Ask an Atheist

[Deadtosin]

Yes I agree nearly everyone is telling the truth of relaying their experiences to the best of their ability.

However, we also know that eye-witness testimony can be suspect in regards to what really happened.

Humans as you would agree are fallible, bad eyes, bad memories, and easily susceptible to illusions.

In your car wreck analogy, maybe what actually happened was that a pile of trash had spilled out in the road and this caused the backed up traffic. You would still be telling the truth from your point of view, except that you were incorrect that it was actually a car wreck.

I do not challenge your testimony at all, I am humbly skeptical of the truth of the conclusion you draw from your testimony.

fair enough, now can I have one possible explanation for my friend and I being blinded by that man at so precisely the same time that he never saw me kneeling because he too had been blinded?

 

[doseofreality]

Nothing I posted here about meaning or purpose needs to be resolved because it already is, it's purely black and white. I reasoned the way an atheist would but from a christian perspective.

Let's this straight, you believe the universe just happened by way of an explosion and there was no divine intervention right? By that logic life is accidental right? Then from your side value and purpose hold no meaning, what is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

You said it can't be resolved here. Why not? Are you saying the information gathered by atheists is flawed? Do you believe that the universe naturally provides us with meaning? Because that's the only option you have left to argue with. If you believe that, then wouldn't it mean that the universe was programmed to do so? If so how do think it was done? Did the universe program itself or was there someone who programmed it?

I have already conceded...you win lol

Hey I am all about compromise. I admit life was "accidental" in that I believe no "being" caused it.
Yes value and purpose hold no ultimate meaning in the grand scheme of things.

Again I do disagree that life itself naturally gives temporary meaning and purpose.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Off to lunch. Read: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/90384-ask-atheist-13.html#post1508883

 

[doseofreality]

It would be better to proceed as follows:

All true statements are meaningful. Nonsensical statements are neither true nor false. Emotive statements (expressed feelings) may be true, false, or neither.

Both true and false statements are meaningful statements. For example, "In simple arithmetic, 2 + 2 = 5" is meaningful but it is false.

So, by definition, in order to be cognitively meaningful a statement must be either true or false.

Now, if all true statements are meaningful, then all objectively true statements (as Christianity claims to possess) must be objectively meaningful.

Thus the objectivity of truth is dependent on the objectivity of meaning.

Unfortunately, the dominant view in the post-modern contemporary world is opposed to an objective embrace of meaning. This dominant view is called conventionalism (the false assertion that all meaning is relative).

The conventionalist's view of meaning is clearly an overreaction against platonic essentialism. There is a third alternative that avoids the rigidity of essentialism and the relativism of conventionalism: realism.

Realism contends that meaning is objective, even though symbols are culturally relative, for meaning transcends our symbols and linguistic means of expressing it.

Meaning is objective and absolute, not because a given linguistic expression of it is, but because there is an absolute Mind, God, who has communicated it to finite minds (human beings) through a common but analogous means of human language that utilizes transcendent principles of logic common to both God and humans.

The objectivity of truth that Christianity embraces is based on the premise that meaning is objective. This objectivity in meaning is rejected by much of contemporary linguistics; the prevailing conventionalist theory of meaning is a form of semantical relativism.

However, in addition to being an overreaction to platonic essentialism, conventionalism is self-defeating, for the very theory of conventionalism that "all meaning is relative" is itself a nonrelative statement.

"All meaning is relative" is a meaningful statement intended to apply to all meaningful statements; it is a nonconventional statement claiming that all statements are conventional. As such, it self-destructs, for in the very process of expressing itself it implies a theory of meaning that is contrary to the one it claims is true of all meaningful statements.

The usages of symbols and words do change, but the meaning properly expressed by them does not.

i must give props to this post as very well written.
Though I think meaning is relative and not ultimately objective, I would never win a debate with you my friend.

 

[doseofreality]

fair enough, now can I have one possible explanation for my friend and I being blinded by that man at so precisely the same time that he never saw me kneeling because he too had been blinded?

No sorry I do not have a good explanation.

You say it was a bright light? A mirror reflecting the sun light maybe.

Also if I am to take you at your word, you mention the homeless man said "Thus says the Lord God" , yet all you can say after that is something about dragons?

 

[Deadtosin]

No sorry I do not have a good explanation.

You say it was a bright light? A mirror reflecting the sun light maybe.

Also if I am to take you at your word, you mention the homeless man said "Thus says the Lord God" , yet all you can say after that is something about dragons?

When he said thus says the Lord God I was still standing there looking at him. I saw the trance-like face he made. I remember those words well.

I tried to listen to him and I caught few words here and there, but it was very hard to pay attention because of the obvious issue of not being able to lift my head.

 

[Deadtosin]

for the record, I had a mesquite thorn go through my eye as a young teenager. I am used to having bright lights shone in my eyes, I can look at the sun, I won't because I know it causes damage. I have very strong will power with mind over matter. It was not an option on that day during those moments.

 

[doseofreality]

When he said thus says the Lord God I was still standing there looking at him. I saw the trance-like face he made. I remember those words well.

I tried to listen to him and I caught few words here and there, but it was very hard to pay attention because of the obvious issue of not being able to lift my head.

I see, well I guess i find 2 issues here.

1) If this message was from God, why would it not be made clearly communicated to you. If no one heard or understood what this man said then God's message remains moot. Though I suppose the experience may have been all God intended for you to witness.

2) In the bible it says that all prophecy and revelation is sealed or something to that effect. So this man would be a false prophet if he was claiming to receive new revelation from God. Unless he was quoting scripture, possibly revelation.

 

[penknight]

I have already conceded...you win lol

Hey I am all about compromise. I admit life was "accidental" in that I believe no "being" caused it.
Yes value and purpose hold no ultimate meaning in the grand scheme of things.

Again I do disagree that life itself naturally gives temporary meaning and purpose.

lol? In a debate. Really? That's very insulting, even if you didn't mean it. I haven't won anything, because you won't honesty open your heart at all. Why not? What have you got to lose, you don't believe in Hell anyways, so where's the harm in trying? Are you afraid of disappointment? Why should that matter if feelings are just chemical reaction? It is because you want to do whatever you feel like? If you're going to non-existence anyways, why care at all about what you want to do? It won't mean anything after you're dead right? Is just because you don't understand God's reasoning? Well wouldn't be interesting to have in depth information to use later? Why not try again? You're probably going to say the generic atheist stuff, so you don't have to answer these, and to be honest I hope you don't. Will at least think about it deeply? God answers the questions of those who ask, but you have to keep an open mind and heart and WAIT. I'm not trying to use scare tactics, but you'll wish you would have honestly tried.

 

[Deadtosin]

started with "thus says the Lord" that's biblical and it sounded kind of like Isaiah but there could have been some revelations I'm not completely sure, it felt like a very long time. Satan did get involved that day and we had experiences for 3 days. Not good ones, we do know that good and evil wars against each other.

The reason for me and my friend to witness that and the following 3 days was to show us that indeed, this is all real, the bible can be trusted and no opinions change these facts.

 

[Deadtosin]

p.s. The only real "new revelation" that day was the understanding that any "what if's" were gone. We no longer had a choice to "believe" the truth- it became "known"

 

[Pie]

Ahh ok, I do apologize in that I have not read all the posts in this thread.

In many ways I agree the typical atheist comebacks are tiresome.

If I get a chance maybe i will go back over the posts and try to reply with a different argument if I have one.

No worries Dose. It’s hard not to get frustrated when a conversation devolves into this.

Atheist: You believe in an imaginary sky daddy
Christian:-explains why God is not an imaginary sky daddy- Moral Argument/ Kalam Cosmological Argument, personal testimony, historicity of the gospels
Atheist: No! Those don't matter! SANTA CLAUS!
Christian: -Explains why God is not the same as Santa Claus-
Atheist: ZEUS!
Christian: -Explains how the Bible differs from pagan religions-
Atheist: UNICORNS!
Christian: -Explains why this analogy is “infantile.”-
Atheist: -ignores- UNICORNS!
Christians: -Explains why this analogy is “infantile”-
Atheist: -still ignoring- UNICORNS!
Christian: -walks away pulling their hair out-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve seen it the other way around too, Dose.

Atheist: Why do you believe in God?
Christian: -quotes Bible verses-
Atheist: Why should I trust the Bible?
Christian: The Bible is God’s Word.
Atheist: How do I know it’s God Word?
Christian: -quotes more Bible verses-
Atheist: You realize that’s circular reasoning? You can’t say the Bible is God’s Word because the Bible says it’s God’s Word.
Christian: -quotes even more Bible verses!!!!-
Atheist: -walks away pulling their hair out-

This is why I said in one of my earlier posts, it’s important to understand your audience. You have to have some common ground to engage in meaningful discussion and you have to be willing to respond to their questions (if they are actually seeking meaningful conversation) instead of ignoring the questions or acting like they don't matter. That goes for both sides. There’s also nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know, I’ll get back to you on that after some study.”

And before some Christians get mad at me for the Bible verses thing.. I'm not saying the Word isn't instrumental.. Obviously, it's key! It's how God reveals His truth to us today (and personal relationship). Not to mention, all the historical evidence we have because of it. Just used in the way I described above, it is not very effective evangelism.

 

[doseofreality]

lol? In a debate. Really? That's very insulting, even if you didn't mean it. I haven't won anything, because you won't honesty open your heart at all. Why not? What have you got to lose, you don't believe in Hell anyways, so where's the harm in trying? Are you afraid of disappointment? Why should that matter if feelings are just chemical reaction? It is because you want to do whatever you feel like? If you're going to non-existence anyways, why care at all about what you want to do? It won't mean anything after you're dead right? Is just because you don't understand God's reasoning? Well wouldn't be interesting to have in depth information to use later? Why not try again? You're probably going to say the generic atheist stuff, so you don't have to answer these, and to be honest I hope you don't. Will at least think about it deeply? God answers the questions of those who ask, but you have to keep an open mind and heart and WAIT. I'm not trying to use scare tactics, but you'll wish you would have honestly tried.

Out of respect I will not answer your questions.

Also I appreciate your concern for my soul, but it would not be right for me to just "believe" for the sake of trying or getting out of hell when I really did not think it was true.

In case you did not already know this about me, I was a christian for many years. So I have honestly tried and had an open heart and mind.

 

[penknight]

I have already conceded...you win lol

Hey I am all about compromise. I admit life was "accidental" in that I believe no "being" caused it.
Yes value and purpose hold no ultimate meaning in the grand scheme of things.

Again I do disagree that life itself naturally gives temporary meaning and purpose.

By the way what you're doing is patronizing. You're just happy to shut me up. Don't deny it, word choices are a gateway into a someone's personality. You once told me that your here to question believers why they believe in what they believe, wouldn't you emphasize that better by making suggestions and leaving it for us to look into? You can easily hide behind that " you're here to question believers why they believe in what they believe" and make anything you talk about a debate, so why are you here? Don't ask us anything if you consider thinking about things we've said. You should just go to a debate site for your kicks. If your really here to help us out, then drop some info for us to look at and keep it moving, then it'll be up to us to decide for ourselves the same it's up to atheist to believe whether or not to believe in God. Why should what we believe matter to you? Are you going to honestly look into what we say or not? If not, then please leave.

 

[doseofreality]

No worries Dose. It’s hard not to get frustrated when a conversation devolves into this.

Atheist: You believe in an imaginary sky daddy
Christian:-explains why God is not an imaginary sky daddy- Moral Argument/ Kalam Cosmological Argument, personal testimony, historicity of the gospels
Atheist: No! Those don't matter! SANTA CLAUS!
Christian: -Explains why God is not the same as Santa Claus-
Atheist: ZEUS!
Christian: -Explains how the Bible differs from pagan religions-
Atheist: UNICORNS!
Christian: -Explains why this analogy is “infantile.”-
Atheist: -ignores- UNICORNS!
Christians: -Explains why this analogy is “infantile”-
Atheist: -still ignoring- UNICORNS!
Christian: -walks away pulling their hair out-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve seen it the other way around too, Dose.

Atheist: Why do you believe in God?
Christian: -quotes Bible verses-
Atheist: Why should I trust the Bible?
Christian: The Bible is God’s Word.
Atheist: How do I know it’s God Word?
Christian: -quotes more Bible verses-
Atheist: You realize that’s circular reasoning? You can’t say the Bible is God’s Word because the Bible says it’s God’s Word.
Christian: -quotes even more Bible verses!!!!-
Atheist: -walks away pulling their hair out-

This is why I said in one of my earlier posts, it’s important to understand your audience. You have to have some common ground to engage in meaningful discussion and you have to be willing to respond to their questions (if they are actually seeking meaningful conversation) instead of ignoring the questions or acting like they don't matter. That goes for both sides. There’s also nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know, I’ll get back to you on that after some study.”

And before some Christians get mad at me for the Bible verses thing.. I'm not saying the Word isn't instrumental.. Obviously, it's key! It's how God reveals His truth to us today (and personal relationship). Not to mention, all the historical evidence we have because of it. Just used in the way I described above, it is not very effective evangelism.

Just to throw this out there, I know William Lane Craig uses those arguments a lot in his debates.
Here is one with christopher hitchens, so you can see some the refuting arguments as opposed to our amateur attempts on this forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

 

[Pie]

Just to throw this out there, I know William Lane Craig uses those arguments a lot in his debates.
Here is one with christopher hitchens, so you can see some the refuting arguments as opposed to our amateur attempts on this forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

I've watched several debates (the entire things through) including Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig. I would definitely suggest people give it a watch! Always nice to get a refresher. =)

 

[doseofreality]

started with "thus says the Lord" that's biblical and it sounded kind of like Isaiah but there could have been some revelations I'm not completely sure, it felt like a very long time. Satan did get involved that day and we had experiences for 3 days. Not good ones, we do know that good and evil wars against each other.

The reason for me and my friend to witness that and the following 3 days was to show us that indeed, this is all real, the bible can be trusted and no opinions change these facts.

So you assume it was quoting scripture and this experience to you confirmed that the bible is completely true.

Ok but you must allow that this is not good evidence for others. Even if I take your word for what happened, to me personally, it is not convincing enough to show that all the miracles in the bible are true. At most it is evidence that a single "miracle" occurred, that some mysterious force caused you amd your friend to be temporarily blinded by a light and forced to kneel down in some way.

 

[SkepticJosh]

-facepalm-

"An all knowing, all powerful, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, invisible, undetectable being exists, created the world, and loves us very much. It says so in this 2000 year old book"
-facepalm-

What I believe isn’t irrelevant if it’s true. I do believe in the Big Bang. You know atheists like Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang. You know why? Because it would show the universe had a beginning oh like.. um the Biblical account of creation.

So? Why do I care what some other person believes? It doesn't matter if he's an atheist or not. The scientific evidence is extremely indicative of its validity in fact just recently they further mapped the background radiation from it. Also the big bang in no way says the universe had a beginning. It starts with the singularity and does not explain how it got there. Only that it was the farthest back we can go. And even if it did explain where this singularity came from it is in no way like the biblical account ofor creation at all. Like not even close. And if that guy rejects the big bang only because of this then he's an idiot.

“Fred Hoyle famously coined the term “Big Bang” to characterize the single creation theory of cosmology in a series of talks he gave on BBC radio broadcasts in the late 1940s. Equally famous was Hoyle’s own view of the universe wherein creation of matter was continuous without beginning or end. To his way of thinking, the “big bang” was counter-intuitive to nature and more at home to theology. As he said in the third programme broadcast in 1949:
“[My theory] replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories, which assume, as I have already said, that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one big hang at a particular time in the the remote past. On scientific grounds this big bang hypothesis is much the less palatable of the two. For it is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms.”

I knew that name was familiar! Fred Hoyle's term "big bang" is so inaccurate that scientists today hate that it stuck because it is so misleading and doesn't actually represent what the big bang was. He coined it as a JOKE and in part because he didn't really understand the theory. Also note the date of his quotes. The 1940s. You do realize that's 54 years ago right? I don't care what the big bangs reputation and proof was then because today it is the most well supported theory to date.

Look up the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Ive heard that worn out beaten argument countless times. Premise 1 can't be demonstrated and it's a non sequitur to jump from the last premise to Christianity. Moving on.

There’s immense evidence that the universe is not eternal past. Rapid expansion from a singularity. Yes.. where did this singularity come from? Popped into existence out of nothing?

We don't know. The big bang doesn't explain that. It may have always existed, or maybe some other forces came into play. Quantum physics at this point is really hard to understand. But even though we don't know that doesn't let you posit god as the answer and whipe your hands saying good game. Until god is demonstrated to be part of the equation you can't stick him In a gap.

3. Okay stop talking gibberish. Why does anything need a reason to be? (So, you don’t like reason? I mean you keep claiming you’re the intellectually honest one). Then you give an example and explain THE REASON for why the ball lands where it lands. –facepalm-

Perhaps I should've been more clear. When I said that things don't need a reason I meant that they don't need a divine purpose to have occured. There wasnt ore determined fate that the ball landed where it did and it's not part of some allight encompassing purpose of life or master plan. It doesn't have that kind of reason as in purpose. But there is an explainaton or reason why it did what it did. I was using the word reason in two different ways and I hope this clarifys.

4. We agree so there's no issue on that.

5. You already believe that the universe, physics, nature, and biology came about for absolutely NO REASON. Purposeless, meaningless. The evidence is astoundingly in God’s favor.

Because there's no reason the believe there is some grand purpose of life and hidden meaning. How the hell is this in gods favor?

In Conclusion: You came here to have us ask questions... this is what I have learned from you.. "why does anything need a reason to be? " You don't care about reasons... And "...anyone's opinion is irrelevant." You don't care what we believe or why. Why are you here? To preach your atheistic gospel then?

1) I clarified the "reason" issue.
2) people's opinions are irrelevant to what's true. They can absolutely have meaning to people and are worth talking about, they just don't alter or influence reality.
3) no the burden of proof and reality don't care what you, I, or anyone believes.
4) are we not talking right now? Are we not exchanging ideas and debating? Seems like a good enough reason to me. Not my entire purpose but certainly worth while.

 

[faroukfarouk]

So you assume it was quoting scripture and this experience to you confirmed that the bible is completely true.

Ok but you must allow that this is not good evidence for others. Even if I take your word for what happened, to me personally, it is not convincing enough to show that all the miracles in the bible are true. At most it is evidence that a single "miracle" occurred, that some mysterious force caused you amd your friend to be temporarily blinded by a light and forced to kneel down in some way.

The Word of God is self-authenticating. It doesn't need to be 'proved' from outside. 'Thy Word is Truth' (John 17.17).

 

[doseofreality]

By the way what you're doing is patronizing. You're just happy to shut me up. Don't deny it, word choices are a gateway into a someone's personality. You once told me that your here to question believers why they believe in what they believe, wouldn't you emphasize that better by making suggestions and leaving it for us to look into? You can easily hide behind that " you're here to question believers why they believe in what they believe" and make anything you talk about a debate, so why are you here? Don't ask us anything if you consider thinking about things we've said. You should just go to a debate site for your kicks. If your really here to help us out, then drop some info for us to look at and keep it moving, then it'll be up to us to decide for ourselves the same it's up to atheist to believe whether or not to believe in God. Why should what we believe matter to you? Are you going to honestly look into what we say or not? If not, then please leave.

I do try to consider and understand what you say, not sure what you are looking for, all i can do is answer honestly.

If it is the wish of the consensus or the moderators for me to leave this forum, then I will.