be able to see first.

Very good analogy! I actually think that is quite correct. The problem with the blindness though is that the athiest won't take his hand off his own eyes in order to see. =)

 

[kingerik]

Every man knows there is a God. Deep down in his core, he was made to be in a relationship with God...However, with the introduction of sin, we have taken that impulse and have made other Gods, have made people and things our God, but the evidence of God is available by just going outside. His signature is everywhere on this earth and universe.

God will willingly reveal himself to any person who has a relationship with him, but you have to have one. Let's be honest you wouldn't go to a stranger and start telling them all of your secrets...no! It requires a relationship!


We all have a desire for God, that's why in the worst trouble in our life, we pray...Why are you praying to a God you don't believe in?

If we take out God, we are left with so many more questions...As to why do we have a moral Conscience, how do we know what is right and what is wrong, why are we the only species capable of conceiving a God and not any animal, where did we get our emotions and feelings from, why are we on earth, what is the point of life if there is no God, and how come if there is no God, we, ourselves, cannot create another human being or in other words( replicate a soul).

People will always try to fill the void that God is suppose to fill, but will never find it apart from God...it's impossible. This world is too complex to have no creator.

It is true, only a fool believes there is no God.

 

[mustaphadrink]

an athiest claims that God doesn't exist based on a lack of proof, but can they honestly say, "I am 100% certain there is no God." Again, Dawkings isn't even willing to say this.f?/QUOTE]

Most of the time atheists shoot themselves in the foot. They claim that God does not exist (an absolute) and they claim there are no such thing as absolutes.

Then they make some pronouncement about some esoteric evolutionary hog wash and when challenged, they are adamant they are right (another absolute).

Then another atheists rears his head with two horns and says that not all atheists believe the same so what Atheist one says isn't necessarily what all other atheists believe.

So they are absolutely sure about what they believe even though there are no absolutes and then one atheist contradicts another and says that is not what I believe which means that what has been said is irrelevant, which in turn makes the second comment irrelevant because no one atheist speaks for another.

After reading so much mumbo jumbo from atheists, I am convinced that they make things up as they go along because no absolutes means anything goes if you can make it stick or shout the loudest because atheists believe that something is true if they say it is true. Evidence, logic and reason are three things that atheists have in very short supply as they expect us to accept everything they say with large caches of faith, just as they believe what they believe and without faith it is impossible to be an atheist.

 

[mustaphadrink]

It's outrageous and absurd in my eyes, and that alone is enough for me to know it's not true.

It is outrageous and absurd to believe that Obama exists. Why. Because I think it is outrageous and absurd.

It is outrageous and absurd to believe that Elvis ever existed. Why? Because I think it is outrageous and absurd.

It is outrageous and absurd to believe that Hitler ever existed. Why? Because I think it is outrageous and absurd.

It is outrageous and absurd to think that anyone with any common sense can base their evidence on the fact that they think it is outrageous and absurd.

That my dear reader is so devoid of logic, common sense and intelligence that it is outrageous and absurd in the extreme.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Mustapha. I have very little time for your stupid comments.Your talking absolute nonsense. All of the examples you mentioned can be verified that they exist.

 

[Cycel]

A lot of Christians here have said only believers can see the evidence. But that's a catch 22 isn't it? Its like saying there's a cure for blindness but for it to work you need to be able to see first.

Very good analogy! I actually think that is quite correct. The problem with the blindness though is that the athiest won't take his hand off his own eyes in order to see. =)

I have been told that God will not show himself to me until I believe in his existence, but there is a real problem with this argument, wouldn’t you agree? Atheists do not really have their hands over their eyes – I am typing this after-all. And besides, in the Gospel of Luke Jesus tells his listeners that God cares more for one of his lost flock than he does for all the others and will always, like the good shepherd, go in search of that missing member, not stopping until he is found and returned. Your argument, for I think you are one of those who proposed it, asserts God (the shepherd) would not show himself to the lost sheep unless that sheep first recognizes his proper place. This is ludicrous. The point of the analogy that Jesus makes is that the shepherd doesn't care what the sheep thinks, God wants him back in the flock. The good shepherd does not let the sheep fall to the wolf just because the sheep is being stubborn. Sheep, you recognize, are not known for being terribly smart.

I think Christians will often propose this argument from blindness as a way to get around the insurmountable problem that atheists seem unable to see God.

The Argument from Blindness goes something like this:

1st Believer: ‘What? The atheist can’t see God. Then God must be concealing himself from nonbelievers. Why would God do that? After-all we can see the Almighty clearly.’

2nd Believer: ‘Perhaps God doesn’t show Himself because the atheist stubbornly refuses to believe in Him.’

1st Believer: ‘That makes sense. Let’s call this the Argument from Blindness – because atheists are metaphorically blind God will not let himself be seen until the atheist believes as we do.’

2nd Believer: ‘There, mystery solved.’

But is the mystery solved? The true shepherd wants his missing sheep back. He doesn’t care that the sheep might be blind. Atheists, however, are not actually sheep, nor are they blind, stupid, nor simply lost. The atheist rejects God because the atheist can’t see God. So to pursue the same analogy Jesus uses, all God must do is brandish a flaming torch over his head (ie. show himself) so the atheist can find his way back; but the Argument from Blindness argues that in the presence of the atheist God extinguishes the torch. If God actually behaved that way, I propose, he is not the kind of shepherd envisioned by Jesus. In fact, he must not be a shepherd at all.

 

[Cycel]

It is outrageous and absurd to believe that Obama exists. Why. Because I think it is outrageous and absurd.

It is outrageous and absurd to believe that Elvis ever existed. Why? Because I think it is outrageous and absurd.

It is outrageous and absurd to believe that Hitler ever existed. Why? Because I think it is outrageous and absurd.

It is outrageous and absurd to think that anyone with any common sense can base their evidence on the fact that they think it is outrageous and absurd.

That my dear reader is so devoid of logic, common sense and intelligence that it is outrageous and absurd in the extreme.

Frankly, Mustaphadrink, I've seen Obama give speeches on television, Presley sing songs on television, and Hitler rant on old news reels – on television – but I've never seen God on television. While there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images and sound bites of these three men there are none of God. You know this. I shouldn't be required to point out the obvious. No one questions whether there is physical evidence of Obama, Presley, or Hitler. You know that. God, though, is a different matter. While many believe in God, no one possess physical evidence that they can provide to skeptics. You can point to scripture written by people who believed in God. You can show me words written by these people that they claim God gave to them, but you can't actually provide anything that looks like hard evidence. This doesn't mean God does not exist, but it does mean you can't provide the kind of evidence that exists for Obama, Presley, and Hitler. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point this out.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I'd also like to point out Mustapha that yes, atheists have many differing opinions and ideals.

Unlike christians who all abide by the exact same bible and share the same... Oh wait.. You don't do you. Hence all the different denominations and many different versions and revisions of the bible.

look no further than this very forum to illustrate how differently you all think.

 

[phil112]

Frankly, Mustaphadrink, I've seen Obama give speeches on television, Presley sing songs on television, and Hitler rant on old news reels – on television – but I've never seen God on television. While there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images and sound bites of these three men there are none of God. You know this. I shouldn't be required to point out the obvious. No one questions whether there is physical evidence of Obama, Presley, or Hitler. You know that. God, though, is a different matter......................

Okey dokey, how about this? You believe Phil Washburn exists but you haven't seen images or sound bites of him. All you have to prove his existence are his writings. You have to take some elses word for him being a reality, don't you? You have to trust your internet provider, the server it is using, and hundreds of people that have the ability to present me as an illusion or fabrication. That argument didn't work out for you did it?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I refer you my earlier posts about Mr Smith from Zimbabwe.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

What you also have to consider is how extraordinary the claim is.

If I said I had a dog in my garage you'd probably believe me... And probably wouldn't request evidence because you know dogs exist and people usually keep them as pets.

However if I said I had a fire breathing dragon in my garage then I'm sure that's something you'd want evidence for because it's a much more extraordinary claim.

So Phil Washburn existing is much more believable than a magical all powerful god.

See the difference? It's all about how ordinary or extraordinary the claim is.

 

[Jda016]

I have been told that God will not show himself to me until I believe in his existence, but there is a real problem with this argument, wouldn’t you agree? Atheists do not really have their hands over their eyes – I am typing this after-all. And besides, in the Gospel of Luke Jesus tells his listeners that God cares more for one of his lost flock than he does for all the others and will always, like the good shepherd, go in search of that missing member, not stopping until he is found and returned. Your argument, for I think you are one of those who proposed it, asserts God (the shepherd) would not show himself to the lost sheep unless that sheep first recognizes his proper place. This is ludicrous. The point of the analogy that Jesus makes is that the shepherd doesn't care what the sheep thinks, God wants him back in the flock. The good shepherd does not let the sheep fall to the wolf just because the sheep is being stubborn. Sheep, you recognize, are not known for being terribly smart.

I think Christians will often propose this argument from blindness as a way to get around the insurmountable problem that atheists seem unable to see God.

The Argument from Blindness goes something like this:

1st Believer: ‘What? The atheist can’t see God. Then God must be concealing himself from nonbelievers. Why would God do that? After-all we can see the Almighty clearly.’

2nd Believer: ‘Perhaps God doesn’t show Himself because the atheist stubbornly refuses to believe in Him.’

1st Believer: ‘That makes sense. Let’s call this the Argument from Blindness – because atheists are metaphorically blind God will not let himself be seen until the atheist believes as we do.’

2nd Believer: ‘There, mystery solved.’

But is the mystery solved? The true shepherd wants his missing sheep back. He doesn’t care that the sheep might be blind. Atheists, however, are not actually sheep, nor are they blind, stupid, nor simply lost. The atheist rejects God because the atheist can’t see God. So to pursue the same analogy Jesus uses, all God must do is brandish a flaming torch over his head (ie. show himself) so the atheist can find his way back; but the Argument from Blindness argues that in the presence of the atheist God extinguishes the torch. If God actually behaved that way, I propose, he is not the kind of shepherd envisioned by Jesus. In fact, he must not be a shepherd at all.

my point with the blindness analogy is that most athiests seem to deny that there is ANY evidence for God. They ignore millions of eyewitness testimonies of people getting saved, archaeological evidence for events in the Bible, tens of thousands of testimonies of people being healed, delivered, and set free, (not mention numerous reports of doctors seeing an illness completely die after someone prayed for the person) Biblical prophecy fulfilled which I have posted twice in this thread of a date that was predicted for the return of Israel that CAN NOT be explained outside of a massive coincidence, or God doing it.

I'm sorry, but I can not help but feel some athiests CHOOSE to be blind. I am not trying to remain ignorant of the claims of evolution. I looked into the largyneal nerve of the giraffe, but I reject the idea that just because it is longer than it needs to be that that is PROOF of the lack of intelligent design.

i mean even if you guys reject all gods, can you really say that with absolute certainty that NOTHING supernatural has ever occurred or will ever occur?

Even science is thrown on its head so many times that it is hard to count. I remember 6 or 7 years ago, the Hubble telescope proved that the universe was expanding, but instead of slowing down it was speeding up. Now pretty much every scientist/astronomer thought the universe was slowing down and would eventually create another Big Bang. A famous astronomer was shocked and he was even quoted as saying (before the proof of the Hubble telescope) that he would have emphatically told anyone that the universe was, in fact, slowing down. He was blown away by the new evidence.

So if extremely popular science can be completely overturned, it only seems to make sense that Scientists or athiests would at least hold out for the POSSIBILITY of the supernatural/intelligent design/God.

the fact that they won't even CONSIDER it is an outrageous claim, to me.

 

[Jda016]

Cycel, you said

"But is the mystery solved? The true shepherd wants his missing sheep back. He doesn’t care that the sheep might be blind. Atheists, however, are not actually sheep, nor are they blind, stupid, nor simply lost. The atheist rejects God because the atheist can’t see God. So to pursue the same analogy Jesus uses, all God must do is brandish a flaming torch over his head (ie. show himself) so the atheist can find his way back; but the Argument from Blindness argues that in the presence of the atheist God extinguishes the torch. If God actually behaved that way, I propose, he is not the kind of shepherd envisioned by Jesus. In fact, he must not be a shepherd at all."

I thought you previously said you were a Christian and came out from believing it. If that is the case, then the lost sheep analogy is apt, is it not? Or was your conversion or experience with God completely false in the first place? Only you can answer that.

 

[Cycel]

I don't really like being labelled and "pigeon-holed". I have already made reference to a modified big-bang theory that begins from a plane rather than a point so that positively and negatively charged particles are kept away from each other as observed in the highly-ionized, plasma, electrically imbalanced, magnetically-influenced universe. The magnetic fields may reverse frequently so that electrically-imbalanced ions can be drawn in close and then expelled when the magnetic field reverses. That sounds like some form of OEC but not a typical position of anyone.

I don't understand the implications of what you are describing, but I will take your word that you lean to a version of Old Earth Creationism.

I also have high-sympathies for the position that says when the Bible in Genesis says "six days" that it is best understood to mean six days.

I view the Genesis text as originating in the Bronze Age and so don't think it has anything accurate to say in terms of our modern understanding of cosmology, but I agree with you that its author understood the Creation to have taken six literal days.

I acknowledge that the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion year old. Much of the talk from conventional science on age and distances assumes a constant speed of light. Yet, those same scientists also postulate black holes where the speed of light has been reduced to zero. My thinking is that if the speed of light can be slowed down, then it could also made to go faster.

Einstein predicted in 1915 that a large gravity mass such as the Sun would bend space and time in such a way that light would appear to bend. This was physically demonstrated in 1919 during a total eclipse of the Sun and has proved consistently true since that time. I may be wrong, but I don't think a black hole changes that. The event horizon around a black hole is that point at which space curves in on itself. The light that enters is still travelling at the speed of light, but it cannot escape the gravity well and so does not exit.

Constant, radioactive decay rates and assumed absence of decay isotopes in earlier geologic ages are other assumptions that change the game if found to be untrue. So, a universe and fossil record that appears to be old could actually be much younger if the assumptions change.

There is one particular line of reasoning that would indicate the dinosaurs are much older than all human fossil remains. No dinosaur remain has ever given up a DNA record. We have the complete genome for Neanderthals and other ancient animals and people, but not for dinosaurs. I submit, that this is because their remains are so ancient no trace of their DNA has survived. This alone is all the proof necessary to show that dinosaurs and people never coexisted.

The assumptions are big assumptions. Honestly, they could easily change. Hebrews 11:3 tells us God made things and did not leave behind the evidence of how He did it. It's another huge assumption and rejection of Hebrews 11:3 to think that all of the clues regarding the origins of heaven and earth are there for researchers to detect and decipher.

Don’t you wish the author of Hebrews would have written about those things that we can never know so that we in the present could determine if he was speaking of his own limitations and the limitations of his society, or if he was actually in direct contact with God about certain issues concerning science? I don’t know about Hebrews, but in the Book of Job its author speaks of things Job couldn’t possibly answer, and yet we today see no mystery. In fact we can see that the author of Job understood so little science that he didn’t even know how to ask the questions properly. We can see from the types of questions and the way they are phrased that it is not God hurling question at Job, but the author of the book firing them off in God’s name.

That's a hypothetical question. It hasn't happened.

Your response is informative enough. You do not think biochemists will ever solve how to form life from non-life, or you do not want to face the prospects of it happening.

I think it may happen in the life time of my children, or maybe even in the next 20 years. The latter date is the guess of one researcher in the field. In any case I believe the development is inevitable

 

[Cycel]

But is the mystery solved? The true shepherd wants his missing sheep back. He doesn’t care that the sheep might be blind. Atheists, however, are not actually sheep, nor are they blind, stupid, nor simply lost. The atheist rejects God because the atheist can’t see God. So to pursue the same analogy Jesus uses, all God must do is brandish a flaming torch over his head (ie. show himself) so the atheist can find his way back; but the Argument from Blindness argues that in the presence of the atheist God extinguishes the torch. If God actually behaved that way, I propose, he is not the kind of shepherd envisioned by Jesus. In fact, he must not be a shepherd at all."

I thought you previously said you were a Christian and came out from believing it.

Awkwardly stated, but I think you are asking if I am a former Christian who has become an atheist? The answer is, 'Yes.'

If that is the case, then the lost sheep analogy is apt, is it not? Or was your conversion or experience with God completely false in the first place? Only you can answer that.

Oh, are you thinking that I am a former atheist who has become a Christian? Your question is not clear. I am an atheist.

 

[Cycel]

... Even science is thrown on its head so many times that it is hard to count. I remember 6 or 7 years ago, the Hubble telescope proved that the universe was expanding, but instead of slowing down it was speeding up. Now pretty much every scientist/astronomer thought the universe was slowing down and would eventually create another Big Bang. A famous astronomer was shocked and he was even quoted as saying (before the proof of the Hubble telescope) that he would have emphatically told anyone that the universe was, in fact, slowing down. He was blown away by the new evidence.

Jda, I don't know where your information came from but it is completely garbled. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted in 1916 that the universe was expanding. Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer who the telescope by the same name is named after, proved in 1929 that the universe is expanding. The steady state theory was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, and colleagues, to explain the expanding universe. The following a year a new theory was introduced and during a radio debate Hoyle derisively call the it the Big Bang. The name stuck.

I don't know where you get your information but it makes no sense. Whenever you see that a famous, but unnamed scientist, is completely baffled this should set off alarm bells. Your spidey sense should tell you something is wrong.

So if extremely popular science can be completely overturned, it only seems to make sense that Scientists or athiests would at least hold out for the POSSIBILITY of the supernatural/intelligent design/God.

Jda, you might want to try again with something else. You have not shown that science has been completely overturned.

 

[JesusLives]

I have been told that God will not show himself to me until I believe in his existence, but there is a real problem with this argument, wouldn’t you agree? Atheists do not really have their hands over their eyes – I am typing this after-all. And besides, in the Gospel of Luke Jesus tells his listeners that God cares more for one of his lost flock than he does for all the others and will always, like the good shepherd, go in search of that missing member, not stopping until he is found and returned. Your argument, for I think you are one of those who proposed it, asserts God (the shepherd) would not show himself to the lost sheep unless that sheep first recognizes his proper place. This is ludicrous. The point of the analogy that Jesus makes is that the shepherd doesn't care what the sheep thinks, God wants him back in the flock. The good shepherd does not let the sheep fall to the wolf just because the sheep is being stubborn. Sheep, you recognize, are not known for being terribly smart.

I think Christians will often propose this argument from blindness as a way to get around the insurmountable problem that atheists seem unable to see God.

The Argument from Blindness goes something like this:

1st Believer: ‘What? The atheist can’t see God. Then God must be concealing himself from nonbelievers. Why would God do that? After-all we can see the Almighty clearly.’

2nd Believer: ‘Perhaps God doesn’t show Himself because the atheist stubbornly refuses to believe in Him.’

1st Believer: ‘That makes sense. Let’s call this the Argument from Blindness – because atheists are metaphorically blind God will not let himself be seen until the atheist believes as we do.’

2nd Believer: ‘There, mystery solved.’

But is the mystery solved? The true shepherd wants his missing sheep back. He doesn’t care that the sheep might be blind. Atheists, however, are not actually sheep, nor are they blind, stupid, nor simply lost. The atheist rejects God because the atheist can’t see God. So to pursue the same analogy Jesus uses, all God must do is brandish a flaming torch over his head (ie. show himself) so the atheist can find his way back; but the Argument from Blindness argues that in the presence of the atheist God extinguishes the torch. If God actually behaved that way, I propose, he is not the kind of shepherd envisioned by Jesus. In fact, he must not be a shepherd at all.

I have heard that sheep are really stupid and need shepherds to care for them.

Jesus said - I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep. John 10:11 You bring up a good point that the sheep does not know it is lost, this poses a big problem for atheists as they are lost sheep also.

God will accept you right where you are right now, but you have to go to Him - and the bigger problem is you don't believe He exists. Jesus continues - I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. John 10:14 So this says at least for right this moment you are not His own, but it does not have to stay that way.

Jesus continues - And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Even though some of us Christians get a little too zealous with the approach - I can only speak for myself here, but I am trying to be a voice for God letting you know how much He loves you, because I know that Jesus will return soon and the sin and evil on this world will be done away with and I want ALL my human brothers and sisters to be saved out of this mess.

If you saw a child standing in the middle of a road and you knew a speeding car was coming even though you could not see it you would still want to get that child out of the path of danger; - I have a choice wait on the side of the road and watch what happens or run out in the street and get the child off of the road and out of the way of danger. I choose to at least let the child know there is danger and help coming. God wants everyone to be saved, but it is a choice and maybe I should have used an adult instead of a child in this analogy - but I think you know what I am trying to get at here. We have a choice of life or not.

I don't believe in an everlasting burning hell forever and ever (the one of torture and torment) - once the fuel is burned the fire goes out and then it is eternal nonexistence that is the forever part. The choice is life or nonexistence. God is not vengeful He is loving, He gave His Son to die for each one of us, It is a choice - Yes or No and we each have to make our own choice.

Noah preached for 120 years while he was building the ark and only his family got on the boat. I am just asking that you get in the boat with me so to speak. Do I believe there was a real global flood? Yes. Why because the bible tells me that God made a promise at the end of that flood to never do that again and today when it rains that promise shows up as a rainbow and I can see that with my own eyes and I bet everyone typing on this thread has seen one too.

God loves you He will never give up on you - I won't either - Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. And here is the Big problem as these sheep/people don't believe.

 

[nl]

Your response is informative enough. You do not think biochemists will ever solve how to form life from non-life, or you do not want to face the prospects of it happening.

I think it may happen in the life time of my children, or maybe even in the next 20 years. The latter date is the guess of one researcher in the field. In any case I believe the development is inevitable

Creating life from non-life would be a "staggering" achievement but there would still be a gap between human life and lower life forms.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". (Genesis 2:7) - Only a human is described as becoming a living soul.

Even a single-celled organism like an amoeba has many millions of base pairs in its genetic coding. I would like to know more about the ability of human scientists to read and write the genetic code in DNA and RNA but I'm sure there are limits. I could imagine an intelligent engineer managing to write into this code more than I can imagine "blind evolution" writing the code. Software doesn't write itself on computers today and even single-celled life is much more complex than human-engineered software.