Ask an Atheist

[Deadtosin]

"why does anything need a reason to be? Does a ball have a reason to land where it lands when it falls? No its just the result of gravity and other forces. Unguided. Why would the universe be different on any larger scale?" -SkepticJosh

first I want to take the time to thank you again for your patience and openness, you have given many of us something interesting to engage in lol.

second, I find your statement about the ball inaccurate- "does a ball have a reason to land where it lands?-no" you then tear your own reasoning apart stating that indeed it DOES have a reason to land where it lands- as it is in the jurisdiction of laws that it cannot avoid (gravity and other forces). Forces so consistently applicable that you can count on them to effect everything. Ironically the ball itself (as a simple ball implies a man-made toy) would require construction and then, how did it get into the air in the first place? There are MANY reasons why that ball will land Exactly where it will land. Including the specs to which the ball was created in the first place.

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? (2).

"A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."-Fred Hoyle.


who was Fred Hoyle?

Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was an English astronomer noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.​

 

[penknight]

-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.

“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.”

Look up the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


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?

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-

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.

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?

Not to gloat, but I gotta give you a high five.

 

[Deadtosin]

"My stance is that nothing should be believed without good reason"-SkepticJosh

Long story short, I parked my car at a convenience store across the overpass from the Austin Bergstrom International Airport. My friend and I walked beneath the overpass to the other side to give a homeless man two dollars (who was dressed like an apostle complete with robes, sandals white beard and long hair) after I gave him the money he told us that he had been leading a revolution for God for 30 years- just walked away from his life. Then his eyes grew big and stared off into space and he said "THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD!" and as he continued to speak I was on a knee, curling the corners of my hat shielding my eyes. He went on and on and I couldn't even lift my hat to see his sandals. My eyes argued with me "I don't know where you THINK you are going to look, you are not looking at that man" he continued on and on and on and on, when he was finally finished I stood up, extended a handshake and spun around, I didn't even look up at him, when I spun around the world was normal. I heard my friend say goodbye and we walked in silence toward the other side of the overpass toward the car. I looked at my friend "did you see me there kneeling like that? He swore "**** NO I DIDN'T SEE YOU JEFF I WAS KNEELING RIGHT BEHIND YOU HOW THE **** COULD I SEE YOU?"

the story goes on and the experiences grow long.

good enough reason for me to believe Skeptic?

 

[didymos]

I'm not asking for an explaination of your feelings. I'm asking for an explaination of why the untestable and inprovable object of your affection exists. Which is a reasonable request.

The title of this thread is: 'Ask an Atheist,' I'm not an atheist, so why are you asking me?
You started off insisting we should ask YOU questions, but here you are, questioning US: christians...

Such a predictable outcome of this thread.

 

[Pie]

Not to gloat, but I gotta give you a high five.

=) We don't have to be ashamed of what we believe. Christians have incredibly strong grounds and good reason to believe what they do...especially compared to that of the atheist.


But honestly, this whole thing has just left me heavy of heart. It's shown me first hand that there are those who have so strongly closed off their heart and mind to God that it doesn't matter... In spite of all the evidence, they will chose to disbelieve. They are so utterly convinced of their worldview that anything that dares to shake it will be ignored..no matter how irrational...or miraculous their own beliefs are. If you bring up a subject with your explanation and good reasons and they can't explain it... they don't even try... suddenly it's "Well, it doesn't matter" or "Your opinion is irrelevant" or "It just is... we don't need reasons." This makes it impossible to even have meaningful conversation. They call us the closed-minded ones... failing to see just how much they've closed off their own minds.

I know not all are like this... but
I think I need a break from the forums for awhile... this is just depressing.

 

[penknight]

=) We don't have to be ashamed of what we believe. Christians have incredibly strong grounds and good reason to believe what they do...especially compared to that of the atheist.


But honestly, this whole thing has just left me heavy of heart. It's shown me first hand that there are those who have so strongly closed off their heart and mind to God that it doesn't matter... In spite of all the evidence, they will chose to disbelieve. They are so utterly convinced of their worldview that anything that dares to shake it will be ignored..no matter how irrational...or miraculous their own beliefs are. If you bring up a subject with your explanation and good reasons and they can't explain it... they don't even try... suddenly it's "Well, it doesn't matter" or "Your opinion is irrelevant" or "It just is... we don't need reasons." This makes it impossible to even have meaningful conversation. They call us the closed-minded ones... failing to see just how much they've closed off their own minds.

I know not all are like this... but
I think I need a break from the forums for awhile... this is just depressing.

Well said indeed.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Then you're not reading all the posts in this thread. Read this one: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/90384-ask-atheist-10.html#post1508036 which explains why comparing God to fictional characters is infantile/sophomoric and fallacious/illogical.

Also, your assertion that "they both have the same amount of evidence supporting their existences" is patently false. There is a large body of empirical collaborative evidence for the existence of God and a large body of human beings who assert experiences that correlate with that large body of empirical evidence. For unicorns... not so much... lol.

What a completely ignorant false thing for you to say. Is it deliberate or you actually that ignorant?

I fail to see how they're fundamentally different. I understand the differences but the reasons I made the connection are clear. Nobody's ever seen one. They were both believed to exist at one time. Nobody has ever tested ones existence. They're both supernatural. In these ways they are the same. At one time people deeply pondered the existence of unicorns and dragons and zeus. Whether one is still accepted and another is not is irrelevant. They both have the same amount of evidence supporting their existences.

 

[doseofreality]

Dude, I wasn't trying to belittle you or be sarcastic or anything like that, I was being honest when I said that you seem intelligent. I'm not trying to get on your bad side either, so I'm sorry if I made you upset. Yes, I did read your answers. I can see things from your perspective, all I was trying to was provoke some serious thought, not attack anybody with facts or get in your face with facts, yes I realized that what I said before seemed like that but I came to that conclusion based on the perspectives I've gathered from non-believers and believers alike. So don't turn this into a verbal argument, because I'm still a bit immature, so it's kinda difficult for me to hold my temper, and I'd rather not act in a childish manner. So when you reply please don't include any snide remarks.

First off I will apologize for my snide comment and for anything else that was misconstrued as insulting.

I was not upset merely a bit irritated in that your response merely briefly recognized my answers to your many questions and then proceeded to ask nearly the very same questions again.

I will concede this back and forth to you in that I feel there is too big a risk for misunderstanding from both parties.
This topic of meaning and value cannot be ultimately be resolved here in this forum especially between people with differing worldviews and perspectives.

 

[penknight]

I'm finished here. You guys can pm your response if you want.

 

[doseofreality]

=) We don't have to be ashamed of what we believe. Christians have incredibly strong grounds and good reason to believe what they do...especially compared to that of the atheist.


But honestly, this whole thing has just left me heavy of heart. It's shown me first hand that there are those who have so strongly closed off their heart and mind to God that it doesn't matter... In spite of all the evidence, they will chose to disbelieve. They are so utterly convinced of their worldview that anything that dares to shake it will be ignored..no matter how irrational...or miraculous their own beliefs are. If you bring up a subject with your explanation and good reasons and they can't explain it... they don't even try... suddenly it's "Well, it doesn't matter" or "Your opinion is irrelevant" or "It just is... we don't need reasons." This makes it impossible to even have meaningful conversation. They call us the closed-minded ones... failing to see just how much they've closed off their own minds.

I know not all are like this... but
I think I need a break from the forums for awhile... this is just depressing.

And there in lies the rub.... many non-believers could take what you just wrote and turn it back on you.

Of course each side considers the other close minded, so that isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

It seems that it comes down to interpreting evidence, christians claim they have evidence and good reason to believe in the supernatural and the bible, non-believers do not see it as good evidence.

Non-believers claim there is a lack of evidence for the miraculous and supernatural, based on their criteria for good evidence.

Not sure where I'm going with this, I just wanted to point out the symmetry in the mindset of both sides.

 

[penknight]

First off I will apologize for my snide comment and for anything else that was misconstrued as insulting.

I was not upset merely a bit irritated in that your response merely briefly recognized my answers to your many questions and then proceeded to ask nearly the very same questions again.

I will concede this back and forth to you in that I feel there is too big a risk for misunderstanding from both parties.
This topic of meaning and value cannot be ultimately be resolved here in this forum especially between people with differing worldviews and perspectives.

Wait a minute, what did I misunderstand?

 

[Deadtosin]

Doseofreality, it is to this that I respond "This topic of meaning and value cannot be ultimately be resolved here in this forum especially between people with differing worldviews and perspectives. "- Doseofreality

If I come back from down the street and I say "there was a wreck in front of 7-11, the traffic is backed up"
I am not telling you an opinion. I am relaying the truth of what I just witnessed.

There are only 3 options. 1: I am telling the truth and there indeed was a wreck, 2: I'm lying or 3: I'm a lunatic.

If my experience has another witness then I cannot be a lunatic. I am either lying to the point of conspiracy or I'm telling the truth. Lying would be very hypocritical for a follower of Jesus btw.

So I tell you, the truth is that God is not a story of something far away and long ago. He is tangible, His hands reach unto earth, even in these days. I testify to this event of which I was witness. I testify I was not alone.

After my testimony- if you believe there is still no God, you are deciding against an experience just as physically real as a car wreck down the street, and 2 men witnessing of the event.

a detailed testimony is currently in the testimonies thread, it is also in my profile. the brief version is post 243 of this thread.

 

[penknight]

I was going to stop, but I have to finish this.

 

[Pie]

And there in lies the rub.... many non-believers could take what you just wrote and turn it back on you.

Of course each side considers the other close minded, so that isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

It seems that it comes down to interpreting evidence, christians claim they have evidence and good reason to believe in the supernatural and the bible, non-believers do not see it as good evidence.

Non-believers claim there is a lack of evidence for the miraculous and supernatural, based on their criteria for good evidence.

Not sure where I'm going with this, I just wanted to point out the symmetry in the mindset of both sides.

Dose, all you have to do is look at this thread. Read through the posts... Several arguments have been made.. points been brought up...evidence brought up. Christians responded. It gets completely ignored... and the atheist repeats the same thing over and over... Santa Claus, Zeus, Unicorns... The arguments stand untouched... with the atheist responding with the answers I listed above. I ended with "not all are like this" for a reason. There are atheists that it's possible to have meaningful conversations with. However, this thread is a perfect example of what happens most of the time.

 

[doseofreality]

Wait a minute, what did I misunderstand?

No haha I said there is a risk of misunderstanding.

 

[doseofreality]

Doseofreality, it is to this that I respond "This topic of meaning and value cannot be ultimately be resolved here in this forum especially between people with differing worldviews and perspectives. "- Doseofreality

If I come back from down the street and I say "there was a wreck in front of 7-11, the traffic is backed up"
I am not telling you an opinion. I am relaying the truth of what I just witnessed.

There are only 3 options. 1: I am telling the truth and there indeed was a wreck, 2: I'm lying or 3: I'm a lunatic.

If my experience has another witness then I cannot be a lunatic. I am either lying to the point of conspiracy or I'm telling the truth. Lying would be very hypocritical for a follower of Jesus btw.

So I tell you, the truth is that God is not a story of something far away and long ago. He is tangible, His hands reach unto earth, even in these days. I testify to this event of which I was witness. I testify I was not alone.

After my testimony- if you believe there is still no God, you are deciding against an experience just as physically real as a car wreck down the street, and 2 men witnessing of the event.

a detailed testimony is currently in the testimonies thread, it is also in my profile. the brief version is post 243 of this thread.

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.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It can; however, be repeated here as the topic of what constitutes meaning and value is already resolved. It's just that conventionalists have yet to embrace the truth.

Hehe.

This topic of meaning and value cannot be ultimately be resolved here in this forum.

 

[doseofreality]

Dose, all you have to do is look at this thread. Read through the posts... Several arguments have been made.. points been brought up...evidence brought up. Christians responded. It gets completely ignored... and the atheist repeats the same thing over and over... Santa Claus, Zeus, Unicorns... The arguments stand untouched... with the atheist responding with the answers I listed above. I ended with "not all are like this" for a reason. There are atheists that it's possible to have meaningful conversations with. However, this thread is a perfect example of what happens most of the time.

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.

 

[penknight]

First off I will apologize for my snide comment and for anything else that was misconstrued as insulting.

I was not upset merely a bit irritated in that your response merely briefly recognized my answers to your many questions and then proceeded to ask nearly the very same questions again.

I will concede this back and forth to you in that I feel there is too big a risk for misunderstanding from both parties.
This topic of meaning and value cannot be ultimately be resolved here in this forum especially between people with differing worldviews and perspectives.

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?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

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.

Doseofreality, it is to this that I respond...