Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Agnostic and Gnostic are not the same thing. You see, to simply not have a belief about God, a lack of belief, simply not there could easily be described as
ag·nos·tic
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
but this isn't just a missing belief in God. It's an opposing view, one of certainty, it becomes it's own "belief"
[h=2]athe·ist[/h] noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
First off sorry to getting to this so late. Im just now going back and looking for what ive missed.
1) When tragedy strikes (thankfully this has not happened on the scale of a natural disaster) i turn to the people around me. I seek their help, talk to them, get their advice, and so on and i do the same for them in return. Family and friends are always there and give me far more help than any god would. And in massive tragedy, youd be surprised at how the good in man comes out and complete strangers band together to get through it. Humanity is a powerfull thing.
2) I say it all the time! in fact ive said it probably a dozen times today. Think about it, do you really think every time someone says "omg" or "god damn" they actually have god in mind or are literally asking him to damn something? no of course not. Its an expression that is so ingrained in our culture and language that it is the default thing for most people to blurt out. Its no different than "s***!" or "crap!". Thats all it means to 99% of the people who say it. And trying to stop saying it would be just as hard as trying to remove any common word from your vocabulary. Can you imagine trying to never say the word "morning"? or "cheeseburger"? scary...
A- lacking, without, non, no
theism- the belief in god
Literally: lacking belief in god/without belief in god/no belief in god. It is not the positive belief that there is no god.
When someone talks about atheism they are talking about definition A. thats what im talking about and what no doubt 99% of any atheist you talk to will define themselves as. Because i can tell you i do not believe there is no god. i am agnostic. No the two are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is not knowing for certain whether god exists, atheism is lacking belief in god. Mine and most other atheists position is literally:
"I dont know whether god exists or not, but i dont believe he does". It works just fine.
Sure someone who believes god doesnt exist would still technically fall under the atheist catagory but that doesnt mean that that person defines all of atheism. Just as hindus, christians, and wiccans all fall under the definition of theist does that make all theists wiccans? surely youre not wiccan lol.
When youre talking about people and they possibly fall under 2 or more variants of one definition, instead of imposing one of those variants on them it is preferable to actually ask them which one they fall under so as to not sound ignorant.
theism- the belief in god
Literally: lacking belief in god/without belief in god/no belief in god. It is not the positive belief that there is no god.
When someone talks about atheism they are talking about definition A. thats what im talking about and what no doubt 99% of any atheist you talk to will define themselves as. Because i can tell you i do not believe there is no god. i am agnostic. No the two are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is not knowing for certain whether god exists, atheism is lacking belief in god. Mine and most other atheists position is literally:
"I dont know whether god exists or not, but i dont believe he does". It works just fine.
Sure someone who believes god doesnt exist would still technically fall under the atheist catagory but that doesnt mean that that person defines all of atheism. Just as hindus, christians, and wiccans all fall under the definition of theist does that make all theists wiccans? surely youre not wiccan lol.
When youre talking about people and they possibly fall under 2 or more variants of one definition, instead of imposing one of those variants on them it is preferable to actually ask them which one they fall under so as to not sound ignorant.
My own feeling is that there is nothing absurd about agnostic-atheism. I would add that the counterpart to this is agnostic-theism. Agnosticism is a difficult position at best – that’s my view – and I suspect most agnostics will lean toward theism or atheism. Richard Dawkins recognized all three as outlined below in the bold type:
“Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.” (The God Delusion, p. 50).
All right, you've answered my questions. I have a rebuttal but I'm going to stop here because I thought about what tourist said. Just so you know I only did this because I care about you guys, and I don't want you to miss out. Believe it or not that's the truth. Let's do this again sometime.
This is about third time of my asking, so please your thoughts on this...
Looking at Northern Pakistan, just about everyone is a Muslim. Laws are harsh and punishments for breaking what the Quaran says even harsher, sometimes justice being delivered by a mob with blessing of the local Imam.
Let us say there was a devout Muslim, had been all thier life, did everything asked of them and more and never missed a single prayer time. Happily married, with wonderful wife and kids, good job and everything is fine.
WHy then would such a person suddenly turn his back on Islam and become a Christian, knowing full well that if anyone found out he would eventually be killed sooner rather than later. Dare not tell wife, she could report him and throw him out the house, in fear that the rest of the family would be arrested for blasphemy by following the husband.
When someone converts to being a Christian, they will have to abandon everything and just go into hiding, usually they end up moving away from where they lived , but even then they have to remain hidden in secret.
WHy would a rational devout Muslim who had everything going for him, give up Islam and become a Christian, knowing he signed his own death warrant? Why would someone do that?
Looking at Northern Pakistan, just about everyone is a Muslim. Laws are harsh and punishments for breaking what the Quaran says even harsher, sometimes justice being delivered by a mob with blessing of the local Imam.
Let us say there was a devout Muslim, had been all thier life, did everything asked of them and more and never missed a single prayer time. Happily married, with wonderful wife and kids, good job and everything is fine.
WHy then would such a person suddenly turn his back on Islam and become a Christian, knowing full well that if anyone found out he would eventually be killed sooner rather than later. Dare not tell wife, she could report him and throw him out the house, in fear that the rest of the family would be arrested for blasphemy by following the husband.
When someone converts to being a Christian, they will have to abandon everything and just go into hiding, usually they end up moving away from where they lived , but even then they have to remain hidden in secret.
WHy would a rational devout Muslim who had everything going for him, give up Islam and become a Christian, knowing he signed his own death warrant? Why would someone do that?
How? The only "empirical" evidence for god ive ever been presented with is either bible revalation based, or based on fallacious arguments like kalams and all those. Someone could literally take all the arguments for god, change the word god to unicorns and they would work just the same. Notice how i dont mention the "human experiences". Personal testimony is not evidence to anyone besides that one person and most of it can be debunked seeing as the same experiences happen in any religious group and point to any number of gods and things.
is this for me or no? because my only response would be that religion makes people do things like that. When you believe so ferverently it doesnt necessarily indicate that what youre believing is true, but that you just really believe it. also i dont see this kind of thing happening very often at least not in the middle east.
T
You moved my heart, I'll stop. Thanks friend.
It was kind of hard though, my spirit was like: give in to this man plea.
But my mind was like: NOOOOOOO! GIVE IN TO THE DARK SIDE!!!
Good won out though. Thanks again big bro.
You moved my heart, I'll stop. Thanks friend.
It was kind of hard though, my spirit was like: give in to this man plea.
But my mind was like: NOOOOOOO! GIVE IN TO THE DARK SIDE!!!
Good won out though. Thanks again big bro.
S
Sirk
Guest
So now that even secular historians admit that Jesus was a historical figure and lived and breathed and walked on this earth this leaves us with only one question with two sides.....it is the question of his tomb. It was either empty or it was occupied. Skeptic, please state your favorite theory and why.
If it was occupied there are 7 hypothesis as to what happened and they are as follows:
Unknown tomb- they couldn't find it
wrong tomb-they went to a wrong tomb that was empty
legend-a story that developed over time
twin-Jesus had a twin brother
Hallucination- it was a mass hallucination
Existential resurrection-He rose in our hearts
Spiritual resurrection- He rose in spirit only
Conversely, if the tomb was empty (natural explanation)
Disciples stole the body
Authorities hid the body
Swoon theory-Jesus didn't die
Passover plot
Jesus was and alien
Supernatural
Bodily Resurrection from dead
If it was occupied there are 7 hypothesis as to what happened and they are as follows:
Unknown tomb- they couldn't find it
wrong tomb-they went to a wrong tomb that was empty
legend-a story that developed over time
twin-Jesus had a twin brother
Hallucination- it was a mass hallucination
Existential resurrection-He rose in our hearts
Spiritual resurrection- He rose in spirit only
Conversely, if the tomb was empty (natural explanation)
Disciples stole the body
Authorities hid the body
Swoon theory-Jesus didn't die
Passover plot
Jesus was and alien
Supernatural
Bodily Resurrection from dead
It would be great to get names of these scientists because your story has already become very difficult to believe. I want names so that i can check to see what degrees they have and from where and whether theyve contributed any peer reviewed scientific papers. That is really what makes a good scientist. Youd be surprised just how easy it is to attain such a title and how easy it is to interperet it as meaning that they have authority in a given field. Just because someone is a scientist doesnt mean they are an authority in a given field. For example, a biologist and an engineer are both scientists. But who is the authority on the mechanisms of life? not the engineer. What i suspect is that these people had degrees probably from religious universities or online courses in sciences unrelated to biology or DNA and used their technical title of scientist as a way to appeal to character and authority so youd take them seriously even though they had no idea what they were talking about. Im not saying this is what happened, they could very well have been prestigious biologists with experience with DNA but based on what ive seen that is very unlikely. Why would they be coming to a church instead of publishing these things in scientific journals so they can collect their nobel prizes? this kind of thing happens all the time. DR kent hovind, DR ken ham. DR john pendleton. These people are no more doctors than you or i.
Ive heard this argument again and again and again and ag...zzz....sorry. Its such a tired argument. Complexity is not indication of a designer. Until we actually have seperate proof of the designer itself theres no way to connect a "creation" to the "creator". And everything we know about biology and cosmology fit perfectly with the laws of physics and we continue to make predictions and confirm them, growing more and more certain with every discovery that it was natural processes.
playing catch up to what? is there a cure for aids in the bible that were still catching up to? When did we catch up to the part about the higgs boson? the light spectrum? the blueprints for a macbook? Seriously dude, science has accomplished more in 200 years than religion has in 2000. And its wierd. if we are playing catch up to the grand conclusion that god created the universe, should he be coming into focus? If someone is running far in front of you, so far you cant see them but you are catching up, shouldnt you begin to see them over the horizon? Some indication that theyre there? a small dot that then slowly forms a running figure? we see absolutely no indication of a god and weve already mapped the background radiation from the event that expanded the universe. Weve gone back to the very seconds before it began and yet no god is seen yet...
except that every single piece of scientific evidence to date does point to that conclusion. And who says it was "chaos"? we know the laws of physics and nature that govern the universe and most of not all of the forces that act on matter. We know exactly how matter behaves under all kinds of conditions, predict future behaviors, and theyre consistent. We actually can map from the big bang straight to the formation of earth and then the evolution of life on earth using these things and it all works out without any gap where a supernatural force would be necessary. Sure life is pretty complex now, but that is in no way indicitive of a designer.
No we call it a mutation and it is the key element to fueling natural selection and the entire process of evolution. Its no miracle. If a creature isnt adapted to its environment it dies and the only ones left are the "perfect" ones. The ones best adapted.
And on the topic of DNA it actually isnt that complex. Backtrack evolution down to the first single celled organisms and it was just a few strands of protien made up of the same elements everything is made up of. sure its important but its just another product of evolution.
Sure but i must admit i havent reasearched all of them and this is 100% purely my opinion.
I think its legend. It seems to be the product of leaders needing a way to relay rules and laws to the people. Many societies used their religions to get people to act the way they wanted. They probably took a real man and made up the story that developed and got more complex over time. This is highly likely seeing as the traits attributed to jesus arent even one of a kind. Various things like the virgin birth, number of disciples, being killed and resurrected, ect can be found in many religions predating christianity by centuries.
This just seems to be the explaination that a) makes the least assumptions and b) we already see present in alot of ancient writing.
S
Sirk
Guest
S
Sirk
Guest
The reason I ask this is because this message was the center of preaching in the early church.
As a result if this preaching the church was born and grew
James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope and some even went back to their jobs.
These are just a few of the facts that discount the legend theory and lend credence to Jesus death and resurrection.
The only thing worst than being a non-theist is someone worshipping the WRONG god....like followers of islam.
D
danalee
Guest
How about thanks a billion?
One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see matter/antimatter asymmetry.
Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the anti-particle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the big bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence.
If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy. Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the preceding few decades, scientists have learned from particle physics experiments that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. They are keen to discover the reasons why.
Researchers have observed particles spontaneously transforming, or oscillating, into their antiparticles at a rate of millions of times per second before decaying.
Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused oscillating particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.
He wouldn't. If he is a devout Muslim he is not a Christian. On the other hand a Muslim going through a crisis of faith might be drawn to Christian belief, or he might be drawn to atheism; however, he is not likely to tell anyone -- not his children, not his wife and not his friends.
You know there are Christian pastors in just such a predicament. They have lost their belief and become atheists, but still they carry on with their congregation keeping their secret from friends, wives and children. Their lives are not at risk, but much else is.
See: Clergy Project
D
danalee
Guest
You need your ideas on James updated. Check out You Tube lectures by Robert Eisenman or see his book, James Brother of Jesus.
http://www.amazon.ca/James-Brother-Jesus-Unlocking-Christianity/dp/014025773X
- Status