whats your opinion on atheism ?

Atheism is a way to turn ones self into a God in my opinion. When you are atheist you bow to no one. When you are atheist you come before all. When you are atheist everyone is inferior (especially to your knowledge).

I find as society becomes more atheist we worship human beings more often... We actually turn a few into 'Gods'.

In my opinion each one of us was born with a void. A whole in our hearts if you will. And this void sucks so we cram it full of useless junk trying to fill this void. So we buy a brand new car. This car is incredible the first day, pretty dang good the first week, its good the 2nd week, and alright the 3rd week.

Yet when we first put in that love for the car; into our void, it was nearly filled. But when the car started shrinking in value the shell of the car was still there. So now we go to set out to fill the void the car left and the original void. And we do this with food, to cars, to money, to people.

Without even trying you have tried 1,000's of things to fill this void. This void has only grown because of the amount of things you have done to fill it. But every time you stretch it and it becomes bigger.

Then a guy comes by and goes. Hey man I see you are trying to fill a void in your life. How about I tell the one thing that can fill it forever if you believe. To the man trying to fill his void, it sounds ludicrous. In fact it is almost an insult.

So what would you do if a someone just blatantly told you of your naive attempts. Not only did they call you out on that but they told you have gone through the hard road for no reason at all. And all you have to do is Believe...

I can sympathize for atheists. But I believe many of them let there pride get in the way of accepting God.


(I know many might disagree...)

We all have free choice, so I do not want myfree choice taken away, does anyone else?
For God by the time the end comes will have had given all the chance to by freew choice believe in God through Christ. Thost that chose unbelief will have known what they gave upi willingly.
therefore there will be no excuse on the day that all will give an account of what they did in this life here on earth.

i don't believe in atheists

So would you like to talk about burdon of proofs? We can easily discuss the burdon of proof which lies with the one who takes the affirmative in the sense of professing knowledge beyond mammalian capabilites. Or how about the evidential problem of evil which theologians have rightly and honestly professed to struggle with in order to make common sense of the aspect of God.

'Atheism has not presented one challenging question or even a decent argument'

So you state not a single argument worth note? None of the previous mentioned, nor any of the biological evidence for a natural non-supernatural arisal of beings in our world. I.e. Natural Selection? Which leads to 3 obvious points among many.

1. No biological nor chemical evidence for dualism, with the main body of philosophers conferring in rejecting the proposition of dualism.

2. The wasteful and violent method of natural processes, contradicts the good God claim.

3. The poor design of the designer.

That is merely three points but if you claim they have been debunked then you must be claiming that you have debunked them yourself? Considering no theologian has, I could literally list and cite atheist philosopher/scientist after another and their objections. Making sweeping statements is easy backing them up with evidence is alot harder, you have failed to do that. It is a pity when open dialogue is dismissed in favour of stubborn pride. Not to mention as an atheist I would happily reject any poor argument for atheism, and I don't ignore the fact that there has been plenty. But to try and say atheism has not presented one challenging question is actually, sadly I have to say misrepresents the theologians who spent their lives arguing and debating and struggling with questions, but at least they are honest enough to admit it.

This thread is for thoughts on Atheism, DannyC. Not for effusive reproach. I respect your intelligent input; let's try to remain on topic, though.

Lol, those are the 3 arguments you're going for. Been there, heard them, they've been debunked.

No, I didn't debunk them. As I said, others before me already have. You don't think so because you refuse to even look for anything opposing your views. Take number 3 on your list. It took me a whole 20 seconds to find articles and links to Christians that have provided counter-arguments. Like I said, the only reason you didn't find them is becuase you were never even looking for them.

Are Our Bodies Poorly Designed? | Around the World with Ken Ham
Is Our “Inverted” Retina Really “Bad Design?” - Answers in Genesis

There's a big difference between you and me. I don't claim to be open minded. I'm not looking to believe atheism. And I'll let you know that up front, so don't even bother trying to convince me. I'm not looking to be convinced. But here's the difference between us when it comes to turf. I'm a Christian here on a Christian site. I didn't come here looking to be convinced of non-Christian nonsense. If I wanted to be convinced of atheism, I'd go over to an atheist site. You however, are a non-Christian on a Christian site. If your goal is to convince others to deny God and join your atheism, I'd advise you give up now, becuase you will get no where. If you're actually here to be open-minded towards Christianity, well, I'm not convinced you are (and this is far from the first time I've seen you on here).

I can come up with a better argument against Christianity than any Richard Dawkins parrot could ever produce. although, if both sides were being intellectually honest, then that argument would result in both sides admitting to an "I don't know position" which doesn't favor either side.

I also laugh every time I hear the "Oh, if I was presented with something, I would instantly reject my atheism and accept your arguments." Out of hundreds of times I've been through these tired conversations with standard atheists, do you know how many times they've accepted or even responded with an open-minded comment about it, like "Oh, that might be plausable, I'll look into it some more."? Zero.

And yeah, I know my comments and attitude towards standard atheists is a bit harsh. That's one of my faults. I've become jaded in dealing with these typical atheists, and I was warned by someone similar to me that that would happen (turns out he was right). Dealing with hundreds (or even as many as a couple thousand) athesits that say, "Oh yeah, if you present me with some evidence or any sort of counter argument, I'll look at it open-mindedly" only to be met with the standard ear plugging denial, then I just find it a waste of my time. So yeah, when I see the standard atheist tag lines, I'm not going to put much effort into the converstion. Yeah, I'll copy/paste links to articles. If you don't like it, oh well. If you show yourself to be open-minded in response to what I do provide, then I will gladly sit down and spend hours conversing with you if you want, and I will go out of my way to do that. (note: I said showing yourself to be open-minded, not just claiming to be open-minded).

There are very few atheists I have met that are open-minded and great to have a conversation with. And I will give them major props for displaying that, even if they don't become a Christian right away, at least they're conversational instead of spewing the standard atheist lines.

Well firstly I may point out my original post was relating to the parallels between how atheism and religion has conducted themselves in history and present day. You either ignored my original point or mis-read it, I am not sure either way you mis-read my original point.

those are the 3 arguments you're going for. Been there, heard them, they've been debunked.

Now you have dismissed the three arguments and only presented argumentation for one, you have failed to cite or provide argument for either of the first two

First argument: If you believe dualism has been proven true then who are you claimed to have proved it? Considering it is a philosophical claim and a scientific claim lets look at philosophers views and arguments since no scientific evidence has been found. You have the burdon of proof and you are in fact claiming to have debunked it yourself, because the main body of philosophy rejects dualism completely. While only a minority actually believe in non-physicalism let alone making the wide step to dualism which is an extremely far position to have. A study conducted by philosophers David Bourget and David Chalmers who polled the results of 1,972 philosophers gave various results, I will cite the ones I find relevant to our discussion.

God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.

Now firstly this is not an argument from authority, I merely pointing to the obvious fact that you claim certain arguments have been debunked yet the majority of modern educated philosophers who spend years studying these philosophical questions seem to completely contradict your claim and actually reject your position. Now unless you want to make an argument along the lines of 'there all wrong' or 'fallacy of ad populum' which I agree majority does not make something true, then you must actually provide some arguments, because really you are in the affirmative on this point. If you make the claim an argument is logically debunked, then we should expect to see your views held by professional philosophers who study these questions or at least some arguments.

Secondly I recommend Professor Shelly Kagan atheistic philosopher who rationalises the history of materialism vs dualism arguments. I am sure you are aware of Descartes/ Platonic arguments for the dualist case. Professor Kagan details each one and I will present the videos for you to watch if you want, they are part of his lectures.

Second argument: Likewise you have not presented a coherent argument really and I'm afraid the argument remains valid, if you like I can cite Professor Stephen Law and his argument for the evidential problem of evil or I can provide scientific evidence for the unnessecary suffering in the animal kingdom which requires an explanation. These two arguments are not debunked but since you provided no refutation of either, you have just made blanket statements but provided no actual evidence or argument.


' You don't think so because you refuse to even look for anything opposing your views' and 'Like I said, the only reason you didn't find them is becuase you were never even looking for them'

Well unfortunately for the second time you have claimed to know something that you don't, if you actually asked do I study these arguments you would be surprised that I spend alot of time looking at them and looking at their refutations. Almost funny due to the fact I actually watched Ken Ham in a video the day you sent that, and I don't mean I watched one after reading your post. I watched it during the day and had no idea you would cite him as a credible source. He was discussing 'kinds' and 'Noahs ark'. Since you cite him as a source, I take it as safe to say you reject evolution.

Now I don't particullary disagree with the evalutation of the eye, it wasn't really one of the specific points I wanted to make. Ken Ham though being only credited with making a pseudo-science museum his argument I feel is ignoring key ideas and is a little simplistic but I will make a point about the human body lower down. But you have presented a red herring in the fact those are not the specific arguments I made.

A perfect designer is a designer whose creations have no flaws. If one flaw is observed the logical next step is the designer is not a perfect designer. Now lets look at the recurrent laryneal nerve which is humans loops around one of the main arteries leaving the heart and comes back to the voice box. In humans it is a detour of several inches. It is wasteful and unneccesary. In an adult giraffe it is a detour of 15 feet. In 2009 the day after Darwin day a team of comparative anatomists and veterinary pathologists and Richard Dawkins dissected a young giraffe you can see the video on youtube. This is a poor design and therefore the conclusion is the designer is a poor designer.

Another point is humans and the poor design of the drainage hole. We are aware of the trouble we have with sinuses. Austrailiam Professor Derek Denton explains how poor the design of our sinuses. Now two points can be drawn from these are the poor design in animals which have been identified display that the designer is an extremely poor designer. The second point is that both points I have mentioned are explained in detail by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

'I don't claim to be open minded.'

That is quite sad, not being open minded to facts is why your view is a stubborn and an unreasonable one.

If you're actually here to be open-minded towards Christianity, well, I'm not convinced you are (and this is far from the first time I've seen you on here).

Well if you check when I joined you would see I have been here roughly a year and a half and my respectful manner and the fact I want to study the bible is the reason I have not been banned. I am straight forward and present my view in the light of evidence and facts, I have made plenty friends with christians on this site and we get along just fine.

you know how many times they've accepted or even responded with an open-minded comment about it, like "Oh, that might be plausable, I'll look into it some more."? Zero.

Well this discussion if not really over atheism anymore or my original point I wanted to make, it really is over creation or evolution and I have spent quite along time studying this subject and I am completely confident in my view. Is it not ironic that you criticise atheists for 'not being open minded' and then a few lines earlier you plainly stated your not open minded. It seems a bit hypocritcal.

'I know my comments and attitude towards standard atheists is a bit harsh'

Well actually your not being harsh you're being stubborn and ignorant and I am not just attacking you for no reason. You state your not open minded yet you keep criticising atheists for the qualities you lack. In your experience you state

' you know how many times they've accepted or even responded with an open-minded comment about it, like "Oh, that might be plausable, I'll look into it some more."? Zero.

and


'only to be met with the standard ear plugging denial'

In reality I have noticed you doing both of these, your view of being open minded is if they agree with your points then they are open minded if not then they are close minded. It could be that your arguments are not good and atheists reject them on that point. The fact you didn't provide any arguments for and two red herring arguments highlights this point. Open minded is being open to facts not just accepting any argument when it is given. My three points I feel still remain you have not given good argumentation for the first two and I feel your last argument didn't really deal with what I said but attempted to pre-empt my points which resulted in a red herring fallacy. My three points remain and have not been refuted.

I wasn't atempting to and I'm not going to, and I'm certainly not required to entertain you. As it is, Proverbs says I'm a fool for spending as much time on this as I have.

You claimed that no Christians have ever provided a counter argument. I simply proved you wrong. Thanks for verifying exactly what I said earlier, the only reason you couldn't find Christian responses is because you weren't even looking for them.

And there you have it. See, it is pointless to discuss this with you, because as you said, you are completely confident in your view, meaning you're not going to change it for nothing. Face it, you're exactly as stubborn about your view as I am about mine.

I don't go into atheist sites claiming to be open minded though. That's the difference. You come to a Christian site claiming to be open minded when you've already demonstrated that you're not.

You state your not open minded yet you keep criticising atheists for the qualities you lack.

Click to expand...

Once again, I don't falsely claim to be open-minded.


I never claimed you had to agree with me. Putting words in my mouth, standard atheist tactic, which is why I don't care to discuss these topics with you.

Of course you think that, becuase you're "completely confident in your view," so nothing will ever be "good enough" for you. Welcome to the close minded end of the pool.

The difference here is I'm not going to try and force my beliefs on you in the way you want to force your beliefs about events of "billions of years ago" on me. If your view is so right and correct, oh well for me.

Well that was an interesting reply considering you literally ignored every single point I made apart from the conversational points in between the main points.

'I wasn't atempting to and I'm not going to, and I'm certainly not required to entertain you.'

Well then it makes no sense in the fact that you have actually replied to me but made a completely irrelevant point. So firstly I never said you were here to entertain me and secondly if I put forth a statement and somebody makes a completely seperate point to it and I respond you are the one who started the discussion.

You claimed that no Christians have ever provided a counter argument. I simply proved you wrong. Thanks for verifying exactly what I said earlier, the only reason you couldn't find Christian responses is because you weren't even looking for them.

Allow me to dissect this statement. I never said no christians have provided counter arguments, I stated the arguments have not been refuted and the body of science and philosophy would agree with me in that view. Actually I made reference to two arguments against my position namely the Descartes/Platonic argument for dualism. It is quite petty I must say when you misrepresent me so poorly, the fact I have dissected your statements and cited sources and your replies are so vague and misrepresentative is very petty. So to make my point once again the arguments have not been refuted and are also rejected, I did not say no one has ever not presented a counter argument I clearly stated no one has presented a successful refutation.

'And there you have it. See, it is pointless to discuss this with you, because as you said, you are completely confident in your view, meaning you're not going to change it for nothing. Face it, you're exactly as stubborn about your view as I am about mine.'

Excuse I am confident in my view because I sought after conclusive evidence and I felt it was compelling, I presented you with a few points and you completely ignored them. I did not say I would never change it for nothing, actually I can give you a falsifable point regarding evolution. Rabbit bones in the Pre-Cambrian era, find them and evolution is basically disproved.

You state your not open minded yet you keep criticising atheists for the qualities you lack.


Once again, I don't falsely claim to be open-minded.

I know that was my point, you are close-minded.

'do you know how many times they've accepted or even responded with an open-minded comment about it, like "Oh, that might be plausable'

In reality I have noticed you doing both of these, your view of being open minded is if they agree with your points then they are open minded if not then they are close minded.


I never claimed you had to agree with me. Putting words in my mouth, standard atheist tactic, which is why I don't care to discuss these topics with you.

First you state for an atheist to be open minded they must either accept your point/state that your position may in fact be right. I pointed out that you are basically stating that they must not call your points bad otherwise they are close minded. Then you dismiss everything on one point.

'Of course you think that, becuase you're "completely confident in your view," so nothing will ever be "good enough" for you. Welcome to the close minded end of the pool.'

I have just given you something which can completely disprove evolution, if you had asked I would have happily given it earlier but you just assumed nothing can convince me just like you assumed I don't look at christian arguments and then assumed all arguments have been debunked and assumed I have never watched any creation videos.

'The difference here is I'm not going to try and force my beliefs on you in the way you want to force your beliefs about events of "billions of years ago" on me. If your view is so right and correct, oh well for me.'

You replied to me remember and also remember my point was nothing to do with this, you have acknowledged that already and I made it very obvious in my original post what I was talking about. I'm not forcing a view on anyone I am simply responding to someone who replied to my post and made a completely different point.

That's just your opinion, not one that I share, nor do I need to, no matter how much you think you're right.

Again, more opinions.

Again, that's just according to your opinion on what is sufficient for something "being refuted." I can say the Bible has never been refuted, and then no matter what you present in response to my assertion, I can always come back and say, "you didn't actually refute it."

I have also sought after conclusive evidence and I felt it was compelling for my view.

You're right, I did, because I've seen your points before, and guess what, I'm still completely confident in my view.

At least I admit to it, instead of trying to mask it with the phrase "I am completely confident in my view." That brings me to the most intriguing part of this conversation (for me). You say you have met other Christians who'll discuss evolution with you, and you enjoy conversations with them, so then why on earth are you so desperate to get me to talk to evolution about you, especially after I openly admitted to being close minded? It seems rather illogical on your part to continue to persue. So why don't you go talk with them? Or heck, if you really want to talk about evolution evidence, go check out Pahu's topic.

I have just given you something which can completely disprove evolution, if you had asked I would have happily given it earlier but you just assumed nothing can convince me just like you assumed I don't look at christian arguments and then assumed all arguments have been debunked and assumed I have never watched any creation videos.

Click to expand...

Well, if those assumptions were wrong, then allow me to assume the opposite, which is apparently true. In that case, I will assume you have looked at the Christian arguments and watched creation videos. In conclusion then, it would be pointless to have a conversation about evolution with you, because after all, you've already seen the Christian arguments, and I would only be giving you more of the same.

You replied to me remember and also remember my point was nothing to do with this, you have acknowledged that already and I made it very obvious in my original post what I was talking about. I'm not forcing a view on anyone I am simply responding to someone who replied to my post and made a completely different point.

Click to expand...

You're not trying to force your view on anyone? Then why is it you're so desperate to talk to me about evolution after I made it more then obvious I'm not interested?

In the meantime, I'm going to go grab some popcorn.

madeline murray o'hare claimed to be an atheist and in that disguise brought the entire united states of america to it's knees....but not in prayer. long after the initial damage was done and the country continued to decline under this influence o'hare's true identity was exposed. she was a practicing witch. many of satan's followers wear this disguise; christians need to be aware of this. notice the hateful spirit that always enters in when engaging so called atheists in debate. unbeliever's are false as well. that is why they suffer under condemnation. they know that God exists but they refuse to glorify Him as such because to do so would leave them without excuse for their behaviors. the remainder of so called atheists eventually break down at some point and inadvertently reveal why they are angry with God which in turn reveals that they like the others do believe in God they are simply sworn to be God's enemies and this is how they choose to do it. even the demons believe and tremble. there is no such thing as a true atheist. this is why i stated that i don't believe in them. those who claim to be are frauds and liars all ATHEISTS DO NOT EXIST>

I have a long history with Atheism and live in a country that is functionally Atheist.

I've seen some real bad things arise since 911 with Atheism. Really bad. To the point where I'm convinced the Anti-Christ religion will be a form of Atheism/Science Worship. (No I'm not suggesting that's happening now).

I actually think a lot of them are the worst kind of people. Even worse than Republican voters. (I know right, that is pretty bad!)

I find these days, the worst people tend to be Atheist and Libertarian/Tea Bagger/Republican voters.

If people have been around Church of Satan people, they will know that most of them are Social Conservative/Republicans & atheists. Their founder described their religion as Ayn Rand with capes.

Anton Lavey's brand of satanism is nothing more than atheism with a hedonist twist. Atheists claim they are not a religion but they are very close to Laveyan satanism. Too bad he is in hell with all his atheist friends. All he had to do is repent and trust in Jesus.

I'm not sure if you are referring to Australian Republicans, but I assure you the American GOP is MUCH more in line with true Christianity than Democrats. Yes the Republicans do things I totally disagree with, but the scale of wickedness in the Democrat platform is truly frightening and un-American.

Democrats- Anti-life (abortion)
Pro homosexual marriage
Pro drug legalization
Pro-Islamist Palestinian- anti-Israel
socialist redistribution of wealth

I could go on and on.. here is a clip of Democrats booing God and Israel
Democrats BOO GOD At Convention - YouTube

I think atheists MUST have faith. They just don't know it though. Think about it...

I think you have misconceptions of most atheists.

Atheism and agnosticism are not entirely mutually exclusive, and atheists are not "actually agnostic because no one can ever know whether God exists." This is a highly contested point among religious believers and atheistic philosophers alike, as most, if not all, thinking atheists would happily change their minds given the right evidence, and thus could be considered "agnostic" in this sense. However, this conflates the ideas of belief and knowledge. Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge - which is often accepted on all sides of the theistic debate. Atheism takes the position that it is rational to think that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Agnostics, on the other hand, state that the lack of knowledge cannot inform their opinion at all. There are agnostic atheists, who can be either weak or strong. It is at least logically possible for a theist to be an agnostic (e.g., "I believe in a pantheon of lobsterish zoomorphic deities, but cannot prove this with evidence, and acknowledge and embrace that my belief is rooted in faith")—but it is markedly difficult to find anyone who will fess up to such a position.

Oh really? Then let me ask you this. Say you were provided with enough evidence to say that you believe the Bible is true. Would you worship the God of the Bible? A simple yes or no would do.

No, would you still believe if there were no heavenly reward?

I had to live with a family who weren't atheist or religious or whatever, they were just too wrapped up in their own selves it didn't enter their head. When I asked, at about three years old, they thought it was funny. So I started to look for God. Looked in church, couldn't find Him there. Looked in the bible, and that was written in English but for all it made sense it could have been Greek. One night at about 8:00 while I was reading the Sermon on the Mount, wondering about it, it made sense. I looked at the clock, it was 8:15. I was 18. I had found God. It was like coming home when before I just lived without roots or reason. God had found me, I let Him in, now I understood.

To be an atheist you just aren't really alive or in the real world.