Questions for Atheists
Ranked #1,637 in Culture & Society, #38,594 overall
The Notion of God...Nonsense! Jesus... Absurd!
Atheists, are these your sentiments? If so, then as a Christian, I have some questions for you.
Christians, have you ever heard an atheist express these words in one way or another? If not, scroll down and you'll see it for yourself.
Many atheists paint a picture of themselves as "enlightened," claiming they understand the origins, history, and motives behind Christianity and the Bible as well as the origin of life, calling it science. Atheists frequently lump all religions together as if all religions teach the same thing. When, in fact, doing so is a smokescreen for ignorance on the topic of world religions. And, according to the number of answers I have had to delete for breaking the rules below, it seems difficult for atheists to give straight answers and provide evidence to support their claims. They also find it very difficult not to attack the opposing viewpoint and it's deliverer in a sometimes very mean-spirited manner. Since when is belittling the opposition equal to an intellectually sound, substantive argument?
My skeptical friends, it's your turn to defend what you believe. Enlighten us, if you can.
Fellow Chrisians, you are welcome to add supporting information on the Christian side of each question or to duel an atheist's answer. Please be polite, intelligent, and focus on the question; no one is immune to deletion (especially wackos disguised as Christians).
Although there are only two places to put an answer: ATHEIST or CHRISTIAN, you don't have to be strictly one or the other to participate. I had to provide a description for only two spaces per question, so if you are somewhere in between or neither Atheist or Christian, simply choose the one that best represents your position on the topic in question. (ie: If you are Jewish, choose the Christian side. If you are Agnostic, choose the atheist side.) If you like, explain your position to us so we all know where you're coming from.
The priority of this site is not to evangelize, but to have an open, intelligent, logical, and thought-provoking debate between atheist and Christian viewpoints. Everyone but a fool can learn something from open discussions like these. If you are not open to learning something new on this page, you are given to intellectual stagnation and consider this a sport rather than a quest for truth. In that case, please don't waste both your time and mine.
It is an intellectual's responsibility to do his/her own honest research on the topics discussed on this page. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as an "unbiased" source. Everyone formulates personal opinions based upon what they know and think they know. Name-callling does not pass as a valid argument and a mind that is made up (one that you might call biased) does not a make a fact, theory, or belief false. So, unless there is proven evidence of a claim being false, one cannot argue that it is untrue. The burden of proof lies with the one who states it. I have provided plenty of supporting evidence for my claims on this page. It is up to you to find and review it. It is not difficult.
The more you participate, the more interesting this debate becomes!
A FEW RULES:
1. NO SPAM.
2. NO VERBAL DIARRHEA. IF YOU USE PROFANITY OR BELITTLE OTHERS, INCLUDING MYSELF, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED A MORON UNQUALIFIED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS HONESTLY. EVERY PARTICIPANT VISITING THIS PAGE IS WORTHY OF YOUR RESPECT. DO YOUR INTELLIGENCE A FAVOR AND ABSTAIN FROM TREATING THOSE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS LIKE TRASH.
3. SAVE UNRELATED TOPICS FOR LAST. USE THE GUEST BOOK (NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE) INSTEAD. GUEST BOOK COMMENTS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO DELETION.
4. NO CHEATING OR CHANGING THE SUBJECT. ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS, CHANGING THE SUBJECT, STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS, ETC., ARE JUST ANOTHER WAY TO AVOID THE QUESTION AND FLAUNT YOUR SARCASM. BE DIRECT, STAY ON TOPIC, AND ANSWER THE QUESTION... IF YOU CAN.
5. BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. FACTS ARE FACTS, TRUTH IS TRUTH, THEORY IS THEORY, OPINIONS ARE OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS ARE THOUGHTS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW. TELL IT LIKE IT IS. IF THERE IS NO PROOF THAT MAN HAS EVOLVED FROM A MONKEY, THAT MAN IS STILL EVOLVING, THAT THE BIG BANG THEORY IS TRUE, OR THAT THERE ARE ALIENS WITH GREATER INTELLIGENCE LIVING OUTSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, DON'T STATE IT AS FACT. INSTEAD, CALL IT YOUR BELIEF, THEORY, ASSUMPTION, OR THOUGHT. (IE: "I THINK..." OR "MY THEORY IS...")
6. IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT BIBLICAL REFERENCES ARE NOT UNQUALIFIED AS RELEVANT ARGUMENTS SIMPLY BECAUSE ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. BOTH CHRISTIANS AND ATHEISTS ALIKE BASE AT LEAST SOME OF THEIR BELIEFS ON PAST EVENTS OR THE WORDS OF SOMEONE ELSE, WHETHER SUPPORTED BY OBSERVABLE EFFECTS OR NOT. PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCES AND SOURCES THAT SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS. WHEN QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE, USE QUOTATION MARKS AND CITATIONS. ALL ANSWERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL.
7. THE QUESTIONS WILL NOT LIKELY BE CHANGED PER YOUR REQUEST, NOR ACCEPTED AS AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. IF YOU POST YOUR DISSATISFACTION IN THE QUESTION ITSELF, IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE REJECTED BEFORE IT IS POSTED. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A QUESTION, ASK FOR CLARITY IN THE GUEST BOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, OR SEND ME A PRIVATE NOTE FROM MY HOME PAGE. I WILL NOT REPLY TO ANY INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE MESSAGES FOR SECURITY REASONS, BUT I WILL PROPERLY CONSIDER YOUR RESPECTFUL COMMENTS, AND I PROMISE THAT ANY PRAYER REQUESTS THAT ARE PRIVATELY SENT TO ME WILL BE PROMPTLY ACTED UPON.
Happy free-thinking!
Whit
A HELPFUL HINT: By reading the information provided in at least three links I use to aid some of the questions, Biblical Archaeology, Biblical Manuscripts, and Messianic Prophecy, your answers will reflect that you have given some time and research to some of the issues presented.
Lies in the Textbooks
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Amazon Price: $11.35 (as of 05/31/2012)
Design and Order
Keep in mind that the universe includes the earth and everything in it. For example, bees, animals, trees, plants, and people all depend on one another for survival. If we had no bees, we would not be able to survive, as the bees pollinate the plants and the plants provide oxygen and food, etc. The locations and orbits of the planets in our solar system and the distance from the sun and gravity and DNA are examples of order and design. (Junk DNA has been found to be a myth.)
The answer that there is none will be deleted as it is false and mere denial of what has already been scientifically observed and verified. Chaos does exist, but we are able to determine there was a beginning and entropy suggests that it all started out right and then began to go wrong over time. Current day observation confirms that if you leave something metal in the rain, it begins to decay and rust. It doesn't evolve into something better, so...
How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Choqo says:
I'm having trouble understanding how order somehow equals design. I would also like to point out that I am sitting here designing a response to a question posed by the universe, so designing something doesn't really equal godlike qualities. Imagination is one of the human's strongest tools. This is like any of the senses, and abilities like flight and extracting oxygen from water. We use our imagination to think things through better than a lot of other species, but I don't see anything that would lead me to believe we are anything other than just another species. We are self designing. To not understand this is to allow others to direct that design.
nephthys says:
Due to the irrational nature of the universe!
I actually do believe in more inteligent beings, 'gods' if you will, but more than one.
If god controls everything why am I atheist? says:
Natural selection and I'm guess you have never heard of physics, no?
Jack Rodriguez says:
Religon made people belive there is an Invisble man in the sky who watches everything we do but he has a list of 10 things we can't do but if we do do one of the things he will send you to eternal pain and suffering. But he still loves you! Smh
noobreaperdoodman says:
i like beer
Jesus says:
Mankind is not as dumb as people think...
BaboonLover says:
I prayed for the first time after a very very long time..I do not believe in God, i refuse to accept the existence of God....Coming back to the prayer..Even though I am not a believer, i felt good...I was talking to myself, talking about the things that made me sad, bitter and angry..and i felt good..And then i though, that must be how people feel at a psychiatrist !! Nevertheless, i have come to the conclusion that faith is another name for hope..My question though, is this..Why is the christian god, more acceptable to beliefs than Zeus the Greek king of gods..What is the difference?
David Corpus says:
Why is god the best explanation for the intricacies of the universe? Why does this question focus on all of the amazing things and discount all of the flaws in an intelligently designed universe? If you designed a person, would you put the sewer system in the middle of the amusement park? If you designed a planet exclusively for humans, why would 2/3 be covered in water? Were cancer and disease part of the intelligent design? What about the human appendix? How does it fit into intelligent design?
Joakim says:
Humans believe,
They do that because we want to know,
Humans want to now it all,
So we created an answer, god.
but it's wrong, and we have to realize this.
If we dont help each other, then we will never know the real answer.
Yes, we have a therory, but it is a therory. So we need to investigate, do what all humans want to do. Then we will get the prize, we will know why.
And if we don't, we will go angenst our nature.
We will still be blind, and we will never know.
JustOneGuy says:
I can't. Nobody can. All I know is that we simply don't know what life is, much less how it has come to exist. Maybe someday we will and I suspect that the answers will be stranger than anyone can imagine. I don't agree with evolution because it doesn't seem to explain why we've never seen a single new species evolve yet and we've been looking pretty hard, I think. The other part of that which makes no sense is where the "experts" say that if a species gets fewer than x population, it will go extinct without help. Well, that implies that if a new species suddenly erupts into existence, there better be more than x of them or a waiting, helping hand. But I don't think intelligent design accounts for all things either. I'm open to what actualy makes sense but so far I haven't seen it. Life is incredible and probably is something that has to exist and isn't an accident. It's probably going to be more like a hydrogen atom in that it's a stable configuration that persists over time but why it does or how it does, we simply don't know. I'm open to whatever turns out to be true though, and if it's God, I'll be the first in line to say, "Thanks!".
Ben says:
I don't accept your premise that the universe is designed. One can prove absolutely anything to be true given a false premise, and drawing a line from this false premise of design to a god is easy. You need to defend this observation of design.
I would agree that there is order in the universe, though it is quantifiable and decreasing overall. This law dealing with disorder, called "entropy" in physics, is described in the second law of thermodynamics. This decline from order to disorder is one of the most important laws of physics and is one of the most important reasons we even perceive time linearly. If you want to know why the second law of thermodynamics is true, I have no qualms about saying that I don't know, and no one else does either.
Joeyjoejoe says:
I really hate to start off this way, but the reason the universe is the way it is is because the universe is the way it is. If it had started out with a different amount of matter, antimatter and energy then we would be living in a different universe.
Anonymous says:
It is my belief that many Christians don't ask a vital question. I think God does not exist without a higher power, because there is no way God could create himself and if the universe could not exist without a start then God could not exist without a start.
nothing90 says:
In the end, there's no way of knowing. You can say that there is no way the Earth could be created without God, but who created God? Who created the being who created God? You can also say that God always existed, but in that case, why couldn't the universe have always existed? It all started from nothingness and will always be nothingness, nothing more than a dream. That's how I feel sometimes.
Esteban says:
The order and apparent design we see seems to come from matter working under natural laws.
For example, gravity causes objects with great mass to distribute their weight in a way that is generally spherical. When we look out on the planets, we might assume that they were created by a god who likes spheres. But it seems more likely that they are the natural result of gravity.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Furthermore, Choqo, um... the question was posed by a person, not the universe. And if your design of a response to this question equaled godlike qualities, well... no offense, but I fear we'd all be in trouble.
WhitU4ever says:
Choco, the design displayed in the universe is impressive and brilliant and all works together. But your answer, well... you claim we are just another species, as if the existence of any one of the living creatures on the earth, including ourselves, is no big deal. We are self-designing??? Do you really believe that? As in... we brought ourselves into existence? Now THAT takes imagination.
Apologist says:
If god controls everything why am I atheist? Your assumption is based on the fact that you will never believe, and on the fact that God's divine purpose is to force us into conformity of belief.
WhitU4ever says:
Ifgod, how does natural selection explain design and order in the universe? Natural selection is how living things adapt to the environment and survive over time. It is address the presence of design and order in the universe. Physics is the science or study of natural laws. It does not explain the high degree of design and order in the universe either. Please explain your answer.
lizholy says:
Whit, thanks for the opportunity to debate here in an intellectual fashion. It seems to me that the premise of your question is designed for the answer to be what you want it to be: there is a God. I believe that is a problem that we Christians often have. We already believe the Bible, so we don't realize that such a question is actually "a trick question" for those who don't believe (that 's what my kids helped me realized). Jesus told people, if you don't believe what I say, you should believe even because of the miracles that you see. My prayer is for an atheist to meet the Lord in a personal experience. That is the only way He proves Himself to be true. Remember that the Bible teaches us only the Truth can set people free, and the Truth is not a series of intellectual arguments, the Truth is person. Blessings to all of you on both sides.
WhitU4ever says:
Jack, religion isn't mentioned in this question. God is. You were asked to explain the high degree of design and order and your answer has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. Please answer the question.
WhitU4ever says:
Hey noob, that explains everything!
WhitU4ever says:
BaboonLover, to answer your question, there are multiple vital differences between Zeus and the God of the Bible. Read the Bible and you'll know what they are.
WhitU4ever says:
David, do you have an explanation for the intricacies of the universe? Does it contain as much or more evidence than the evidence that supports the Biblical record? You think that the body of mammals is flawed, so tell me how it could have been done better. The fact that the sewer system operates so closely to the amusement park without incident under normal circumstances for most people is brilliant, in my opinion. And how much water is the body composed of? If we are composed of that much water, it serves to reason that the planet we live on contains that much water. Have you not looked up what the appendix is useful for? It is part of our immune system. Whether we know exactly how does not negate its importance to our bodies. If everything else in the body is useful, including our ability to feel pain, then the appendix is not useless. That doesn't mean that one cannot live without it. Some can live without an ear or an arm if they must. Cancer and disease seem to be the result of multiple generations breeding over time and experiencing mutations as we get farther away from the original. Simply put, cancer is malformed cells multiplying more rapidly than originally intended. The Bible explains disease, death, etc., as the result of living in a fallen world... and that has been happening for quite a long time. Many diseases are a result of us altering the plan for ourselves, or taking charge of things that were never intended for us to control in the first place, such as the way food is made. We have thought we knew better than God. How we have treated ourselves and the Intelligence that started it all? Like we are God, and He is not? Are we more intelligent than that which is responsible for not only our existence but our ability to think at all? This is not a contest between atheists and Christians really. This is a chance to think hard about why we exist at all.
WhitU4ever says:
Joakim, what evidence do you have that people created the idea of God or that it is wrong? Do you not see that this lens was created for people to help one another mull over the issues discussed and to get closer to the truth?
DylanForJesus says:
Evidence of design is overwhelming. The strong anthropic principle states that if the laws of physics and the constants in the universe were infinitesimally different, we won't be here to observe the universe, therefore the obvious conclusion is that there must be a Designer. Physicists and cosmologists such as Hawkins have relied on metaphysical explanations such as the multiverse theory to avoid the inescapable conclusion of a Godcreator. And after all why is M-Theory more logical than simply "God did it?
WhitU4ever says:
By the way, the evidence I am speaking of in my previous response is found on this page. I think most people who visit this page are capable of finding it, but if you want to know VERY badly and cannot find it, I will post it again per your request. (Hint: see the introduction section of this lens and/or look for hyperlinks in my multiple responses found under the rest of these questions.)
WhitU4ever says:
When people say no one can explain the high degree of design and order in the universe, that is not a proven fact. It is, in all fairness, a human assumption. Perhaps it is even an excuse from seeking an answer to the question as well. Just because we don't think we can find the answer, it doesn't excuse us from trying. I know, One Guy, that you are very interested in thinking logically and finding answers based upon logical deduction and reason, so I would hope that your belief that no one can know why things are the way they are would not discourage your search for answers on this topic. I believe that I DO have the answer... and that it is provided in the Bible. What you do with the information in the Bible is your business. But I believe the evidence supports Biblical claims far more than atheism or any other explanation or theory devised so far.
WhitU4ever says:
Ben, if you cannot see that an apple is designed to fit the hand, the bees were made for the flowers, the earth cannot exist without the sun, that the trees were made for shade, and male and female body parts go together, then I can only conclude that you are blind BY CHOICE. Either answer the question or stop using up valuable space on this page to display your obvious denial of what can be easily observed by the naked eye.
Believer says:
Before anyone begins to speak of the universe and a lack of God, investigate Albert Einstein, Hubble and many more of the greatest minds of the modern world and you will find that after their studies of the cosmos they could not deny the existence of God.
Does Science Disprove God?
The Stones Cry Out
The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible
Amazon Price: $5.89 (as of 05/31/2012)
This survey of archaeological discoveries in Bible lands includes testimonies and interviews from leading archaeologists and exciting pictures featuring the latest finds made in the lands of the Bible.
Archaeological Evidence
See Biblical Archaeology. This question does not attempt to prove the validity of Christianity's claims based solely upon the existing archaeological evidence supporting Biblical events, places, and people. Therefore, the argument that not EVERY Biblical story, place, and people is accounted for in archaeology (therefore the question is invalid) doesn't fly with me. That kind of non-answer warrants deletion.
***READ THE RULES IN THE INTRODUCTION BEFORE YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS***
How do you explain away the validity of the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Choqo says:
One of the best ways to get people to believe things is to include actual events. Just because it doesn't say 'inspired by true events' doesn't mean that's not all it is. You really need to be careful of the power of wishful thinking and how it can influence your interpretation of the information your senses are giving you.
nephthys says:
Most of the bible is based on true events, it is a chronicle of the stories of a people- a primitive people who will have some misunderstandings of certain events.
Jesus (pronounced "Hey-soos" not "Jee-sus") says:
What validity? Who validated it? God? A person who doesn't exist? If you listen to a person who doesn't even exist, well, good luck.
David Corpus says:
What is the relevance of the existence of the people and places? If I wrote a fictional story set in present day and used actual people as my characters, would my fictional story suddenly be true? The stories say Jesus was crucified at age 33 by Pontius Pilate whose office can be dated from 26-36 A.D, yet Paul's gospel was written in 65AD and Peter II was written in 100-150AD. If anyone actually witnessed the son of god performing miracles, why would they wait a lifetime after his death to write about him? Your archaeological documentation is defeated by the timeline.
JustOneGuy says:
I should have said also that there are beautiful stories in the Bible and many have very good life lessons that folks can draw from. If I had enough wishes, one of them would be to go back to those times to see for myself what actually took place. Great things happened and we've lived with the effects ever since. I have doubts, however, and if God does exist, He would understand that I am just living up to my "design", right?
JustOneGuy says:
The stories are probably true. Not only that, there are more mysteries in ancient sites than even the bible explains. I read somewhere that numerous "books" were blocked from being included in today's bible and I'd like to see what was in those. With respect to the truth contained in the bible, it's one thing to relate times and people and another to believe the stories. If you look at the stories in today's media, it isn't hard to see where those stories are colored by the beliefs and pressures of the writers. Today, as in the past, the "history" is written by the victors. We are told that muslims "hate our way of life" and that's why they are antagonistic toward us. And that's what will be reported in the coming "history" books. That they have no problem with our way of life but hate having our military on their soil and our government's meddling in their political affairs - that will somehow be left out of the publications. So, I'm dubious about the interpretations of the past when those doing the interpreting have definite axes to grind.
MasterTen says:
The best lie is 99% truth. I do not argue against the validity of past events or places. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that a child was born to a virgin and that the child was the only begotten son of a magical and invisible man living in the sky.
zalpha says:
I don't need to. Those stories in the Bible that are validate by evidence are valid. That says nothing about the validity of any other part of the Bible.
Gandalf says:
Like you said: "until they found an ankle bone with a stake in it dated to the same time period"
That´s the way science works. You postulate a theory that best explains the fact in question. If a new fact arises which contradicts the theory, it is no longer valid and you have to find a better explanation. This new explanation should take all the facts into account. For instance if my own personal theory of gravity claimed that objects decide whether to fall or not, it would be easily refuted by anyone deciding not to fall and being unable to do it.
And when I say the best possible explanation I mean what is more likely to be true. The Earth circling the sun? Or viceversa? Which makes more sense?
Gandalf says:
The people who wrote these texts told stories based on the world they lived in. Why wouldn´t they match?
How do you explain the validity of the vast archaeological documentation of ancient greek literature? The same way.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Choco, your answer tells me that you didn't bother to look at any of the archaeological evidence that supports the Bible. Hmmm... speaking of wishful thinking... eh hem.
WhitU4ever says:
Hey-soos, if you aren't willing to read anything posted here, what are you doing on my website? Either leave, or get serious and answer the questions. You are full of hatred, which explains why you are emoting rather than thinking. Stop, take a deep breath, calm down, and do yourself a favor and allow yourself to think about the hard questions. It's well worth it.
WhitU4ever says:
David, regarding the dating of the writings you mentioned, it is most likely that the disciples of Jesus were quite young when they began to follow Him. It was common Jewish practice to be called to learn from or be a disciple of a Rabbi or teacher as a young teenager. So, the disciples were not astonished at being called by Jesus, as it was customary in their day, and he was well-known for being able to talk circles around the priests by then. Paul was either the same age or younger, as he was portrayed as one who began persecuting Christians after Jesus' resurrection and ascension. So, the time you mentioned of Paul's writings concurs, and Paul could have been anywhere from 45 on, and that's a conservative estimate, as Jews became men at the age of 13. As for Peter's writings, it is not illogical to consider the same information as with Paul. Peter could have been called at age 13 or above to follow Jesus. So, even if the second book of Peter was written between 100 and 150, even though some scholars disagree with that estimate, and I would ask that you check to be sure that the numbers you have are the most widely accepted among Biblical scholars for the actual date that 2 Peter was written and not merely the date of the earliest copy/manuscript/fragment of 2 Peter. But really, it is not unlikely that he was still alive in 100 to 150 AD. I suggest you look up Gary Habermas and hear what he has to say about it. He is an expert and scholar on this topic, and he has downloaded several free videos that you can watch on YouTube regarding these things.
WhitU4ever says:
David, do you consider your existence relevant? Is your life fictional? Have you read the stories that you mock? You cannot tell me anything about what is written in the Bible until you have read it all. Anything unfinished is cheating. It all is connected. And until you read it, you don't know what you are talking about.
WhitU4ever says:
JOG, No one was designed by God to reject Him. The very fact you would suggest that we have the choice to live up to that "design" shows that you realize we have been given the ability to choose which path to follow.
WhitU4ever says:
As for history being told wrong, a good example of that is found in the video located just under the rules on this page. It is entitled, "Lies in the Textbooks." I encourage everyone visiting this lens to watch it.
WhitU4ever says:
I see a lot of "coloring" going on here on this lens by atheists too. No one has yet adequately explained away the validity of the vast amount of documentation of Biblical archaeological evidence. But there sure are a lot of atheists bent on claiming it is invalid based upon their personal skepticism.
WhitU4ever says:
Where do you get your information from, MasterTen? Who told you that God is magical and lives only in the sky? From my understanding of the scriptures, God is capable of miracles because He created all that we see and He is an eternal, omnipresent Spirit-being responsible for rescuing us from ourselves via Himself (Yeshua, Jesus, Savior, Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, Emannuel, God With Us, Bright and Morning Star, etc.). But... fair enough... you've answered the question. It seems to me that you still believe it is possible that the Bible is worthless enough to ignore, even if it only contains 1% of a lie within its thousands of pages. (Not that I agree, of course.) Yet, you don't pretend to explain away the validity of the events proven by archaeology? If that is so, then how do you explain your neglect of the 99% of truths that you seem to imply exist in the Bible?
WhitU4ever says:
Have you actually viewed the archaeological documentation? Have you read it? Have you seen the archaeological discoveries found? Did you view the link included above this question that says, "See Biblical Archaeology"? Are you being fair to yourself if you bypass the details regarding these questions and just shrug them off with a quick presumption?
WhitU4ever says:
Joeyjoejoe, I encourage you to study the things they have found. It does not mirror your assumption that what was found was pieces of a story. It was actual artifacts with the names of people mentioned and evidences that the stories actually happened the way they were stated in the Bible, such as Solomon's temple being burned down. The remains found were not a some replicated temple, but charcoal. Another example is the walls of Jericho. They discovered the site of Jericho and found underneath the rebuilt part of it a wall that didn't fall because it was beaten in, but as described in the Bible, it is as though the ground underneath it caved in and the wall stones fell straight down. It is said that the walls came down without the intervention of the soldiers. Those are two very small pieces of evidence, but when you compile them all together, they are so numerous, they far outweigh what is presented to support opposing opinions.
Preservation of Biblical Manuscripts
See The Importance of Biblical Manuscripts.
How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts, the archaeological evidence, and the writings of both religious and secular historians living in Jesus' day?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Choqo says:
An eyewitness can misconstrue what is being seen the same as you and I can misconstrue what we read. The originals can have been falsely written, just as easily as truthfully.
nephthys says:
Good documentation, primitive people.
David Corpus says:
This is the same question, so it gets the same answer. The stories say Jesus was crucified at age 33 by Pontius Pilate whose office can be dated from 26-36 A.D, yet Paul's gospel was written in 65AD and Peter II was written in 100-150AD. If anyone actually witnessed the son of god performing miracles, why would they wait a lifetime after his death to write about him? Your archaeological documentation is defeated by the timeline.
Josh says:
Unlike story telling there is a hard copy that exists. Copies should be almost identical. Why would they not be? Though, when we look at the dead sea scrolls and see that they are so very different it does cause a little question. Especially since the scrolls predate the earliest known version we had prior. Even with that they are basically the same. As one would expect. Why assume that these people were incompetent at copying? Especially if we assume that copiers were members of the faith. It is like saying that we are surprised that Jews cared enough to get what they thought of as the word of their God correct. They would be the best that they could. Wouldn't you. If it were your job to copy the word of your God. So would they.
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
I find this topic very interesting, but I do not understand why the debate is so large as to the existence of a God. Believe in what you wish. It is your belief (or rather it should be) and that belief is what holds meaning to you. There is no need to prove anything. Believe in what you believe. There is no need to defend it if you believe in it.
Uulmshar says:
My photocopier occasionally changes a few words, too. it's kind of annoying.
(sarcasm)
Seriously, man? A book get's copied? WOW
Bolt says:
So the copies were close to the original... big deal, they were written by hand, they wouldn't go very far. As for secular manuscripts about Jesus, I do not recall anything like that. And, even if there were, none of the "evidence" found so far can be verified as accurate when the closest to "Jesus" we can get is one person writing a story about his master who supposedly knew one of the disciples of Jesus. That's a fourth person viewpoint, hardly evidence of anything.
Sketch Sepahi says:
Because, if true, then it just shows there was an original manuscript, not that whatever was said in that manuscript is actually true.
Cheers,
Sketch
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Choco, if you had read the scriptures and viewed the evidence like a serious investigator does, I don't think that you would be able to conclude that the scriptures are false testimony at all. In fact, I think your conclusion would be that they are more likely to be authentic.
shannon-walter says:
I do not doubt the Scripture!
By the way, the apostle Paul was not converted till after Christ's death. By this time, the Church was already established. The religious crowd persecuted the followers of Christ. They didn't want this religion to spread, so it only makes sense that when they came across letters, or gospels, written by the disciples that they would destroy them. Therefore multiple copies had to made by hand. Each copy would have a different date.
WhitU4ever says:
David, to answer you more thoroughly, not only were the disciples alive at the times that you mentioned, but they didn't use a printing press. The Bible says they spent the rest of their lives traveling, preaching, and telling everyone they could the good news about the Messiah's life, words, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension. They were then imprisoned, mocked, tortured, and killed for continuing to do so when asked not to by people like you. They refused to renounce their faith in the face of torture and death. They believed it that much. They did not think it was a lie, like you do. They were there. You were not. You have their words. Read them.
yourgoldenfuture says:
I do not...
WhitU4ever says:
Important: Jewish scribes were scribes for life. It was their sole job (taken very seriously), to copy the the Bible word for word just as they see it, every dot and tittle. They wrote in groups with other scribes and overseers, and were trained to do this with precision. Because they were aware that mistakes were possible, they prevented them by not allowing just one scribe to do the work. Several scribes did it, and several copies were made from one manuscript. It was tedious work, but because every scribe did not make the same mistake in the same place, it was quite easy to determine what the original manuscript said by comparing the copies. This is how we are able to avoid mistakes even today. We look at several copies at a time and compare verse by verse, from different periods, and if only one is different, it was probably a mistake. But there are thousands of copies throughout the years to compare with one another. With computer technology, we are able to compare at a much faster rate. So, the ones that we have today are the most accurate.
WhitU4ever says:
Uulmshar, sit down and read, before you hurt yourself: The Importance of Biblical Manuscripts and A Short Introduction to Biblical Archaeology
WhitU4ever says:
That's first person and second person, Bolt. Many secular historians wrote about what they actually saw themselves, as well as about what the Christians told them about what they saw.
Origin of the Bible
Read about Messianic Prophecy before answering this question. I have provided links to every reference for your convenience.
Also, do not assume that you know when the Bible was written and how accurate it is until you read about Biblical Manuscripts. If you haven't read these two links, or the one about Biblical Archaeology, your answers will reflect that fact. You may wish to avoid your own embarrassment by reading these before answering any more questions. It is well worth knowing.
*This question refers to prophecies concerning the predicted birth, life, death and resurrection of the Messiah/Christ found in the Old Testament that were then recorded as actual events in the New Testament. The dating of these documents being recorded at separate times over many years and by many individuals in an undisputed fact among most scholars today.
*Since absolutely no Biblical (Messianic) prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Hey, you're forgetting other religions here that aren't christian, and believe in divination!
Am I the only person here with a charged yes/no rubber?
Joeyjoejoe says:
If a prophecy is made after an event or if the events are written down to answer the prophecy, then it is relatively easy for this to occur. From what I understand there is no evidence that either of these two events didn't occur.
Anonymous says:
There's the chance that it was all recorded later in time.
oblina says:
The problem with Messianic prophecy is that the bible does not specify which parts of it are meant to be taken as prophecy.
For example- there is a passage in the OT that says a man threw 30 pieces of silver. Christians find that passage and say its a prophecy, because it correlates with the 30 pieces of silver Judas was paid. But in context, the bible never states that this is meant to be a prophecy. Christians just see the similarity and choose to see it as such.
So we look at all the thousands of OTHER things that are in the massive collection of books of the bible. What about all the events in the OT that are NOT reflected in the NT? There was no wall that fell in the NT. There was no flood. There was no apple eaten. It is easy to look at thousands of manuscripts and find similarities between the old and new testaments when the only criteria for claiming prophecy is that these similarities exist. When you have a huge amount of written material, you may well find common themes and occurances throughout it. But there is more in the OT that is NOT prophecy than that is. How can you (as a christian) say that the passage in Isaiah 46 is meant to be prophecy, and therefore was completed in Christ's crucifixion, yet the passage of Jericho's walls falling was NOT prophecy and is not a failure of Messianic prophecy that the wall around the graveyard didn't fall when Jesus died ,only the stones shook. The bible doesn't SAY in big letters : "The is prophecy" and "this is not" it is left for Christians to pick and choose what is meant to be prophecy with absolutely no guidelines. I could go through the works of Shakespeare, starting with Romeo And Juliet and ending with Richard the 3rd, and find random similarities between them. then, ignoring all the DIFFERENCES between the plays, I could claim that Shakespeare is a prophet- based on the randomly selected similarities. Ignoring all the differences, which is what Christians do with the biblical texts. Themes such as the flood, the pillar of stone, the walls of Jericho, the destruction of cities by fire, and the incest of Noah (as well as others) is prevalent in the OT but nowhere to be found in the NT. So why are these things NOT prophecies while OTHER things (the things that reoccur) arbitrarily are? I have read the whole bible, and I can't recall seeing, even once, big bold letters (from the original text ) around the book of Isaiah that say "this passage is a prophecy" in bold letters. Or the part about the thirty pieces of silver, either. Nor have I seen, in big bold letters, a part that says "This is not a prophecy" in the part about Noahs' incest with his daughters (or, if we want to get figurative the Song of Solemnon (try to show me a messianic prophecy in that book). So how do we know which was meant be prophecy and which is not? Why are Christians free to randomly pick and choose "this is prophecy, see it happened" pointing to the man in the OT being buried in a rich man's tomb, yet the Christian cannot point to the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt and say- "there is prophecy that didn't come true. No one in the NT ever turned into the pillar of salt. So the NT is false" There is nothing in the biblical text to indicate that one is prophecy and the other is not. Christians just pick and choose.
I have many more issues with Messianic prophecy, but this is just one. I am looking forward to hearing your answer.
Jackie says:
Failed prophecy: The bible said that the contemporary generation would be alive when Jesus returns. Those folks have been dead almost 2000 years now.
jeremsoft says:
False initial statement...so question is N/A
person says:
A lot of the bible can be interpreted in many ways. Isn't it possible that some give vague interpretations that cover a number of possibilities, and then claim what happened what they said? And then those who interpreted it differently keep quiet? If you do this, someone has interpreted it somewhere the way it happened, making it "correct", because someone can say, "It has been said that x would happen and now x has."
DinosaurEgg says:
Same reason people think their horoscopes are accurate.
mindwise says:
"Since absolutely no Biblical (Messianic) prophecy has ever failed "
Really?
Then i question how the questioner determines 'failed'.
I may be too critical, but i have problems finding one that actually came true.
Perhaps, before discussing further, we should agree on exactly 'what' consitutes as a fulfilled prophecy, i propose:
# It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
# It must be written before the events that it predicts.
# The predicted events must actually occur.
# It must not be overly vague.
# It must not predict a likely event.
# It must not be self-fulfilling
If you can agree to the terms layed out, perhaps we can take a look at the prohpecies again ;)
Rieley says:
I havent seen any biblical prophecys fufuilled yet,none that cant be explained.Like wars and rumors of wars,those have always been here.Its like saying tommorrow im going to my job and then tommorrow i go to my job.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
nephthys, read the introduction to this lens. You wouldn't have responded in this way had you done so already.
shannon-walter says:
The Bible is Divine of origin. The prophecies have not and will not fail. Psalm 118:22- The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
WhitU4ever says:
Joeyjojo, I have made it very clear that there are three links on this site that everyone needs to see if they are genuinely interested and are being intellectually honest with me and with themselves. These links can be found at the top. It's important to read this entire lens. You'll find the answers to your questions and my supporting arguments to the questions I ask you in many places on this site. It is SO worth it to slow down and read it.
WhitU4ever says:
Oblina, you say you read the entire Bible. It looks like you are familiar with some OT events. But contrary to what you have stated as fact, that there are no references in the NT to OT prophecies, there actually are. I made a lens listing each OT prophecy and its NT fulfillment. Visit this link: Messianic Prophecy. Contrary to what you stated, my Christian friends and I did not pick and choose these randomly. Jesus and His very first disciples, some of which were the writers of the NT, included these references and made it clear that they were fulfillments of specific OT verses foretelling certain events. Before then, it was a mystery to the Jews what they referred to, and sometimes they thought that the verses foretold of political events instead of spiritual salvation or the coming Messiah. They were human and they got some things right and some things wrong. We still do to this day. So, I do not disagree with you that some Christians can get way off base and misinterpret the scriptures. I think that is quite evident and needs no proof. It is all around us, and it is quite frustrating to those of us who are more conservative about claiming that the Bible says anything outside of what it actually says or outside of logical deduction and reason. As for there not being many prophecies in the OT, well, I disagree there too. There are very many. In fact, that was God's way of talking to the Kings and to everyone for many, many years before Jesus came on the scene. There is a very thick portion of the Bible that is written by those who were called prophets. No orthodox Jew today would deny that the OT is filled with prophets and prophecy, Messianic or not. Most, if not all, of what was written long ago has already happened. We have historical records that show this. It is not simply assumption on our part, but reason and logical deduction that leads us to believe this. Prophecy is simply a foretelling of future events. In the case of the wall of Jericho falling, God Himself told the Jews that it would happen and He had a reason. Reading it makes it clear enough to me that His purpose was to answer their prayers and show that He is worthy of their trust and obedience. It's not that Israel deserved or earned it. They simply did what they were told and watched God go to work. He made it clear that He was to be given the credit for winning that battle and not them, so that they would not be able to say that God had nothing to do with it or that they earned it. He fought their battle and won it for them. He got the glory. The Israelites were just lucky enough to be involved and on the right side of the battle, and only because they chose to be on His side and do it His way. He has been given the credit ever since. Later, they forgot. That is typical of mankind. God rescues us. We rationalize it away and forget what He has done. We stop trusting Him and do it our way and make up our own gods and define them to fit our life so that we can continue to live comfortably any way we wish. The OT shows us this over and over and over again... that we are sinners and the law was designed to set us up to fail.... over and over and over again. But the new law of Love that took effect with the Messiah, Jesus, allows the law to be fulfilled on our behalf, even though we still mess up from time to time. It allows God to look at Jesus as the ultimate sacrificial Lamb that was slain on our behalf and say to us... "pardoned, but not because you earned it... because He did for you." The only requirement given us now is to believe that is true... to trust that His way to salvation is higher than our own, better than what we could concoct, and sufficient. But don't take my word for it. You must read it for yourself. Find the heart of God in the scriptures. Use reason and logic too. I don't think it was meant to be blindly believed. But I do think that what God has already done in leaving us the scriptures is more than enough to convince us. Yet, that's not all there is. There is manuscript evidence and archaeological evidence and historical evidence, both secular and religious writings of historians that validate the events written about in both the OT and NT. What you decide is up to you, but don't hide from it. It could be the most important decision you ever make in your life. It will undoubtedly be the most inconvenient as well. I will not lie to you about that. But the truth is the truth. Convenience finds no consideration when searching for the truth and and clinging to it when it is found.
WhitU4ever says:
The return spoken of at the time I think you are referring to, Jackie, has already come and gone.
WhitU4ever says:
You're wrong, Jeremsoft. The statement is absolutely true. It is up to you to prove it false and no one ever has. On the contrary, when others have attempted to prove the statement false, they have not only failed, but become convinced that the Bible is true.
yourgoldenfuture says:
I was astonished how many prophesies are fullfilled and how all the things fit so well together...not possible to be put together by man...
WhitU4ever says:
Before you answer this question, please read the prophecies atMessianic Prophecy and Statistics. Then read The Importance of Biblical Manuscripts, so that you will understand that dated copies prove the prophecies were written before the events spoken about happened, not after.
WhitU4ever says:
Mindwise, Every Messianic prophecy meets your criteria. It is obvious you did not read all of them. Even if a few of them met your criteria and others didn't, how would you explain them? But let's be clear... I set the criteria on this page. Read the rules and read the supplemental links I left as a hint for you to read regarding these topics.
WhitU4ever says:
There is one huge difference, Dinosaur Egg. We all know that horoscopes are made up based upon the stars and months of the year... completely illogical terms that don't make any sense. The Bible's historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is accurate, and it seems to me you haven't even begun to delve into it. Try that and come back with a logical explanation for why the prophecies are not true. Actually explain it.
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Amazon Price: $8.60 (as of 06/01/2012)
List Price: $15.99
Used Price: $6.24
Release Date: 03/07/2006
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Predicted Method of Death
How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Possible divination, or what Anon said?
Anon says:
Ummmm, Psalm 22 is not a portrayal of Jesus' death. I am a former Christian with a Christian liberal arts degree, I know the Bible well. David wrote Psalm 22 about himself at a time when he was feeling blue (an understatement). Jesus recited this Hebrew Psalm while he was on the cross because he was also feeling blue.
jeremsoft says:
Sorry to ask another question,but how comes that David,one of the greatest king of the Jews,speak about Jesus Death while Jesus hasnt even existed in the Jewish religion?
CJunk says:
Crucifixtion had been around for quite sometime. You may wish to look into it. And once again....the Jesus story was simply psalm 22 expanded. Not really that much of a feat I am sorry to say to you.
DinosaurEgg says:
As others have pointed out there are multiple plausible explanations. I don't try and 'explain' it as I have insufficient evidence to know which answer is correct.
mindwise says:
Because the NT writers were aware of psalm 22, and had all the freedom to write a story that seems to fulfill it, seems rather obvious.
Anonymous says:
Crucifixion was not invented for Jesus.
Tim says:
Apart from the whole thing about the gospel writers knowing that psalm and writing their story about Jesus to fit it, there are quite a few things in that psalm which did not occur during the crucifixion of Jesus, namely him being surrounded by bulls, dogs and lions. In any case, crucifixion is not explicitly named, only "they have pierced my hands and my feet". Methinks David was just writing a bit of slasher porn here to terrify people to not turn away from God.
Sketch Sepahi says:
I see no need to explain it.
Cheers,
Sketch
spirituality says:
I think Jesus was simply quoting the psalm - or his followers put those words in his mouth in reference to the psalm.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Anon and nephthys, you need to read the psalm more carefully before you dismiss psalm 22 as solely a lament of David and not a prophecy. Aside from many similar descriptions in this psalm of Jesus' death, verse 16 especially cannot be a portrayal of David's life. It describes crucifixion. (They pierced my hands and feet.) This did not happen to David. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22&version=NIV
arnel doctolero says:
Well, about everything starting in chaos... I don't suppose that's true. First, because no one has ever turned the spacetime upsidedown to restore the past (as it is the only possible way) and dissect it. No one has the ability to prove the claim... Second, the carbon-dating system and mathematical computations by several physicists seem to fail to support even bigbang or single-cell theory or the star-collision theory or SUPERMAN THEORY . Third, according to one of the foremost scientists ( I forgot his name but he was featured by geographic magazine) universe and its little galaxies appear to be perfectly interconnected. Even the dark matter and the dark energy. And even as a scientist, he was forced to believe in something we call GOD because of the impeccable interplay of everything that atheists cannot provide a definite answer for. I love science. I believe that the subject does not contend my omniscient God. But the people, trying so hard to study science, are the only ones looking for a breach which they cannot sustain. I just would love to suggest: do not use science to antagonize christianity. You'll just fail. :) Try psychology or philosophy. I encounter difficult questions there.
Ashley m says:
Tim: when you say Jesus wasn't actually surrounded by dogs and lions pure right. That's called figurative language...you know, the words tht seem to mean one thing but actually mean another. It was describing the roman soldiers as lions and dogs - the most fearful and dirty thing around....
WhitU4ever says:
First of all, David may very well have been blue and in anguish himself. We don't really know his state of being when he wrote this psalm. But in verse sixteen, he says, "...they pierce my hands and my feet." That did not happen to David. In fact, King David hid successfully from his enemies in safety, even when his son caused some his own soldiers to betray him... he was not harmed. Instead, David was able to resume the throne and his enemies were destroyed. Unless David was crucified or pierced in his hands and feet, this was a prophecy regarding the Messiah to come. How do you explain the many prophetic events that have already happened? Were Daniel, Isaiah, and all of the rest inaccurate as well in your opinion? We have way too much evidence to prove that so many of the specific events foretold of in the Bible are historical events that did happen after they were written about. There was no way for those living then to know these things would happen except that they were warned. Throughout the years, many... too many to count... archaeological and historical evidences have been found that support Biblical claims. Yet, there is no concrete evidence to support Darwinianism or New Atheist claims that God doesn't exist or that Jesus was a mere man and not who He claimed to be.
WhitU4ever says:
Jeremsoft, David was one of the many prophets predicting the coming Messiah, Jesus. I understand what your question is aiming at. You think people made it up. It is a common assumption. Read aboutthe dead sea scrolls. The dating of these scrolls is important to take note of. If people just made it up, then these copies would not have been dated to before the first century, when Jesus walked the earth. It is also important to read the scriptures that are referred to in this question. Another significant factor is that there was no such thing as crucifixion when this was written. Even David did not fully understand the significance of his words. Many times what they heard, spoke and wrote that was influenced by the Holy Spirit was a mystery to even them. I'm sure they wondered what it all meant. But they were certain of only one thing... that it came from God and that the words must be preserved. And they were.
yourgoldenfuture says:
David was a prophet... he saw things to come...
WhitU4ever says:
CJunk, the point is that there was no such thing as crucifixion when King David (c. 1040-970 b.c.) walked the earth. So, perhaps the question should read: "How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion when the first crucifixions recorded in history were done by the Seleucids, the Carthaginians, and the Romans right about in the 6th century b.c. to the 4th century a.d.
WhitU4ever says:
Tim, please, be intellectually honest. Haven't you ever been called a dog before? ;-) Or maybe your grandfather was, but not so much these days, right? Nor do we hear others called bulls or lions today. But come on... we know what it means. Understanding the scriptures isn't that hard, not if you try. The psalmist frequently uses parables to describe and record certain events, people, places, and the way he feels or thinks about these things. Throwing pearls before swine is another example of an analogy that can't be taken literally. Pearls are symbolic of the words of Jesus, and swine refer to the crowd that doesn't reverence his words. It is quite obvious that no one was accustomed to throwing pearls into the pig's wallowing holes. Likewise, dogs, bulls, an lions represent people who were acting like vicious animals.
Montanabeliever says:
While is possible that Jesus was merely quoting the Psalm by saying "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me..." It is not possible for him to have control over a later prophecy in that same Psalm. Verse 14 states: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint..." Being on a cross causes one's bones to pop out of joint, with the weight of the whole body hanging on the shoulders and the feet. Again in verse 16: "...they pierced my hands and my feet." This could not have been controlled by the fulfiller, it's something that has been done TO him. Verse 18 talks about his clothes being divided and people casting lots for them. Again, out of the control of Jesus.
It comes down to the fact that certainly there are things that Jesus could have fulfilled with knowledge. Yet there are so many more that prove the Bible's accuracy through the fact that they are beyond human ability to orchestrate.
Predicted Year and Temple Destruction
How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
What has this got to do with christianity?
Prophecy/Clear seeing is practised by many religions.
Is god any better than I or you? says:
Alright I have a question for YOU. Please inform me if I'm wrong in any of this. God is said to control everything. He is also said to be only good. Then isn't god the equivalent of Osama, Hitler, and all the other "sinners" so based on that god is also a "sinner" so why is he in "heaven" and why am I atheist if he is almighty and controls everything?
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
I don't understand most of these questions, they are beyond my knowledge. But I say, believe in what you wish. Life is full of choices. Those choices define who you are. Choices make life interesting.
CJunk says:
Easy, Daniel did no such thing. Daniel was written around 160 bc....prophecy = failed.(And jews wishing for their temple to be rebuilt is hardly incredible)
mindwise says:
Wow, you have to really WANT to read that from that passage in order to see it that way.
Personally, i really don't see how you can come to this "the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR " conclusion.
I reckon some really weird calculations will be presented to come to that conclusion ;)
Tim says:
Whut? How do you turn this rambling about "seventy weeks" into the exact year? And even if you could, it still doesn't prove anything - you still have to prove that Jesus was presented as Messiah at all. (This is very hard to do using extra-biblical sources)
Sketch Sepahi says:
Assuming that the assumptions this fallacious loaded question makes are actually true, then the gospel-writers would have known about the writings of Daniel. It's no great feat to write something that adheres to the rules of something you've read previously.
Cheers,
Sketch
spirituality says:
I don't think it's known exactly when Christ was presented as a Messiah. As for the destruction of the temple - it wasn't exactly the first time was it?
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
nephthys, this is not about other religions, which are false. The One true God has warned us from the beginning of time not to worship other gods. It's makes us look very silly (stupid) to worship dead things instead of the all-powerful and sovereign Living God that made everything.
WhitU4ever says:
Isgod, it doesn't seem like you read the rules. Please save your questions for the guest book at the bottom or send me a personal message. Otherwise, answer the question please. Thanks!
WhitU4ever says:
Isgod, God is holy. I think it is quite observable that mankind is not holy or clean or pure in motive, deed, thought, or in any other way.
WhitU4ever says:
SEM-SEO, thanks for being honest with your answer. And, yes, there are many choices in life that we are all free to make. But I don't just want to make random choices. I want to make the right ones. And I have found that being thorough about my research into Christianity is well worth the effort. I believe it is the right thing to do.
yourgoldenfuture says:
Daniel was a real prophet...
WhitU4ever says:
CJunk, Daniel was written around 165-164 b.c. Even your guestimate of 160 b.c. still means that he wrote it 155 years before Jesus was born. How is that a prophecy failure?
WhitU4ever says:
Mindwise, you did not answer the question. Explain how this happened.
WhitU4ever says:
Question: "What are the seventy sevens in Daniel 9:24-27?"
Answer: Daniel 9:24-27 is a key Biblical passage. It is the only Old Testament passage which refers to the Messiah as ?Messiah.? Elsewhere He is called ?Shiloh? (Genesis 49:10), the ?Root of Jesse? (Isaiah 11:10), the ?Righteous Branch? (Jeremiah 23:5), the ?Prince of Peace? (Isaiah 9:6), etc. But the name by which He is known best, ?Messiah,? appears in only one passage: Daniel 9:24-27. Here is an excerpt from that passage:
"Seventy sevens have been decreed for your people. . . . So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two sevens the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.?
Exactly what is meant by ?seventy sevens?? The phrase by itself is ambiguous, but taken in context the meaning is clear. Daniel's prayer in verses 3-19 of the chapter refers to the fulfillment of a specific seventy-year period, the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity (as prophesied by Jeremiah). Daniel received the seventy sevens prophecy in response to his prayer. The prophecy foretold a period of seven times seventy yet to come, or seventy seven-year periods. Seventy seven-year periods equals 490 years.
The prophecy goes on to say that ?from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven sevens (49) and sixty-two sevens (434). . . . Then after the sixty-two sevens the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.?
Nebuchadnezzar had Jerusalem dismantled around 587 BC after having to put down two rebellions there in less than 10 years. At the time this prophecy was given, Jerusalem still lay in ruins. According to the prophecy, from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem there would be seven seven-year periods and sixty-two more seven-year periods?or 483 years?until the Messiah would show up. After the culmination of the 62 seven-year periods, or after 483rd year, the Messiah would be cut off.
Both the ancient Hebrews to whom Daniel was writing and the ancient Babylonians to whom he was subservient (Daniel supposedly having been written in Babylon during the latter half of the 6th century BC) used a 360-day year.
So, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days. This is the equivalent of 476 years and 25 days using our modern Gregorian calendar's 365.24219879-day year.
As for our starting point, the Persian Emperor Artaxerxes Longimanus (who ruled Persia from 464-424 BC) issued the edict to rebuild Jerusalem sometime during the Hebrew month of Nisan in the 20th year of his reign, or 444 BC (Nehemiah 2:1-8). The month of Nisan fell between February 27 (Nisan 1) and March 28 (Nisan 30) of that year according to our modern Gregorian calendar.
Now, 173,880 days from February 27 - March 28, 444 BC, lands us at March 24 - April 22, AD 33.
According to this prophecy, the Messiah would show up, present Himself as Messiah to the nation and then be ?cut off? some time between March 24 and April 22, AD 33. Jesus Christ presented Himself to the nation of Israel on Palm Sunday, March 27, was crucified four days later on April 1, or ?Preparation Day? (the annual day on which the Passover Lamb was slain), and rose from the dead on Sunday, April 3, AD 33, all within our 30-day range of dates.
The prophecy then goes on to say that subsequent to the Messiah being ?cut off,? ?the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.? Within one generation of Christ's crucifixion, Titus razed Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.
There is some debate about the exact date of the decree that began the 483 years. There is also debate as to whether the days should be counted on our modern 365-day calendars, or the 360-day lunar calendar that was normally used in ancient times. Whichever the case, Daniel's prophecy concludes very close to the time Jesus Christ was being crucified in Jerusalem. If we knew all the exact dates of Daniel's prophecy and timing, we would find it would land exactly on the very day of Christ's death. Through God revealing it to him, the Prophet Daniel predicted the very day of Christ's death?over 400 years before it occurred.
WhitU4ever says:
Sketch, did you even read the question? Did you read the prophecy mentioned here? Does it make sense that anyone who cares about these prophecies and believes them would destroy the temple just to make it come true? These prophecies were written for the Jews, who were all waiting for their Messiah, and the temple was their place of worship. They would not destroy their own temple, even after the Messiah came. Although anyone who wishes to disprove these prophecies may destroy the Jewish temple, does it make sense that they would fabricate a Messiah at the given time? There is no motive for your assumptions on either side.
WhitU4ever says:
Tim, you didn't answer the question. And you're wrong. We have plenty of extra-Biblical sources that Jesus not only existed, but was considered to be the Messiah. These are the oldest secular accounts on the historical evidence of the existence of Jesus: Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Josephus ben Mattathias (also known as Flavius Josephus), Lucian of Samosate, and the Babylonian Talmud. For details, click here. No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.
Predicted Birth Town
How could the writings of any mere human pinpoint the precise birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Can divinate?
Lucky Guess?
Wasn't written then?
Your favorite atheist. P.S. love ya to :) says:
Just something regarding this "jesus" guy religion says he is white. He was born in the middle east. He wouldn't be fully white. And this "virgin Mary" person it is impossible to have a child without sex and if god did have sex it would be a sin cause she is married to a different man
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
A suggestion is a powerful motivator. With a suggestion, the unknown is potentially know through the power of suggestion. A box is not empty, until you open it to discover what is therein. Until then, the box could be filled with anything.
Tim says:
Jesus, if he existed at all, was born in Nazareth. The whole desperate thing about having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted (completely unsubstantiated by history, by the way - such a method of travelling to the birthplace of your great-great-whatever-grandfather is only mentioned in the gospels, it's pointless at best from a census-taking point of view, and it would have been a logistical nightmare for all concerned.) Thus, Jesus being born in Bethlehem was crowbarred into the tale to FIT THE "PROPHECY" OF MICAH. What more evidence do you want that the gospel writers were making stuff up in order for the prophecies to be fulfilled?
Sketch Sepahi says:
I don't accept the premise of the loaded question, so it's meaningless. I do not believe that any human being can see into the future, so it's useless asking me how Micah could have done it unless you first prove to me that Micah did, in fact, do it.
Cheers,
SKetch
spirituality says:
These things work the other way around: Jesus could get recognition as a messiah precisely because he was born there. That - or one could say that his birth there was made up, to fit the myth.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Divination is foolish. Fat chance on the lucky guess. We know it was written then. See Biblical Manuscripts, Biblical Archaeology, and Messianic Prophecy.
WhitU4ever says:
Favoriteatheist, some artists depict Jesus as white with blue eyes. This has always disappointed me in a way. Jesus was born with the genetic makeup of a Jew, namely Mary. Most likely she had beautiful brown skin. I don't think it matters much either way. I believe there is only one race. The human race. What does this have to do with the question? And the virgin birth was what we call a miracle... something that happens that normally does not happen. So, you're right that it is impossible... under normal conditions. But when God intervenes, He's got a plan, and that plan most likely involves you and I.
WhitU4ever says:
SEM... I must be missing your point. What in the world are you talking about? Are you suggesting that little ol' me simply suggested this stuff and that in itself has the power to make others believe it? If that is true, you and several others who have commented on this suggestion are immune to that power. lol
yourgoldenfuture says:
only a real prophet can do such...
WhitU4ever says:
Sketch, because the writings of the Bible are considered historical, due to the fact that archaeological and manuscript evidence has been found and dated accurately, and secular historians write about many of the events that took place. To assume that the entire Bible is false simply because the rest has not been supported by historical and archaeological evidence, is fallacious.
That said, I respect that it is your belief that no man can predict the future. Then how can we explain the writings in book of Micah that predict the birthplace of Jesus, which is proven to have been written at least seven centuries before Jesus was born?
Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins [b] are from of old,
from ancient times. [c] "
Footnotes:
1. Micah 5:2 Or rulers
2. Micah 5:2 Hebrew goings out
3. Micah 5:2 Or from days of eternity
WhitU4ever says:
Tim, do your homework. "An account of the census was given by the first century historian, Josephus..." See details here.
WhitU4ever says:
Spirituality, did you read all of the prophecies? Did you visit this link about Biblical manuscripts and statistics? The times that the manuscripts were written are not refuted by any sincere Biblical archaeologist. The Old Testament, which is full of these prophecies, was originally written centuries before the birth of Jesus, and there are many that, if He were only a mere man, he could not have forced upon himself, such as his given name, his birth place, the method of Mary's conception, the way he would die (even though crucifixion didn't yet exist when it was written about), that the soldiers would cast lots for his clothes, and on and on.
Why Believe
Amazon Price: $8.95 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $17.99
Used Price: $7.92
"What is the meaning of life?"
"Is Christianity reasonable?"
"Is it relevant?"
Colson asks and analyzes these questions and others. With his familiar piercing style and wry wit, he provides clear answers for your own inquiries and new ammunition to defend the Christian faith.
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Find It Fast Messianic Prophecies
Find It Fast Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled In Jesus Christ
Amazon Price: $4.99 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $2.99
Used Price: $0.29
This easy-to-use booklet gives you all of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus and its New Testament fulfillment.
This is an accessible companion to any Bible. These prophecies are arranged in order of fulfillment and are designed to give you quick access to the Scripture references.
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Odds of Prophecies Fulfilled
Excerpt from Chapter Seven of "Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?, Empirical Methodologies and the Bible", by Jack Wellman. Copyright, 2009 Read More. (Cited per Anonymous' Request.)
How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Maybe he was prophecied as your deity, but don't forget the other ones....
Ben says:
See my answer for the last question about prophecies. I don't accept your premise that they were fulfilled. This question makes a straw-man fallacy that atheists agree that these prophecies were fulfilled, but that it was mere coincidence. I have no reason to believe that the prophecies were divinely inspired, and I have little to suggest that the important ones were fulfilled beyond a reasonable, objective doubt.
Joeyjoejoe says:
I'm not sure where you got this math from... Could you point me in the direction? I am a mathematician and would love to see these numbers
James McCurdy says:
Um,how do you know they were?No one knows for sure he did because we werent there.
spirituality says:
They were vague enough to fit & sayings were put in his mouth.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Some of you don't seem to understand the dating of the Biblical manuscripts and timing of the writings. Therefore, to update your knowledge on these topics, I suggest it is well worth it to investigate further. Good resources to use are the book in the link above the question, the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (or look him up on YouTube if you can't afford to buy the book), and/or finding Dr. William Lane Craig's works (who is also on YouTube if you want to hear his thoughts free of charge).
WhitU4ever says:
Sorry, I don't believe in other gods. The archaeological, historical, prophetic, and circumstantial evidences that exist do not lead me to believe that your claim that each person has his/her own uniquely different personal god is true or even possible. But the overwhelming number of evidences that exist supports Christianity's claims. Science does not contradict them either, but supports them.
WhitU4ever says:
Joeyjojo, it would depend on which 48 prophecies were chosen and what the odds are for each, but rounded, these are the odds. I think the point is clear... the odds are too great that anyone but Jesus could have fulfilled them. God's plan happened just the way He described it to the prophets many years before He appeared and there is plenty of manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, and historical evidence that these prophecies were written hundreds of years before Jesus showed up, as well as plenty of evidence that Jesus existed and that the Bible tells the story of His life, death, and resurrection accurately.
yourgoldenfuture says:
Its all the story of the real God knowing whats to come...
WhitU4ever says:
WhitU4ever says:
James, we DO know. Read the HINT (found just below the intro to this page in a blue framed box). Click on the links provided and review them carefully. Then come back and answer these questions according to what is known.
WhitU4ever says:
Before posting an answer to these questions, be sure you have read the rules. Remember that you cannot state your personal beliefs or theories as facts, but only as your opinion.
WhitU4ever says:
Spirituality, I appreciate your attempts to answer the questions and your participation here. But the prophecies found in the Bible are anything but vague, especially in comparison to that of other religions. You should read them before making any such assumptions.
Fatal Flaws
Fatal Flaws: What Evolutionists Don't Want You to Know
Amazon Price: $3.97 (as of 06/01/2012)
List Price: $12.99
Used Price: $1.99
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Virgin Birth Prediction
How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before the New Testament records the actual event?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
NOT a virgin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no proof Mary wasn't cheating on Joseph!
Ben says:
Again with the prophecy questions... We've answered those a few hundred times.
I'll simply ask if you find it interesting that most, if not all major religions involve a virgin birth. What is it with religion and aversion to sex?
mindwise says:
to 'withu4ever'
you say "3. Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us ."
yeah that's fine, but not what he WAS was prohecized there, but how he would be called.
And clearly, Jesus was not named "immanuel".
(btw, the immanuel is a name, and if you want to indicate it means 'of god', then the spelling is different in hebrew, just accept it's not correct).
James McCurdy says:
Well either niether of them even existed,or he got lucky,how about nostradomus and all his predictions?
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
nephthys, there was no motive for Mary to cheat. In fact, the opposite is true. There was a huge motive to stay a virgin. Her culture would have stoned her or exiled her from her family and community. Joseph, like you, believed that she was pregnant by another man at first. He was going to put her away without announcing it publicly. So, what changed his mind if not because of the angel visiting him in a dream, just as it says? I mean, it was unheard of in their culture, but he married her anyway. If she cheated, how do explain Joseph deciding to spend the rest of his life with her in spite of their rough beginning? It makes no sense even today, does it?
WhitU4ever says:
Ben, it is clear that you haven't read the Bible. Otherwise, you would know that sex encouraged from the beginning, by God. Yes, it's true. Sex was a huge part of our history. One virgin birth incident among pages of children being born to the Israelites, and what do you do? Grab it and run... sheesh!
WhitU4ever says:
Mindwise: yes, what He WAS was prophecied here. He would be CALLED, not named Immanuel, God with us. You must understand that it was Jewish practice that every name had a meaning and the meaning was the important part. The Hebrew name, Yeshua (Jesus) means salvation. Jesus had many names in the Bible because He was all of those things. Jewish people knew the meaning of Immanuel in Hebrew. Every person was expected to live up to that name. those mentioned in the Bible did, even in a prophetic way. The name Israel meant "He who wrestles with God." Without a doubt, Israel lived up to that name. Israel referred to both a man and a nation. Israel's name was changed from Jacob (meaning supplanter). Immanuel was a perplexing name for a man to be called, as was the idea of being born of a virgin. Every Jew that understood his own rich history with God knew that this name suggested that a man born of a virgin was going to be with us as God, not just be like Him. No one understood exactly how this prophecy would be fulfilled until it actually happened. But the idea of it all was just too incredible, just as much of what God does throughout history. But that's His point. He does these things so that we will know who He is... that He is not mortal and sinful like we are, but amazing, powerful, all-knowing, infallible, and faithful to His promises.
WhitU4ever says:
James, study it out. Compare Nostradamus' predictions with the Messianic prophecies of the Bible. There is a link at the bottom of my introduction called Messianic Prophecy. On that page, there is also a video of a discussion between Hanegraaff and Strobel that addresses how Nostradamus is vague, while the Bible is specific.
WhitU4ever says:
Study it out, Anonymous. You own the burden of proof. You need to learn more about when and what was written in the Bible.
WhitU4ever says:
Isaiah also writes: "...Who will believe our report?..." I understand that the events written about in the scriptures sound absurd to you. Only God could make such a thing happen, and you don't believe in Him. But you cannot prove that God does not exist. And you cannot prove that the virgin birth did not happen.
It breaks the rules written at the end of the introduction to this page to state that the virgin birth didn't happen as anything other than your opinion, belief, or assumption. And it doesn't answer the question, which has nothing to do with what you believe, but what is written in the Bible. I already know that you don't believe it. So, read it, read what others have written, answer it, skip it, or say "I don't know."
WhitU4ever says:
Isaiah 7:14 (New International Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [b] will call him Immanuel. [c]
Footnotes:
1. Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
2. Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls and he or and they
3. Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us .
Qumran Cave 4: IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert) (Vol 9)
Amazon Price: $220.00 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $325.00
Used Price: $235.00
This volume inaugurates the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the main collection discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran. It continues six biblical manuscripts written in ancient Palaeo-hebrew script, four Septuagint manuscripts, and five hitherto unknown compositions. The Hebrew texts antedate by a millennium what had previously been the earliest surviving biblical codices in the original language, and they document the pluriform nature of the ancient biblical textual tradition before the text became standardized. The most extensive and significant manuscript exhibits the expanded textual tradition that formed the basis for the Samaritan Pentateuch and helps illuminate the historical and theological relationship between the Jews and Samaritans.
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?
Some say that Jesus was simply a good man in his day, but that he was not God. For those who do, in what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?
ATHEISTS RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Jesus led the people at that time into being nice. So what if he was spinning a story?
Your favorite atheist. P.S. love ya to :) says:
Cause people then were not terribly smart and would follow most things
Ben says:
I quoted C.S. Lewis in this question without scrolling further. Silly me.
Ben says:
I'll agree with you, and I think Christian apologist C.S. Lewis put it well: "A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be the Devil of Hell. [...] Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher."
From my secular point of view, many of the central teachings of Jesus would be despicable and immoral if said by one who is sane. I shall not cast off all my earthly possessions, nor will I love my enemies, my true enemies. Fortunately, neither do most christians. I shall not be subject to the rule of any dictator, terrestrial or divine. I shall have no respect, nor love for those who threaten eternal torture as a punishment for disbelief or disdain. I shall fight these ideals and do my best to liberate those who wish to be slaves.
Tiggered says:
If lying is equal to being a bad man, there is no good person left in the world. And all salespeople are damned for eternity :)
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
God is everywhere. God is in the eye of the beholder. And the believer. Believe in God, Believe in Yourself, Believe. Again, there is no need for debate when you believe that what you believe in is the truth. Debate can only be doubt in the eye of the beholder, should it originate from that particular person.
Reason says:
Because people are fallible. Just because he was a good man doesn't mean that he was all the way truthful or accurate. In the real world, there is very seldom anyone who is completely and entirely good, nor is there anyone who is completely and entirely bad. Everyone makes mistakes.
Anyone could claim to be god, and devote their life to helping the poor and downtrodden. Just because they lied about being god (or were insane and believed they were), that does not take away the good deeds that they did.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
nephthys, what story was spun? Name one. And then tell me why you think so.
WhitU4ever says:
So, favoriteatheist, are you saying that you're smarter than people back then used to be? As for people following most things back then as opposed to now, just look at our culture and tell me it has gotten any better with a straight face. I can't without bursting out in loud laughter. Can you?
WhitU4ever says:
Well, Ben, that's the way you see it, but it is based upon lies. If anyone is worthy of being a slave to, it is Jesus -- not because he is a madman, but because he is God, and trustworthy, unlike any human being we know, including ourselves.
WhitU4ever says:
Well, Tiggered, that's exactly what the Bible says... "All have sinned. All fall short of the glory of God," and not one of us is good. It also says that our righteousness is as filthy rags compared to God's righteousness. If we were to tell God how good we have been while pleading our case before Him, I am certain He would laugh and throw us out of the room. No one compares with Him. And yes, we have all lied before. That disqualifies us. But Jesus lived and died to justify us in spite of ourselves. That's why it is very sad to see those He did this for reject His kindness and extreme love. He was never obligated to do so. But He chose to. And when we get that, we can't help but be extremely grateful and receiving. Anyone who has lived long enough ought to know that we fail too much to please God. It is built into us since Adam. Yet, grace abounds when we accept Him willingly. Our true nature wishes to rebel. But He overlooks it and gives us an eternal hope and home with Himself that isn't part of this wild place. I know it is hard to understand. But until we surrender willingly, believe, and begin to trust Him, how can we understand? It goes against our nature, but not His.
WhitU4ever says:
In his famous book Mere Christianity, Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
Mere Christianity
Mere Christianity
Amazon Price: $13.38 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $24.99
Used Price: $11.44
Release Date: 03/06/2001
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
Number One Best Seller
There are no hidden agendas or implications in this question. It is not proof that the Bible is true, nor is it implied here. I am simply asking you whether or not you knew this fact. You can either answer it honestly or skip it.
Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best seller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Atheist says:
Yes. Don't really care.
nephthys says:
No . I didn't.
But how many people have actually read it?
Yo favorite atheist love ya to :) says:
whitu4, huh funny mine disintegrated with acid, ah well
periwinklekitty says:
Yes, but my question is what has happened to the old ones that requires new ones be bought so frequently.
Jackie says:
It did have a 2000 year head start.
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Uulmshar says:
Yes, it's quite common knowledge.
Ray@frenchy says:
Yes, of course, you have the best communication and realable system in the world, the church, the best network... It's difficult to fight when the majority of the planet allready trust... 33 % trust in the bible... So you win by the quantity not the quality...
Sketch Sepahi says:
Yes, I did. Is there a point to the question?
Cheers,
Sketch
spittlebug says:
I have heard that statistic many times, but it does not prove that the claim that the bible is the word of god.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
nephthys, I've read it. My husband has read it. My daughter, who is only eight, has read it. And my son, who is 23, has read it. They all believe it. I know MANY people who have read it all the way through, many times over. What I doubt is that the atheist named Anon has actually read it like he says he has, and that some Christians, who get the facts all messed up, have actually read it. Some of them try to make others believe that they have because they are embarrassed that they haven't. Reading the Bible is one of the many reasons I have come to believe that Jesus is exactly Who He Says He Is.
WhitU4ever says:
I'll send you a new one, favoriteatheist. ;)
WhitU4ever says:
Periwinkle, my guess is that they disintegrated with age.
WhitU4ever says:
Ray, I would like to know why you think the quality of atheism is better than the quality of Christianity.
yourgoldenfuture says:
yes i did...and its one of the most hated books as well...
mcochs says:
Yes,I do know that.
Marie says:
Yes, and there have been many attempts to throughout history to ban or destroy the Bible, but yet it exists and remainsthe #1 seller.
WhitU4ever says:
Answer the question please. ;)
NIV Archaeological Study Bible, Large Print: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture
Amazon Price: $35.47 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $89.99
Used Price: $37.49
Product Description
Readers who desire a more intimate knowledge of the historical context of the Bible will appreciate the NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Full of informative articles and full-color photographs of places and objects from biblical times, this Bible examines the archaeological record surrounding God's Word and brings the biblical world to life. Readers' personal studies will be enriched as they become more informed about the empires, places, and peoples of the ancient world. Features include:
* Four-color interior throughout
* Bottom-of-page study notes exploring passages that speak on archaeological and cultural facts
* Articles (520) covering five main categories: Archaeological Sites, Cultural and Historical Notes, Ancient Peoples and Lands, the Reliability of the Bible, and Ancient Texts and Artifacts
* Approximately 500 4-color photographs interspersed throughout
* Detailed book introductions that provide basic, at-a-glance information
* Detailed charts on pertinent topics
* In-text color maps that assist the reader in placing the action
About the Author
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (PhD, Brandeis University) is distinguished professor emeritus of Old Testament and president emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Dr. Kaiser has written over 40 books, including Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching; The Messiah in the Old Testament; and The Promise-Plan of God; and coauthored An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Dr. Kaiser and his wife, Marge, currently reside at Kerith Farm in Cedar Grove, Wisconsin. Dr. Kaiser's website is www.walterckaiserjr.com. Walter C. Kaiser, (hijo) (Ph.D., Brandeis University) es professor distinguido de Antiguo Testamento en el Seminario Teologico de Gordon-Conwell.
Duane Garrett (Ph.D., Baylor Univerity) is John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Man's Universal Moral Sense
Straw man arguments are not answers to this question.
If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Dude says:
No. We see examples of morality from several of the more defined mammals, especially our higher order primates and also many birds.
As our ancestors evolved to where we are now where we had long incubation periods in the womb (rendering the woman as vulnerable to attack) and our infants with their large nuggets having to be cared for close to 10 years before they could adequately start to defend themselves, we began to have to function in moderate to large groups for protection. It's likely that Natural Section would make the make the traint of empathy, helping others, able to solve disputes, the more ikely to stand by the female for the long term even after the infant is born as desirable traits. We already see evidence in the higher primates where one drowns trying to save another knowing that he cannot swim. Or when they care for another's offspring when both parents are killed.
As we became more and more social morality naturally arose as a consequence of mutually beneficial protection.
dude says:
Evolution
nephthys says:
Can't we be good people on our own?
No.
We're not really that good at all...
It's yo favorite atheist :) says:
it is a natural part of humans to stop us from completely destroying ourselves.
Ben says:
This should be question number one, because it's the one people most care about.
I've spoken publicly on this and written articles and essays that still don't scratch the surface of how complex this question is. However, complexity isn't a vice in answering, merely in communicating. Therefore, I'll merely hope that you ask a better version of this question next time.
"universal moral sense" is a loaded phrase. If by "universal" you mean universal among homo sapiens, that's conditional, but fine. However, HUMAN morality is limited to human beings.
"moral" could mean a lot of things. Are you talking about altruism? Consequentialism? Duties? Some of these are natural, others don't exist in some forms.
"Sense" is only part of the story. It implies hard wiring, which is true. Humans are hard wired with instincts, desires, preconceptions, and motivations because these traits are adaptive. However, we are also able to learn, reason, resolve conflicts, and suppress our immediate desires for the long-term success of ourselves or our community. "Sense" doesn't even scratch the surface.
Rallade says:
It would be simple taking our point of view, we are conscious being capable of logic (some more than others) and we developed into social beings, we are thought how to behave.
Cooper Meacham says:
Why begin with an explanation that you're unwilling to alter--that supernatural forces have shaped biological, Earth systems, and other phenomena? To answer the question, it has nothing to do with a supernatural being, as no test has been able to come about, so its just an assumption; a hypothesis, a mere speculation. Things can be bad to us based on our EXPERIENCE. I think in your mind that theres some sort of ball of morality and it trickles down to us through, what would otherwise be, our morally aimless lives. Using your logic, God can actually make morality whatever IT wants, this falls apart of objectivity CAN be determined through experience. Another common mistake is to attribute the perception of what is good to the perception of what is pleasurable. This is a gross oversimplification of what I'm saying. Basically, as the sphere of EXPERIENCE increases, so does our ability to maximize well being. What well being IS can be slightly ambiguous, but we can know what it IS NOT, and we don't need a standard outside of being what we are. Think of it this way--chocolate is both subjectively and objectively good. We can subjectively experience chocolate tasting good, and it then becomes an objective part of reality. Based on experiencing what tastes bad. Using your understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, chocolate never really tastes good. Well, this is just plain wrong. Chocolate REALLY does taste good to certain people and is therefore objective!
Tiggered says:
Humanity's 'universal' moral sense seems to be rather flexible.
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
God does exist; in a form that is true to your own beliefs.
atheist says:
the problem with most of these questions is that there is an assumption associated with them, most of which I happen to disagree with. I do not believe there is a universal moral sense inherent in humanity. different cultures around the world have different sets of morals.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
When speaking of humanity's universal sense, let me clarify that morality refers not only to our innate sense of justice and compassion, but the inborn sense of right and wrong that seems to agree with the ten commandments. Love God, Love others, don't kill, don't steal, don't lie or defame others, etc. To deny that we don't see what is wrong with these things is once again being dishonest, which helps to prove my point regarding this question. Without God, there is no moral compass. It is whatever you dream it up to be... whatever suits your history of living... an excuse to break the golden rule (do unto others) and live any way we choose, an attempt to avoid feelings of guilt. Guilt is something none of us should try to avoid with a lie. Lying to ourselves or anyone else about whether or not something is right or wrong doesn't change reality. It only creates a false sense of reality.
WhitU4ever says:
Dude, what specifically do you see in primates and birds that demonstrates morality? I see survival instincts that are pretty consistent across the board with each species, but nothing that can be defined as moral behavior. A mother bird or monkey will kill to protect its young (even when based upon purely perceived danger, not real danger), but a monkey won't protect a "stranger" of its own kind or an animal of another species, nor will a bird, unless it thinks that other animal is one of its own troop or flock. In fact, I raise chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, pheasants, etc. These birds and others may sit on another bird's egg until hatched, but then realize it is not one of its own and kill the chick. The reasons may vary... it could be weak, deformed, or have different parents, but would you or I do that? Not if you and I are in our right minds. Would you consider that moral behavior? I wouldn't. Animals think nothing of death. We do.
WhitU4ever says:
Dude, if we have evolved from non-morality to morality, then don't you think we would have destroyed ourselves long ago, before we could ever get to this "enlightened" age?
WhitU4ever says:
Dude, they haven't found a gene that is responsible for this universal moral sense. So, I don't see how evolution can possibly answer this question.
WhitU4ever says:
Exactly, nephthys. We're really not that good at all. Thank you so much for being honest. You are a breath of fresh air!!! :)
WhitU4ever says:
Where did that natural tendency come from, favoriteatheist?
WhitU4ever says:
Ben, I've waited until morning, when I am at my best, to respond to you on this question, because it is so important to you. And I think my answer to you here will also serve as a better answer to the question above than I gave before. You are right that the word "universal" in this question applies to we humans. Certainly, it was not directed at or meant to apply to animals or aliens since we don't know what it is like to be either of those, and from what we can observe, animals don't seem too concerned about morality. Regarding morality, the question refers to things we all know deep down are wrong (whether we admit it or not, and whether we subscribe to the latest teachings on relativity or not) --things like murder, rape, incest, brutality, bullying, theft, lying, slander, trickery, rebellion against the good, pride, selfishness, jealousy, hatred, etc. We all, even as children, somehow know that these things are wrong. Remember back to school days and how you felt when you saw a student up to no good giving a nice teacher that you liked a hard time. A few fellow students may have truly enjoyed it, and some of us simply didn't want others to know that it disturbed us because of the desire for social acceptance, but most of us, if we didn't care what others thought, despised troublemakers for various reasons. When we go out to see a movie about a hero that comes to the rescue, we all cheer for the one who does the rescuing. If the victim of violence fights back, we want the victim to win. And the Bible reinforces that the things I mentioned, such as rebellion toward what is good, as wrong. It also confirms that the wrongness of these things are "already written on our hearts" and claims that simply not reading the Bible does not mean that we have an excuse for the wrongs we have done. Yet we do them anyway. Why? How do you explain that? The Bible explains it as sin... a spiritual condition or "nature" that we are born with because of the events that happened with the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. But how do atheists explain this knowledge of right that is thwarted by a strong tendency to do what we know is wrong instead? It seems evident in every human being. How does an atheist explain how messed up, self-refuting, and self-destructive we are? A materialist may ascribe it to DNA, but since studies have not proven that the kind of morality the question refers to is genetically inherited, how does the materialist ascribe this conclusion to scientific data or fact? The fact is that I know many children (and you might also) who grew up to be opposite their parents in values, character, and behavior. I am one of them. It is not because of parental teachings, except that what they taught did not answer my questions. My values and world view were a conscious choice that I made because I indulged in a great deal of exhausting research and study on my own. Contrary to what some may think, most Christians are not subscribers to blind faith. Nor does believing in God contradict science or prevent a Christian from studying science. Anyway, because we each have a mind of our own, I don't think that the way we are "wired" physically or what we have inherited from our parents explains our universal sense of morality as defined in this response. For me, the Biblical explanation still makes much more sense. There has to be more than just the physical. It is too grand and planned to be random or by chance. Those options seem quite ridiculous to me. And then we know what is right, but we don't do it... and I think the Bible is on to something... that it is because we were born with a sinful nature, and have been from the very start... since Adam and Eve first decided for themselves not to trust God.
WhitU4ever says:
You are under the assumption, Cooper, that we start with a presupposed idea of the existence of God simply because we call ourselves Christians. But the opposite is true. We, or at least, I, consider the likelihood of every possibility and use reason and probability to come to my current conclusion. No one has yet proven me wrong.
WhitU4ever says:
Everyone thinks he/she is right. That is humanity's universal moral sense.
WhitU4ever says:
Humanity's universal moral sense is proven by asking any person a question about a specific problem of moral decay and how to solve it. For instance, if one asks the average fellow human whether or not it is right to murder a child, the normal answer is no. Even if you ask a child this question, the answer is the same. The younger the human being, the more sincere the answer is. Those who believe in relativity and cannot answer the question according to conscience have been taught to answer neutrally. Furthermore, they have an answer that they are positive is the right one. Therefore, relativity is a bunch of nonsense meant for people who take the word of their professors but don't really think for themselves about what they are saying.
The Great Debate - Does God Exist?
The Great Debate - Does God Exist? Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Vs. Dr. Gordon Stein (Advanced Apologetics)
Amazon Price: $12.99 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price:
Used Price: $12.99
This is the famous formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein held at the university of California (Irvine) in 1985. Hear how hard it is to deny God's existence and how intellectually rigorous the Christian position actually is.
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Why Care?
If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Dude says:
It isn't really that rigorous. I read a quarter of it and had to stop. It was full of half truths on the Christian position, Illogical conclusions, and the kind of one liners that the present day Christians spout to "prove" god exists. (I've never seen a timewatch develop into a 747 so evolution is so wrong... whole Christian supporting side laughs like they are right and people that have studied science all their life are so stupid...(Oh wait, let me put down Facebook where I was getting a GPS aided map to dinner tonight that uses satellites using relativistic data that the bible says is untrue... oh those stupid scientists... my eighth grade education and this book tells me all I need to know)
nephthys says:
Good Question- one I have thought of many times.
Because it's in my favour.
Be nice to others and they will be nice to you.
I'm actually being very selfish, really.
Gandalf says:
Why wouldn´t I? I don´t need god looking over my shoulder to behave
Ben says:
Ah, the old "nothing but", "no more than", or "mere" intro. I resent your straw-man depiction of secular torpidity. As a biochemist, I must also highly resent your illustration of life as random. Life is FAR from random, and rather is a highly ordered, systematic, and beautiful natural phenomenon. With all your book recommendations, you should read some Sagan and Darwin and have a biology professor smack you on the butt with a ruler.
That being said, everyone can find their own motivation to enjoy life and pursue whatever they find honorable. For example, I find great honor in opposing those who suggest what I should find honorable because the dictator says so.
Rallade says:
Nothing really, the brain is sort of made not to think about that, and for a lot of people religion is treated as tool to divert the mind from said thought. Basically I know it's pointless but my mind can't bring myself to let me go crazy over it. Sure, I have morals, another part of very complex human brain, I don't, for example, kill because I believe there is no advantage in doing so and never will there be any, even without the law. That's just the way we are programmed and I do believe there is nothing after death. It takes a lot to accept this fact, and according to me, religious people who give themselves a goal relating to the afterlife are just running away from the truth.
manchester says:
Irrespective of the composition of a human being or, in my view, the absence of a God, I live honourably.
I do not need religion to guide me in my moral living. And my own reason for living a decent life is self-respect and love for those around me.
Plain and simple.
Rion says:
We aren't a random arrangement or molecules, we are an ordered and replicated arrangement of molecules that is capable of perception and emotion. I am motivated to live honorably because I want to inspire others to do so. I enjoy being free more than being oppressed, content rather than suffering, and to see others having the same opportunity than being elevated above them. By spreading these ideals, the world becomes a better place for everyone, and we get one step closer to utopian living even if we can't actually get there.
Anon says:
Personally the perseverance and advancement of the human race motivates me. I would like to do everything I can to help us grow as a species. Primeval simplicity would suggest that the first very living things (3 billion year old bacteria), were rather random arrangements of chemical reactions. To understand that bit of information, you must understand why the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and how scrillions of species just were not able to survive unlike every other animal phylum we know today. We know that yes, it was a very slim chance but chemical combinations were reoccurring and reoccurring BILLIONS after BILLIONS and BILLIONS of YEARS.. How long is the average human life span? How long is 1,000 years to you? You have to start thinking on a geological timescale.
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
Your beliefs. It is really a simple answer.
SK says:
My own will to enjoy the rest of my life.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Hey Dude, I suppose your answer can also be stated as such: "Actually, atheism motivates me to do just the opposite of care and live honorably in the world." Thanks for proving my point! ;)
WhitU4ever says:
If we are all just going to die, and the universe is going to end, and that's it, why try? If no God is involved in all of this, we eventually lose what we have lived for. Our great grandchildren don't know us or follow our footsteps. They will all end the same way. There is no purpose for want, wealth, love, hate, teaching of values, or even this conversation. If not to show God exists and that He is good and that there is something beyond the physical that lives on when our bodies are too old and weak to keep carrying us here, then all in this life has been complete vanity, meaningless, futile. Why try? If no God exists to set a standard of morality, then who do we live moral lives for? Or do we live them at all? Are they really as good as we think they are? Or are we simply continually fooling ourselves? Why do we ask these questions? Isn't it because we think it matters? Why do we think it matters? Why try? If no God, we shouldn't try. I don't believe we shouldn't try. But some do. To spread that lie is to create a hostile world... one of theft, murder, adultery, and there is no end to what one can do... if it doesn't matter. But it does. We all know this deep down. And we all know God exists, deep down. It is too amazing to take for granted; too amazing to not ask why. Why are we able to do that? Tell me, if you know. I think I have found the answer. It is all summed up in the One Who, in His great mercy, decided to show us how much He loves us.
WhitU4ever says:
If nothing we do or say to one another matters will be remembered, and if there is no holy God to be pleased with our efforts, there should be no reason to try. Yet, the answers here clearly reflect that we all have a need to try anyway. Why? Could it be that our Maker planted that desire in us? Or is it random and meaningless? If random, there shouldn't be an urgency to strive for anything better than the worst we know or anything worse than the best... it is vanity... meaningless... grasping for the wind.
WhitU4ever says:
If you believe that we are only random particles, would it matter what you believe? Would it matter how you treat your fellow man or whether or not we took the life of someone else or ourselves? Would it matter how many people we molested or cheated or robbed? The very fact that we have made laws against these things that most people agree are fair suggests that we are not solely random particles, but beings that believe that certain things are right or wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair. Even if all we lived for was to keep from going extinct, what for, if all we are is material that exists without cause?
yourgoldenfuture says:
i have a duty to fulfill or I would have been dead already...
WhitU4ever says:
Samuel: Good actions produce a good life? I always thought that the sun shines on the righteous and the unrighteous alike.
Truth is... evil exists in this world, and sometimes it begs us to defend what is right. Some people call good evil and evil good. So then, how do you know which is which? Whose standards do you use? Have you ever been able to live up to your own standards or anyone else's without compromise? The honest answer for anyone is "no." Thus, the need for a relationship with our Maker... enter Jesus.
WhitU4ever says:
James, I have news for you. Men don't go to war to free people from their religion. If anything, an atheist who goes to war will inevitably say his first prayer. You need to learn the differences between religions. Contrary to what devout Muslims will tell you, Muhammad was a violent and hateful man, but Jesus has a much higher standard. He is not a coward because he loves even His enemies. Read the Koran and read the Bible. You can see it for yourself.
WhitU4ever says:
Bolt, I don't think our molecules are random either. I think that God is the author of our genetic code and that it points out the brilliance of our Maker.
WhitU4ever says:
To Mac and everyone posting responses here: I haven't met anyone who does not care about living honorably in the world, whether Atheist, Christian, or anything in-between. I also haven't met anyone who hasn't failed to do it perfectly. Anyone claiming they have is either Jesus or he/she is lying. That means that no one can al the time. Without God, we would NOT have a reason or a motive to be decent or care about each other and the world we live in. Calling oneself an atheist excuses one from accountability for not living a perfect life. It is fabricated forgiveness. The forgiveness of Christianity is given freely by God. But the forgiveness found in Atheism is assumed. It gives one a temporary and false sense of security.
spirituality says:
I'll go with the Christian one on this - I do not think we're a random arrangement of molecules. I think there's a purpose to why we're here. and yes, that helps me live honorably in this world.
Order vs. Chaos
Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos? (Hardcore Darwinian evolutionists and some new atheists still believe in a solely natural, impersonal, and chaotic origin of life -- ie: the big bang (boom) theory. Believing the opposite would support a designed, personal, and orderly origin -- ie: intelligent design.)
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
My lens, (Why are we here?...) states that it is just a quirk of this reality.
Banana.
Ben says:
"big boom" lolz
Your question about "personality" is absurd, so I'm going to hope that you were actually asking about order v. chaos.
Asking why there is order rather than chaos is like asking why there is "B" instead of "Y". The universe goes from order to disorder, and we are currently enjoying a nice time in-between with just enough order and chaos so that complex chemistry can occur. Aren't we lucky?
If you're asking about the order of life, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems. The earth is powered by the sun. The disorder arising from the production of solar energy that hits the earth far outstrips any order that arrises from absorption of this energy on earth.
SEM-SEO-SMM says:
Choice: In the broader sense of the word?
Jack says:
Excuse if I think that this point I don't feel there is an amount of evidence, or a good enough argument that could make to disway you from your highly biased opinion. The truth is, science has never proven God. Does is disprove it? No. It doesn't even ask the question. To say contradicts either is kind of ivory tower position.
Could you please give me a valid example of where Science has contradicted Atheism? Or where science has proven a god? And don't bother giving anything on your site, I've scoured it and I haven't found one.
I guess in closing, the reason why we don't think you're very versed in Science... well your questions insist on it. You don't show any regard to the scientific method, or even well known scientific discoveries. Most the questions asked here make no scientific sense, and assumes the scriptures are correct, with no empirical evidence. I have met many Christians who are accomplished scientists, so I can hardly doubt that a Scientist can be Christian as well. But your questions lean to our assumption that your grasp science isn't all that spectacular.
Am I saying science proves god wrong? No! There's a lot more up to interpretation than even we will let on. But the fact that you said that science proves atheists wrongs, proves to me that you do not have a grasp on Science, because Scientist can tell you that science proves nothing wrong, but can only prove what is most likely right.
Jack says:
Actually it's quite the opposite. I know this is hard to understand, but in scientific principles (at least to the best of our knowlege and interpretation of evidence) we started in an extreme state of order (Something referred to as a "primordial atom", or a "singularity"). There is a Universal Fact that energy always goes from an ordered state to chaotic state over time. This is why your lightbulb burns out, your coffee gets cold, and your DNA is unable to replicate itself beyond a certain amount of time. This principle is known by us as "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" or "The Law of Increasing Entropy." Which states that energy and matter constantly transition from a state of order to a state of chaos. Before energy is transitioned it in it's highest state of order, at the second of entropy (say turning propane into a fire), all order is disrupted into chaos (as the propane turns into gas and that gas is combusted into fire).
Technically speaking, life couldn't exist without a balance of chaos and order, the exact kind you get about halfway through a gradiant transition between the two. So in esssence, my answer is "It Doesn't."
The universe isn't from chaos into order, actually quite the opposite. The most ordered state is when energy is more condensed. It's why children absorb more knowledge, whereas adults can't remember breakfast. Life is a constant transition between order and chaos. I just it's not the way you expected.
If you want my resources, I'm going to point you toward the Feynman Lectures on Physics (He has an entire class on the subject of Entropy), I also highly suggest a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, Reflections of the Motive Power of Fire by Sadi Carnot, and the works of Guggenheim, Hubble, and Heisenberg.
Nick says:
1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.
2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality.
Bolt says:
Personality did not evolve, but I see what you are getting at.
There was one moment of chaos, the "big bang" where all matter in the universe expanded from the singularity. From that point on, it was all physics up to the point of Earth forming. Then life came from non-life. How? Not entirely sure yet, but one possible method is Abiogenesis. Once life was formed, it was all a matter of imperfect copies, the ones that benefit life being dominant, and eventually creating intelligent beings. Instinct let them live and developed part of their "personality" and once the brains evolved enough to subdue instinct, creature began to think enough to outwit their opponents. Thus the mutations that helped brain power lived longer than the ones that helped bodily ability. Eventually, we came to be from a primate ancestor, and then you asked these ridiculous questions.
Hope that answered one of them.
mac says:
Because we can't explain it, Godidit?
That's a nice out.
I'll say Ted did it. You know Ted? He's an alien form the Querb galaxy. He made all life in our galaxy as a science experiment. Ted gave us personality so we would appear funnier for his amusement.
tenbears says:
no, I sure can't. God must have done it. Oh wait, your specific god must have done it.
Tim says:
There was never chaos in the universe. From the start, there were natural laws which guided the way matter interacted. Thus, from the start there was order. Evolution through natural selection causes a high degree of complexity, but it requires nothing but the relatively simple laws of physics and chemistry to work.
As our brains are "meat computers" programmed with more or less different software in each case, this creates the impression of varying personality.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
See the video below. It best explains my point of view regarding this question.
WhitU4ever says:
Big boom, big bang, whatever. :) Why is bringing up the idea of personality in this question an absurdity to you, Ben? I agree that the universe is going from order to disorder, but my question is for those who think it is not. So, this question didn't really apply to you, because you agree with what our observations tell us. I'm talking about those who think things started out sticky and gooey and got better with time... the devoted Darwinians.
WhitU4ever says:
SEM, I don't understand your answer. What does choice have to do with evolving nor were we here when the universe came into existence. Whose choice?
WhitU4ever says:
Jack, if biased means decided, I am. Science has never proven atheism. And although science has never proven to your satisfaction that the Bible is true, true science (that which has not been outright lies stated as though they are fact in order to make it seem like atheism can be proven by science) has never contradicted the Bible.
WhitU4ever says:
Several atheists visiting this lens frequently assume that I know nothing about science and that all science contradicts Christianity, when the exact opposite is true. Science, over and over again, contradicts atheism, which is why atheists are continually forced to find alternate explanations and theories to support their beliefs.
WhitU4ever says:
Jack, read the questions that follow, and you'll eventually get one concerning the second law of thermodynamics.
WhitU4ever says:
My point is this: How much more likely is it that everything that exists comes from God than that it comes from a random chance explosion that doesn't involve anything remotely divine or intelligent? And if we were given to chance from the beginning, then why do we have the ability to reason and ask what purpose we have and where we came from to begin with? Shouldn't we have turned out to be more like the animals then, who simply exist, don't have the ability to reason or question their existence, and can't communicate with language? How do you explain such a vast difference in function, other than that we have been granted responsibilities to the life we are surrounded with by a higher intelligence?
WhitU4ever says:
Nick and Bolt, I appreciate your intellectual honesty. However, Nick, you didn't answer the question. Explain how. Bolt, you sound like you are talking about natural selection but on a grander scale. Plants, animals, insects, birds, elements and galaxies... these all came from a big bang with no intelligent source whatsoever? Think about that for a minute. What are the odds?
WhitU4ever says:
Psalm 139
WhitU4ever says:
God is a better explanation than any atheist has to offer.
Intelligent Design: Who Designed the Designer?
Faith & Science
Faith & Science: Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering?
Amazon Price: $19.99 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $19.99
Used Price:
The Faith & Science Lecture Forum hosted an engagement to discuss the question, "Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering?" Ravi Zacharias was the featured lecturer and he presented a 45-minute address offering the Christian perspective to this concern. His message was followed by rebuttals from three panelists: Dr. Bernard Leikind, a plasma physicist and senior editor of Skeptic magazine; Dr. Jitendra Mohanty, one of India's most distinguished Hindu philosophers and professor at Emory University; and William Lane Craig, a well-known Christian philosopher and apologist.
Each of the forum's participants then posed questions to one another, and the interaction was a lively exchange of ideas and worldviews. The dialogue was direct and challenging, yet handled with respect, cordiality (and sometimes humor!).
Release Date: 05/24/2006
Usually ships in 24 hours
Die for a Lie
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have been willing to face death for what they knew to be a lie?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
MANDRAKE
This herb was used to give appearance of death in that era.
They took Jesus down a little too early.
He didn't die or get resurrected because he wasn't dead.
Ben says:
I don't know any atheist, and I know a bunch, who would claim that it's even likely that the resurrection was faked. The text may have been faked, or more likely, twisted over time. However, it seems unlikely this is some kind of theatrical switcheroo. Ironically, I think the better question for you to ask would be why would biblical scholars make the chief witnesses of the resurrection women? This was a time when the word of a woman was worth very little, much like in places like Iran today. That is more compelling to me.
I would not suggest that the disciples, if they existed, would have known it was a lie, if it was. The disciples are hardly reliable or even compelling examples of religious sacrifice in the context of larger history.
Samuel says:
I don't think they thought it was a lie, they were simply mistaken in the same way most Christians believe Muslims are about Mohamed
James McCurdy says:
See i knew you ran this website,well this isint fair you get to decided what people see and what people dont see!You really dissapoint ,nice so now i know where some of my response have gone!
spirituality says:
That's assuming they heard that version of the myth - instead of it being developed later.
I personally think the resurrection was a spiritual experience. the disciples didn't see the body of Christ resurrected, but his spiritual essence came to them. This explains why at first Mary Magdalene didn't recognize him, for instance.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Anyway, nephthys, the question is about why the disciples were willing to die, not Jesus. Why were they willing to die for a lie. Mandrake would definitely mean that it is a lie and they knew about it. So then, why did they die defending the faith knowing that it was a lie? Does that make any sense?
WhitU4ever says:
Actually, nephthys, that was not possible. The disciples didn't understand what was really going to happen to Jesus, even though He told them, so they didn't have the time to do something like that. And when one the disciples tried to defend the arrest of Jesus, Jesus stopped him, healed the soldier's ear that was cut off, and went peacefully with them. He didn't ask to go home and do anything first. The drug would have taken effect immediately. Therefore, to give him that drug, he would have had to have taken MANDRAKE not only while in custody, but while carrying the cross or being nailed to it. Not likely. The ones crucifying him were under the assumption that he deserved to be crucified. If the soldiers helped him, their deaths would be ordered by the Roman governor. They feared him too much and didn't care about Jesus or know Him well enough to wish to spare His life. So to guess that someone gave Him mandrake, it would be quite a stretch to mesh the details of the account with that idea.
WhitU4ever says:
Well, Ben, if you scroll down, you'll see that some do think that Jesus' resurrection was faked. As for the text being faked, why? What would be the motive? So we could all be persecuted, killed, and/or ridiculed by our peers for the rest of our lives? Even the Bible says about the hope we have in Christ that, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Cor. 15:19) The disciples lost their families, their fortunes, everything that was valuable to them before becoming Christians... all because, not only did they believe in Jesus, but they wanted to tell everyone about Him too. They gained nothing but trouble in this life for doing so. If they believed it was a lie, they would have had no problem denouncing it when their lives were threatened for preaching the Gospel, and then doing whatever they wanted when they were released, but that wasn't the case. They were faithful to what they knew to be true. They didn't just believe these things. They saw them.
WhitU4ever says:
Samuel: Who do you think faked Jesus' resurrection, other than the disciples? I mean, if (according to your answer) they didn't think it was a lie, then it wasn't them who faked His resurrection. Who did? And what would be the motive?
WhitU4ever says:
Had you not skipped the intro, you would have known the rules.
WhitU4ever says:
Many of you have stated as fact that the disciples did not exist or that there is no proof that they did. I had to delete these responses due to the way they were worded, but feel free to reply again, stating it as your belief, theory, or assumption instead.
Foxe's Book of Martyrs records in detail the way that each apostle died, except for John. This is a list of sources of early records of the apostles, aside from the Bible:
Eusebius
Papias
St. Clement of Rome
Iranaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Hippolytus
Tertulian
Origen
St. Gerome
Here is a good archaeological source for Biblical people, places, etc. There is so much information that the website's main problem is how to make it easily accessible.
What's So Great About Christianity
What's So Great About Christianity
Amazon Price: $3.98 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $27.95
Used Price: $0.57
Today, more than ever, Christianity is under attack. In his new book, bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza takes on the leading critics of Christianity, from E. O. Wilson to Richard Dawkins. D'Souza shows that, against all expectations, Christianity is the fastest-growing religion in the world and that secularism and atheism are on the decline. This, D'Souza contends, explains the panicky efforts by atheists to discredit Christianity, exclude it from the public sphere, and indoctrinate schoolchildren in atheist doctrine masquerading as science.
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Still Changing Lives
How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
He was determined!
favorite atheist :) says:
The media dear watson the media
Ben says:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Plenty of less learned individuals before and after his time did more to influence modern society than Jesus. Though the story of Christianity is extraordinary, the idea that some religion would hold sway as Christianity does over history, is not impressive to me. If it wasn't Christianity, it would be something else. Imagine if Charlemagne had converted to Hinduism, maybe the Bhagavad Gita would be the best selling book of all time.
Uulmshar says:
Prove that Jesus existed, then I'll start thinking that it wasn't all just made up by the church.
Samuel says:
Well lets let's look at the source of his influence. At the time of the proclaimed Jesus, poverty engulfed Judea, and to promise eternal life for the suffering attracted many people. I don't think these promises were true, but a promise like eternal life will definitely attract many people who want happiness regardless of its absence of truth. These people will do anything to have this promise fulfilled thus changing thoughts and lives for better or for worse.
My point is that you don't to be the son of god to change lives, you only need influence. Many cult leaders radically changed the lives of their followers by gaining influence through promises, but that does not mean they have any divine intervention or powers.
tenbears says:
I don't think it had anything to do with one man. What the 20 channels of babbling christians I have to look at every morning I turn on the TV?
spittlebug says:
It isn't so remarkable. Society has been radically changed by all sorts of people, and I'm sure that many people you don't even know of have affected your life immensely. The fact that the story of Jesus is very popular -- and therefore influential -- doesn't prove that it is true. The Harry Potter books are hugely popular, but that doesn't mean they're factual.
spirituality says:
By the standards of his time he was hardly uneducated - how else could he have debated with the priests so well as a kid? But I agree: he touched a cord that ultimately transformed roman society and helped unite Europe.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Yes, He was determined to save us... to take upon Himself the sins of the world for generations past, present, and future. That doesn't sound like a natural human ambition to me.
WhitU4ever says:
lol, favoriteatheist. :) The disciples must have been the first century's media then.
WhitU4ever says:
Oh, and my husband is related to Charlemagne. Big difference between Christianity and Hinduism. Charlemagne would not have done the great things he had done if not for Christianity's influence. Hinduism teaches people NOT to interfere in the lives of others. So, I seriously doubt the effects would have been the same.
WhitU4ever says:
Being that Christ influences us for longer than just life on earth, Ben, I cannot compare His influence with that of mere men.
WhitU4ever says:
Uulmshar, even today's credible historians do not dispute the existence of Jesus. Visit this link to see the many historians of Jesus' day that wrote about him: Did Jesus Really Exist? Even Richard Dawkins believes that the odds favor His existence.
WhitU4ever says:
Samuel: Granted, but how many of those influential leaders that you speak of have not only changed lives, but were known to have healed the sick and raise the dead, claimed to be God, said to have died, rose again, and appear to over 500 at once, and still retained their credibility for two thousand years?
WhitU4ever says:
Mac, strike ten. To equate Jesus with Hitler is absurd.
JebusKryst, you imply that science has the potential to curb one's appetite for Christianity. On the contrary, most scientists from history who have major accomplishments under their belts were Christians. Sir Isaac Newton, George Washington Carver, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, etc... view the rest Here.
WhitU4ever says:
Televangelists, and television in general, are not good resources for learning about true Christianity. They are an embarrassment to any true believer in Christ and I can see why so many people, who only know what they see on TV, are repelled by what is taught there. That has nothing to do with who Jesus Christ really is, nor what the average evangelical fundamental Christian is like. I don't go around shouting at everyone, asking people for money in exchange for financial "blessings," or claiming that everyone can be healed and/or saved, claiming that I have the answers to every one of life's major problems... that is hogwash. The best way to know about Christianity and Jesus Christ Himself is to read the Bible itself. Too many rely on outside sources, and many of those are confused by man-made ideas and doctrines that they may sincerely believe are true, but are not what was meant.
Intelligent Faith
Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Dude says:
Uhm... because for thousands of years if you were not a person of the church you were ostracized, not allowed an education, often killed if you didn't support the one true forgiving god.....
nephthys says:
They're bored.
Alone, in a life with seemingly no reason.
It's that or another religion or go stark raving mad or don't think of it.
Wow... banana.
periwinklekitty says:
Yes, it has crossed my mind, especially since there is a strong correlation between atheism and knowledge or intelligence.
Gandalf says:
Yeah, they wer either indoctrinated as childs, or they wer lying to be able to work.
Ben says:
This question is just sad. 60-70% of American scientists are atheists while only ~10-20% of the American population are atheists. Modern atheistic scientists include Einstein, Hawking, and Darwin. Post-enlightenment, I can't come up with an equally prominent scientist who is christian other than Francis Collins. Although, he's an evangelical christian, he's a strong proponent of evolution and doesn't buy this ID junk. I'd love to hear your examples.
In scanning below for your examples, I made the unfortunate discovery that you are a young-earth creationist, spouting nonsense. Here's a link to refute you stupid Po-halo crap: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/
Just search whatever creationist argument you want in "talk origins", and I virtually every one of them has been covered by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Rion says:
No. People are capable of holding contradictory views, although they may feel a measure of cognitive dissonance if they haven't developed a rationalization for said contradiction. What is of note is that while there are religious intellectuals, it has been noted that there is a higher incidence of irreligious thought among intellectuals in general, whom are generally more knowledgeable about what is true.
Samo says:
I simply believe it's because they kept science and faith separate. Religion didn't interfere with their scientific analysis of whatever they studied. The scientific method uses no religion at all therefore faith has nothing to do with the works of these scientists.
James McCurdy says:
So religion is responsible for alot of wars arent they,wow,all those people killed in the name of god,and allah,arent you so proud of religion!
Bolt says:
Considering religions weren't fought until just recently (within a few hundred years) I don't doubt it. However, around the time of Newton and Einstein, religion was on a serious decline in the scientific community. And anything regarding creation is considered completely unscientific, as we have never found any evidence of it. Present some evidence of creation, peer reviewed in the scientific community, and then we'll consider religion as a part of science.
mac says:
Because, traditionally, it has been decidedly unhealthy to announce that you do not believe in god.
Thankfully, that is changing.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Dude, just so that you know, I'm leaving this one up as a mild example of the vile excuses (er...responses) you attempted to leave on this page. Just to be clear, this is not a good place for you to engage in the defamation of Christian character, which I am convinced so far is your goal for showing up on this page. You certainly aren't interested in answering the questions honestly or learning anything new.
WhitU4ever says:
I'm not stark raving mad... yet... lol. But I have thought about going mad from time to time. ;)
WhitU4ever says:
That correlation, periwinkle, exists only in the minds of the atheists themselves. Claiming intelligence does not make it so.
Truth Hurts says:
I've researched many of the arguments made by atheist for the last 5-6 years, and I can honestly say that almost everything they claim is either false or misleading. Example, the "atheist are smarter" argument. Richard Dawkins claims that a Mensa member by the name of Paul G. Bell reviewed 43 studies that found people of religion to dumb. The problem with this is that Paul G. Bell (Mensa) doesn't exist, and all the atheist quoting this are quoting Dawkins, not Bell. Furthermore, there are not 43 studies, not even close. The ones that do exist, have disclaimers that stop short of blaming religion, all but one. When you look into the studies more, you'll find atheistic communism and/or culture as the reason, not faith.
And comparing American scientist to the American public is like Apples and Oranges. Elaine Howard Ecklund touches on this:
? Religious scientists generally tried to keep their faith to themselves because of the perception that other faculty in their departments think poorly of religious people and religious ideas.
? Ecklund found that they tended to come from irreligious or not very observant family backgrounds. In other words, their atheism or lack of religion was in place long before their scientific training began.
In both cases, then, what seems to be the key predictor of a scientist's religious belief is family religious background?and not whether one studies science.
Let's not forget "science grew out of a religious tradition" - Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion Debate with Lennox
The world's smartest man with a IQ between 195 and 210 is a Christian, Christopher Langan
And there are many studies that show a positive relationship between religion and education, but these studies seem to get ignored, and they stay within the subject culture. Here's just a few. If you're unable to find them by simply copying and pasting the text in the search bar, then I'll add the Professor's name and College. You shouldn't have any problems. I also have many more studies I can add.
1. Less-educated Americans Are Losing Religion, Study Finds
2. More Educated Tend to be More Religious, by Some Measures
3. Religious High Schoolers More Optimistic, Have Better Self Esteem
4. Survey on Physicians' Religious Beliefs Shows Majority Faithful
5. Religion at America's Most Selective Colleges
6. Predicting Schooling Success among Latino Youth
7. Shaping Schooling Success: Religious Socialization and Educational Outcomes in Metropolitan Public Schools
8. Empirics on the Origins of Preferences: The Case of College Major and Religiosity
WhitU4ever says:
Samo, no one goes about anything without being influenced by their personal beliefs in one way or another. There is no such thing as a non-biased human being. As a matter of fact, many atheist scientists and other very well-known atheists at that, in their attempts to disprove Christianity have actually changed their minds and positions because of scientific and philosophical discoveries.
This is only one of many:
How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
WhitU4ever says:
James, stay on topic and answer the question. I am not a religious person, nor a Muslim. I am a Christian. I have never been to war, except spiritually by way of a loving prayer or a helping hand. Oh, it's murder alright! I am guilty of sending people like me to Jesus and Jesus to people. He kills selfishness, self-righteousness, greed, lust, hatred, bigotry, false religions, deceit, lies, addictions, and the list goes on. Pretty violent, huh? ;)
WhitU4ever says:
Bolt, religion has been fought ever since it has existed, especially Judaism and Christianity. The Jewish priests, out of fear that Jesus was supposed to take over, called for Pilate and Herod to kill Jesus. Ever heard of Nero? Christians thought, and some still think, that he was the anti-Christ. Ever since, Christians and Jews have been killed simply for being who they are and believing the way they do.
WhitU4ever says:
Peer reviewed, currently unrefuted evidence supporting creation (in response to Bolt's request): Polonium Halos and Evidence for Creation vs. Evolution
WhitU4ever says:
Tenbears, I know exactly why there are fewer Christian scientists... they risk losing their jobs and their tenure at major universities simply for giving equal voice to the theory of Intelligent Design or for mentioning that they are Christians.
What old religious theories are being replaced with scientific ones? The Theory of Intelligent Design is a new theory, based on the fact that there is intelligence behind the genetic code of every living organism. And what is that being replaced with? Darwinian evolution? That is an old theory that has lost its credibility. Perhaps it is that man causes global warming? The earth has always gone through continual cooling and heating cycles. We can't change that.
Atheists think that things get better with time, such as the fact that fewer Christians are scientists. I don't believe that there are fewer Christians who are scientists, just that fewer scientists who are Christians get paid by liberal organizations to cater to their political and anti-religious indoctrination goals.
WhitU4ever says:
It doesn't take being an atheist to be a great scientist. Some atheists have conveniently redefined what it means to be closed or open-minded. There is a difference between being decided and being closed-minded. Those scientists' decision to believe in something higher than themselves had no ill effects upon their ability to reason, think, and discover the world around us.
Brains
How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals? But at the same time, this brain can't create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Computers are small, but clever!
Don't ask me, I haven't got one!
SwissEggRoll says:
The same way a book can store so much information, even though it's only ink and paper. It's a complex, meaningful arrangement of ink and paper, that adds up to something more than any given random arrangement of the same. Similarly, our brain is incredibly complex. It may be made of simple components, but these components are arranged in complex, meaningful manners, and can thus store much more information than something larger, that is devoid of such organization.
Nature may not have a brain, but it dosen't need one to create one. Things can create thing more complex than themselves, and there's no reason to think otherwise. Gravity and a mass of hydrogen can create a star, which is more complex than the both of them. DNA codes for the human body, which is far more complex than the DNA it's self. The question implicitly assumes that y can't create y if y is more complex than x. This is a false premise.
It also implicitly assumes that we will never be able to create a human brain, another false premise.
CJunk says:
We humans are not that very smart......We were just lucky someone thought of inventing writing .
JebusKryst says:
This is just another argument from ignorance. If you're going to question a known scientific fact, then would it be too much to ask that you actually read and understand the fact before showing us exactly how ignorant you are on the topic.
mac says:
But we have created brains that are far better at comprehending than we are. Ever hear of a computer?
I guess God sprinkled magic dust and created brains?
You have no credible evidence for your claims, but require it of others?
Tim says:
These are two separate questions. The first part I will answer using the anthropic principle: the very fact that evolution has worked so well means that the organisms in this universe are subjected to the same physical and chemical laws as their ancestors. You couldn't evolve an eye if the nature of light were unpredictable and spurious, for instance. So, the very fact that evolution was worked indicates that natural laws are consistent. And luckily, anything which is consistent allows itself to be described mathematically, which our brains are large enough to be able to comprehend. So, the "extremely complicated aspects" are simply emergent features of relatively simple, and above all consistent, natural laws - laws which are simple enough to be comprehensible by our minds.
Now, we can't create a brain? Your mom and dad did, at least once. But that's now what you meant. No, we can't build a brain (yet) but there is a huge difference between designing and building something from scratch and constantly refining and adjusting something through billions of generations. That's how nature creates living things, including brains. Nature doesn't "create" brains, of course - far too unlikely.
james says:
can't create another brain? clearly someone needs to retake sex ed.
Sketch Sepahi says:
This isn't a question. It's just a barrage of assumptions converging on a fallacious argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Nobody claims that the brain is JUST a bunch of chemical reactions - at least if they are claiming that, they shouldn't - see my point about emergence further up in the question about "Order vs. Chaos."
Another unfounded assumption in the question is that complicated things - what do you mean by 'complicated' by the way? - can only originate from even more complicated things. However, we know for a fact that the brain evolved by natural selection via gradual steps from less complicated iterations. Even so, if this erroneous assumption were true, it would sound the death knell for monotheism, because it would cause an infinite regression of ever-increasing complexity. God would require a meta-God, who would in turn require a meta-meta-God etc.
A third assumption is that 'this brain' cannot create another brain like itself. Is the querist claiming that artificial intelligence is impossible? If so, on what is this presumptuous claim based?
Cheers,
Sketch
incomposmentis says:
Whitu4ever,
That understanding of evolution is not quite accurate. There was no intelligent being guiding the process, that is correct. However, the phrase "evolved all by themselves" indicated will on the part of the organism. I think that a video on youtube will explain evolution in a much more satisfactory manner than anything I will be able to offer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
spittlebug says:
That's a very silly question. It's like asking, "How can a flute, that is not a melody, create a melody?" Pointless. Please rephrase.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
SwissEggRoll, can you provide an example of something nature created all by itself, without an original, life-giving Creator? Define nature.
WhitU4ever says:
So then, CJunk, we are pretty lucky that bears or lions or tigers didn't invent writing also?
WhitU4ever says:
Jebus, actually, I'm showing how ignorant some of your atheist scientists and friends are. These assumptions are made by them, not me.
Mac, FYI: Computers are not capable of complex thoughts, which is what the question refers to. Computers cannot comprehend anything but a bunch of zeros and ones; on and off, yes or no. Ever heard of Boolean logic? George Boole is regarded in hindsight as a founder of the field of computer science. Boole was a Christian.
WhitU4ever says:
The question was: how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?
(Darwinian evolution teaches that things just evolved all by themselves, with no help from any kind of intelligent source.) Many atheists believe this theory.
Consciousness and the Existence of God
Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument
Amazon Price: $38.55 (as of 05/31/2012)
List Price: $43.95
Used Price: $35.44
In Consciousness and the Existence of God, J.P. Moreland develops a ground breaking, rigorous, systematic case against naturalism and for theism in light of the evident reality of consciousness. His engagement with contemporary naturalism is vigorous, thorough, and fair. This is essential reading for those with interests in metaphysics and epistemology in general, and philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion in particular.-Charles Taliaferro, St. Olaf College
J. P. Moreland's intriguing and well-informed book argues forcefully for the view that a theistic explanation of human consciousness is the only viable alternative to an implausibly strong form of reductive physicalism in the philosophy of mind. It deserves close attention from philosophical naturalists and theists alike, and is written in an engaging and accessible manner that makes it suitable material for upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and philosophical theology.
-E. J. Lowe, Durham University
Release Date: 12/31/1969
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Intelligent Design
Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
No. I think it is random design to suit the environment.
g says:
No, clearly evolution explains it better.
Mario says:
So mount rushmore has a mommy and daddy mount rushmore?
person says:
No. If the human body is result of intelligent design, why are thousands of innocent people dying everyday from things like AIDS, cancer, and other diseases? Why didn't God design us to be able to handle these things? And furthermore, why are disease causing microbes here in the first place?
SK says:
No.. Mount Rushmore has no inherent purpose other than viewing. The human body probably evolved all its parts because of the necessity for survival. (Note: I am using "probably" to adhere to your "rules")
Bolt says:
Being an Atheist... umm... no! No, I do not believe in intelligent design, thus I don't think the body is the result of intelligent design. In fact, if there was a designer, I'd have to question the quality of the human body, and half of it doesn't work right when you need it to. There is far too much strain on the back, far too many organs that don't serve any purpose in our current forms, far too many vulnerabilities, and far too little of the brain is used.
So, no, I don't think the human body is the result of intelligent design.
mac says:
There were witnesses for Mt Rushmore.
I might add, If Mt Rushmore was as flawed as the human body, it would have surely collapsed by now.
tenbears says:
No, Mt rushmore is not composed of self replicating materials. It is a rock.
Tim says:
No.
The difference between a human body, which can reproduce and be submitted to natural selection, and Mount Rushmore, which can't, is far too obvious to point out.
Sketch Sepahi says:
No, I don't.
Cheers,
Sketch
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
It has been a real joy to read your responses, nephthys! Thanks for participating here. I truly mean it. :)
WhitU4ever says:
g, how does evolution explain intelligent design?
WhitU4ever says:
Mario, your comparison is faulty and you know it. Answer the question. Do you think the human body is a result of intelligent design?
WhitU4ever says:
Christian Blalock's hyperlink is here: Scientific Proof of God
Christian Blalock says:
Yes i do, and this is coming from someone who used to not believe in the idea of design. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw if any atheist has time please watch this.... this has some pretty good explanations that support creation. Although i am now a Christian, im not close minded and rude. So please dont attack me with immaturity.
WhitU4ever says:
WhitU4ever says:
Bolt, aren't you confusing the original design of the body with the aging process or what happens when we don't take very good care of the body? I mean, obesity, lifting objects beyond our strength, and even a lack of hydration can place more strain on the back than is necessary. And I don't know about you, but my body does exactly what I want it to do. The only time I haven't been able to is because of recent surgery, injury, or illness. All were temporary setbacks. With the exception of those having an MS attack, disability, or lost limbs, most people I know can control their bodies quite well. Please name the unnecessary organs in our bodies. Tell me why using less than our entire brain is an imperfection that excludes intelligent design as a possibility. Perhaps all of our brain is being used, but not in a way that shows up on a brain scan. Or... perhaps people were meant to live longer and retain more information long ago. Perhaps atheists are wrong about us living longer today than people did in ancient days. You simply don't know because you weren't there, and neither was I, but one should be open to possibilities that cannot be disproved, right?
WhitU4ever says:
If you think there is something wrong with the question, please let me know in either the guest book or via private email. You are not obligated to answer the questions. But if you do, please add reasons for your "yes" or "no."
WhitU4ever says:
Nick, explain why you believe that this question is a logical non sequitur?
WhitU4ever says:
Mac, there was a witness for the human body as well. But you don't believe in Him, so He must not exist.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Amazon Price: $3.79 (as of 05/31/2012)
Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom ... What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel! That rebel, Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth %u2026 that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired - for the crime of merely believing that there might be evidence of design in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance. To which Ben Says: Enough! And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Anything can happen.
and does, frequently.
Rion says:
There's no contradiction. The Second Law only applies to closed systems with no incoming energy input. If we take Earth as being the system in question, there is a massive amount of outside energy input from our local star.
Jack says:
The second law of thermodynamics explains in an enclosed system (where energy is being reproduced) energy will entropy and drain out (it furthermore goes into how bodies increase entropy as they interact, but that's inconsequential to this argument). Now, you're assuming that the human body is an enclosed system (ie, energy is not being added), unfortunately nothing can be further from the truth. We add energy in the form of chemical energy that we gather from nutrition. We use this nutrition to power our living cells and we gain lipids, peptides, and other various proteins that our body uses to create new cells.
However, this does not mean we're not effected by entropy. After a certain amount of reproductions the cells stop replicating themselves... Totally. This is because there is only a certain amount of energy that the same parts can reproduce (I could also get into DNA markers, but that's a different subject). This is all entropy.
Now how does it effect the evolutionary scale? It doesn't. Evolution is caused by minor changes in the structure of the DNA. While one cell will have a reproduction rate, that timer is reset when another cell is born. I don't see where the correlation between the entropy of energy and the evolutionary system, so you might have to explain a little more, I would be happy to listen.
Cjunk says:
easy..........things change. Are you really of the opinion that the 2nd law cancels out the ability for things to change???
Nick says:
1. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
References:
1. Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. Chen, N. Dan, T. C. Lubensky, P. Nelson, L. Ramos and D. A. Weitz, 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
2. Brooks, D. R. and E. O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy, University of Chicago Press.
3. Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
4. Han, J. and H. G. Craighead, 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
5. Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/links/doi/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2106
6. McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
7. Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
This question shows a lack of understanding of basic scientific laws. This is not a personal attack, but an observation. Ignorance of the subject can be remedied as easily as searching wikipedia.
Anonymous says:
The second law of thermodynamics can be paraphrased as "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time."
Do you understand what "isolated system" is? Do you understand that the Earth is the system in question? I guess you're right. For evolution to be reconciled with the second law, there would have to be a giant source of energy somewhere in the solar system. Something like a star. I'm sure if one of those existed here though, we'd have found it by now. You're right.
Tim says:
I quote you: ", but I cannot attribute the finite balance of just the right amount of heat, just the right position of planets, just the right concentration of oxygen and other elements that keep life going to anything unintelligent."
Well, there's your problem. You think there is only one way life can look. If molecules can self-replicate, you are gonna have life. Simple as that. We may not be able to survive anywhere else than on Earth, but that's because WE ARE ADAPTED TO EARTH. We're tailor-made to our environment. Of course the environment seems perfect. it's like a puddle marvelling at how perfectly shaped is the hole it's in.
About the sun dying - yup, that's going to happen, and that is nicely consistent with the 2nd law. So? We're here because the law allows local (in time and space) decreases of enthropy, which is all the life processes are. We shall return back into the evergrowing sea of enthropy sooner or later. Enjoy it while you can...
tenbears says:
Do any of you even know what the second law of thermodynamics is. I know I don't.
Tim says:
Seriously?? I started this trek through these questions hoping for something intelligent, but now we are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is an ANCIENT argument, debunked literally millions of times, but for some reason always resurfacing. The answer is: LEARN what the 2nd law SAYS!
The second law applies only in situations where there is no energy being added from outside (a closed system). The universe as a whole is subject to the second law, but there is nothing prohibiting local drops in entropy. In fact, such drops happen all the time. A steam engine is an entropy-dropping device: it converts heat (high entropy) into kinetic energy (low entropy). Now, of course a steam engine with no energy being added won't work - we wouldn't expect it to - but as soon as we pour on the energy, it is no longer a closed system, and lo and behold, it works! Entropy dropping locally and the second law is fine with that.
So, in order to use the second law as argument against evolution, you'd have to pretend that there was no energy being added to Earth - in other words, that the Sun didn't exist. This is a pretty big assumption, and if the sun really didn't exist, I would agree with you that evolution was a pretty tall order. But it does exist, so the Earth is not a closed system, and the second law can not be applied here.
Sketch Sepahi says:
Easily. The Earth (and hence the biological life on Earth) is not an isolated system, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not applicable. Any biological decrease in entropy is predicated upon the massive increase in entropy created by the sun.
Christians asking this question seem to never have heard of photosynthesis.
Cheers,
Sketch
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Atheists, please try to cite your sources and be sure you understand the question. Fizixgeek, thanks for clarifying.
fizixgeek says:
Excellent question and related to the idea of "anthropic coincidences," These are the set of astoundingly unlikely fine-tunings of universal numbers that make not only life, but complexity possible. If we were to guess at these numbers, we would get boring, lifeless universes with an astronomically larger frequency than we would get anything interesting. So, if, as state the foundations of thermal physics, all possible universes are equally likely, what a blessed miracle that our universe turns out complex enough to produce being which consider their own origins! For many scientists, this fact is so miraculous as to lead us to ask, "Is it all just a coincidence?"
Reference: John Polkinghorne, "Belief in God in an Age of Science"
WhitU4ever says:
CJunk, change happens within a species due to climate and surroundings, etc. Species adapt. That is the kind of evolution that can be proven. But that is not progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory, or Darwinian evolution, if you will. One species cannot change into another over millions of years, unless, as you purported in question one, which I deleted (and you're lucky that I did that), a miracle occurs. :)
WhitU4ever says:
Entropy is a measure of how disorganized a system is.
The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is as follows:
In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.
It is presumed that the process spoken of is a naturally occurring process t hat is left on it's own, as evolution supports, not a process manipulated by mankind to have the opposite effect.
WhitU4ever says:
Tim and Sketch, you are still saying that the energy that comes from the sun (heat) is how you reconcile your belief in progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory. The sun makes evolutionary theory possible? Energy is coming from the sun, which is a star that could eventually explode... as many stars do (a fact of science), which is just another evidence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ie: decay). The origin of the heat may very well come from gasses, etc., but I cannot attribute the finite balance of just the right amount of heat, just the right position of planets, just the right concentration of oxygen and other elements that keep life going to anything unintelligent.
WhitU4ever says:
All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Life After Death
Life After Death: The Evidence
Amazon Price: $7.99 (as of 05/31/2012)
Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics, evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D Souza shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death. He concludes by showing how life after death can give depth and significance to this life, a path to happiness, and reason for hope.
Human Intelligence
How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
CJunk says:
We have great imaginations.....as is evident by the worlds religions.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
But you still didn't answer the question, CJunk.
WhitU4ever says:
I would have to agree with you on that one, CJunk. People go to great lengths to stretch the truth about God.
WhitU4ever says:
This one addresses human intelligence, naturalism, and the law of entropy. The last question addressed evolutionary theory and the second law of thermodynamics. They are not the same question at all.
Absolutely Relative?
For those of you who claim that truth is relative: Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"
ATHEIST RESPONSE
person says:
Truth can be proven. If it is not absolute, prove it. Take something that has been proven true and provide evidence that it is not absolute or that it is relative. If you really want people to believe what you believe, use something that they will listen to. In the case of this question, provide truth using science.
Cjunk says:
I dont see any good reason to believe that truth is relative...... God doesnt exist....no amount of believing it will make it come true
Anonymous says:
I absolutely do not claim that truth is relative.
Bolt says:
Truth is truth. However, what you gain from that truth is relative. Even something as simple as a green cup. Green can look different to different people or give a different feeling. People may think of different things as being "cups" which would change what they would call it or see it as.
So, let's assume a certain story is true, a car crash for example. Three people saw it from three angles in three different moods. One says the car crashed into the victim from behind, obviously an accident. The second one says the car in front stopped too soon, making it his fault he crashed. The third person says the guy following behind meant to hit the guy up front and continued on his after a job well done. Guy one says the cars were blue and red, Guy 2 says they were red and green, Guy 3 says they were yellow and orange. They are all telling the truth, but any or none of them could be saying what truly happened. Many Christians claim this is what happens with the bible, that there are so many stories from different people that there are bound to be differences. However, three different people seeing the same car crash would not say they were in three different towns at the time, and this is what is witnessed in the bible.
Either they are making it up or they all witnessed a different event which happened to be similar enough to e thought of as the same thing.
Tim says:
We have a perfectly good way of ascertaining truth, or at least our best guesses at truth. It's called science, and it's relentless in its error-correcting. This, in high contrast to faith which has no error-correcting whatsoever, always starting with the conclusion and using apologetics to fit the facts.
incomposmentis says:
There is such a thing as absolute truth... we call this mathematics. Our perceptions of truth are more subjective than they are relative.
spittlebug says:
I think that I'm thinking.
spirituality says:
? I am content to know that my understanding is partial, yes. I'm not sure what you mean.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Person, I do not subscribe to relativism at all. If you are asking me for evidence that supports Christianity's relevance, I can do that, and I have provided links all over this page. I challenge you to be open-minded and allow yourself to read and study them thoroughly.
WhitU4ever says:
The burden of proof is yours, CJunk. Can you prove to us all that God doesn't exist? You have stated it as truth here. If you cannot, your statement will be deleted.
WhitU4ever says:
Tim, what you say about Christians is absurd. And how is it science for atheist so-called "scientists" and tenured university professors with an obvious agenda to indoctrinate their students to call Darwin's Theory of Evolution or any other theory a fact?
WhitU4ever says:
You may be interested in watching the movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. You will see how professors and scientists have lost their jobs, tenure, and credibility as experts over simply suggesting giving equal time to the theory of intelligent design.
WhitU4ever says:
Let me rephrase that... for those of you who don't understand why this question is here, many atheist apologists educated by today's progressive/liberal professors (not all), use the argument that truth is not absolute and all things are relative when cornered with factual information that does not support their theories of Darwinian evolution. This is a common theory, frequently taught as truth at universities across the U.S. and abroad. But it is not truth. It is theory. As for your other theory... that people of faith have no method of correction, well, the very act of correcting myself just now proves that statement wrong. As for knowing how people of faith do science, it doesn't sound like you know very much about our methods, as we do not start with a conclusion and use apologetics to back our claims. On the contrary, that is exactly our beef with Darwinian evolution. Today's Darwin enthusiasts start with the conclusion that there is no intelligence behind the design of our universe to suit atheist beliefs, and invents and cherry picks theories to fit. And it doesn't stop there. There are many false accusations flying around at those who even entertain the idea of intelligent design, whether they believe that the intelligence behind the design is God or some alien force. That is not science. It is a social dysfunction; a lack of consideration or acceptance that not everyone believes or thinks the same as you.
WhitU4ever says:
For those of you who don't understand why this question is here, most atheist apologists, during their arguments support the theory that truth is not absolute and all things are relative. This is a common theory taught as truth in our liberal colleges today by some professors. But it is not truth. It is based on a theory.
Relativism
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
Amazon Price: $4.98 (as of 05/31/2012)
"Relativism" offers a critique of moral relativism and suggests ways Christians can defend their moral beliefs. The authors survey the rising tide of relativism in recent decades, explore its inherent inconsistencies, suggest specific approaches that can be used in the course of dialogue, and consider its everyday implications.
Submission
Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Dude says:
As much as I doubt it, I am always open to the fact that I could be wrong. However, If my unbelief was actually an unwillingness to submit to anyone or anything... than go me! Being submissive to anyone or anything doesn't sound so great of an idea to me.
nephthys says:
Nah, just too evil.
And need interesting belief system or go banana!
Favorite atheist love ya to :) says:
Or is religion following a person who appears to have power like mindless sheep and their herder?
periwinklekitty says:
Most atheists would be slightly offended by this question. It implies we are just bad eggs. Honestly, I was raised in a household with christians (a methodist and mormon), and I attended church occasionally with my grandparents, but alas, I still turned out to be atheist. I simply found the doctrines and ideas completely foolish, almost as foolish as believing in multiple gods. Ancient Greeks and Romans probably would have considered christians unwilling to submit to multiple gods as a sign of insolence.
Alex says:
No. I never believed in god. I was raised in a moderately catholic family (went to church 2 to 3 times a month), passed through kindergarten to 12th grade in catholic schools, prayers were read every morning, we had religious courses a few times a week, we went to church on special occasions, etc. But to me, god was just the Santa Claus for grownups.
I don't think I ever seriously thought about my belief in Santa, and when I was old enough to do so, I realized it couldn't be true. But I kept on acting like Santa was the real deal, in order to preserve the spirit of christmas. I behaved much the same way in regards to god. I kept acting in order to preserve a kind of unwritten social rule, like saying hello to strangers and shaking their hands. I was seriously and honestly surprised to find out people truly and honestly believed all that church stuff.
So, that covers why I am an atheist. Because I don't believe.
On the second part, even with a minimum of thinking and research, I came to the conclusion that even if god were to exist, I wouldn't submit to him. I'd acknowledge his existence if it was established with certainty, but I wouldn't submit.
No offence, but god is a terrible parent. Why exactly he put the tree of knowledge inside the garden of Eden, within easy reach of Adam and Eve, without any kind of obstacle to protect Adam and Eve is completely beyond me. He then banished them both for the simple act of disobedience, then condemned them to pain and aging and death. How people cannot see how this is a totally inappropriate response, with a punishment much bigger than the crime, still amazes me.
Another well-known story is of Abraham and his son. People will say that god meant to test Abraham's faith, and sent an angel to stop Abraham, and spare him the sacrifice of his son as an act of kindness. Well, what if god hadn't? Abraham would have killed his son. Now I don't blame this on god. I do despise him for asking such a cruel thing. What I find most disturbing however is that faith in god creates individuals willing to slaughter their own families to satisfy god's ego. Think of it, Abraham's faith is praised as something good. He is being praised for having tried to kill his child at the behest of a voice he heard in his head. Again, how people can possibly take this as a good example to me reveals just how much potential for evil there is in religion.
Now this is not a rebellion against god. I don't rebel against people whom I don't agree with. I don't banish them and condemn them to death, nor do I threaten them. I'm not saying this is what christians do, but god seems to do it quite a bit in the bible. I politely disagree with them and expose my own opinion without resorting to insults or demeaning the point of view of others. I hope to receive the same from you, and from what I've seen here, there is a good chance we can engage in a productive conversation.
In the hopes of talking with you
Sincerely,
Alex
Gandalf says:
No. Actually, let him strike me dead with lightning if that´s the case.
Like, right now.
I´m waiting...
manchester says:
Absolutely not.
I simply do not believe there is a God to 'submit' to.
I was raised a Catholic with an understanding family who fully encouraged me to decide for myself, when I was old enough to start questioning religion. They all accept my 'unbelief,' without an assumption that it is an unwillingness to do anything.
Rion says:
Not really. My unbelief in Santa Claus isn't an unwillingness to be a good boy all year to get presents, it's because there's no evidence of the existence of Santa Claus. The same holds true here.
person without God says:
No. If there was a God, I could probably be persuaded to submit to Him. I could accept that there was a God if someone would show me some proof that isn't circumstantial. No offense to anyone who has some, it is only that all proof given to me has been circumstantial. I am not saying all is, only all that has been shown to me. I will be happy to cooperate with pretty much anything ( joining a church included) if someone gives me good solid proof. Until the day someone does, I have seen more proof denying the existence of God, so that is my side.
CJunk says:
Nope. Its because I have never seen anygood resaon to believe that a god exists.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Dude, I had to delete most of your comments because they break the rules (located in the intro) and are extremely demeaning to Christians (as well as thick with sarcasm and spelling errors (which are allowed, but are quite telling when someone attempts to show themselves intelligent on an intellectual blog. I know that being polite and differentiating between fact and opinion are not your highest values, but on this page, you need to at least try to be civil and state theories (ie:Darwinian evolution) as opinions rather than fact. Feel free to try again, but read the rules first and show me that you don't need God because you are capable of keeping them. ;)
WhitU4ever says:
As for interesting, I don't think it's my job as a parent to entertain my children, and I don't think God ever said it was His to entertain us either. Personally, the more I read the Bible and learn about the culture and history and meaning within its pages, the more interesting the Bible becomes to me. I LOVE being a nerd. ;)
WhitU4ever says:
Being evil is the very reason we need to receive Jesus. He's our free pass in spite of our yuckiness.
WhitU4ever says:
favoriteatheist, religion could very well be just that, but Christianity does not fit that description at all. The mind is required... and the term "sheep" is a metaphor for people that try to conquer the world by themselves, mess it up, and find that they were wrong... they have needed divine guidance all along and were simply too stubborn and deceived to see it.
WhitU4ever says:
CJunk, good reasons (demonstrable evidence) are found on this page, if you sincerely look for them.
WhitU4ever says:
Yes. Faith, evidence, and experience. That's the way it is with most things in life. Since we didn't see the resurrection ourselves, we have to go with the answer that has the most supporting evidence regarding the origin of life and who God is, and the rest must be based on faith and personal experience.
WhitU4ever says:
SK, demonstrable evidence is found on this page, if you look for it.
v00v says:
GOD IS ONLY KNOWABLE WITHIN CERTAIN SPIRITUAL AND MORAL CONDITIONS
It is not possible to theorize about God's existence at an impersonal distance. God has not made access to Himself possible under those conditions. Because of our rebellion against God mankind always distorts the content of revelation about God. The revelation of God in creation and our own nature is not used honestly because of our rebellion. The fault is not in the evidence, but in ourselves.
Romans 1:18-23, 28 - ?For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles....1:28.... And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.?
God's general revelation of Himself in creation and our own nature doesn't function as it would if we were not sinners. Now, because of his sin, man must replace the God of creation with gods of his own making. As Paul says, he ?....exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles?(Romans 1:23).
In other words, as Carl Henry wrote in his brilliant old book, Notes on the Doctrine of God: ?Man the sinner can live a ?comfortable' existence only by making the evidence of general revelation point to something less than an almighty, holy God who condemns his moral revolt.?
Remember those words because they fit exactly with David's description of the man who denies God in His heart - Psalm 14:1 - ?To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, ?There is no God.' [And then we see the reason for this self-deception] They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.?
That's why general revelation only serves to condemn, never to redeem. That's why people will never come to God through theistic proofs for his existence. God can't be reached that way by sinful people because, while they may want to deal mentally with the concept of God in their minds, they don't want to submit their wills to God.
Here's what this all means: God is only knowable in the context of human repentance. If you are looking for God this morning, you won't find Him in the stars or the trees or the theories of our deepest minds. There is nothing wrong with these arguments. If they were presented to people without sin they would carry considerable weight because then we would be people needing only information.
But we are sinners. The reason the sinner can't find God is the same reason the shoplifter can't find the police. Sinners aren't honestly looking for God. Like the Apostle Paul said, they distort and remake God on their own terms. That's why information alone (while logically consistent) can't, by itself, bring us to God. We need redemption. We need the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because we're sinners, we can't know God apart from Jesus Christ - ?No man comes to the Father but by Me.?
If you want to know God this morning, you will have to know Him in the context of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. He will not be known on any other terms. This is the message of the church for the religions of the world. This is why we must take the gospel to people already committed to their own religion. Hear it loud and clear. Christianity is, and must always be, a proselytizing religion. This is the message for the intellectual struggling with how to find God, and who can't understand why all his theories and proofs are leaving his soul unconvinced and his heart empty.
What the Scriptures are saying is this: Your problem and mine isn't one of merely proving God. Because God has spoken, and God has acted redemptively in this world, we must all do the same two things to know God:
a) We must listen to what God has said. God has not only created - He has spoken. We must give His message proper weight in our minds and hearts. You can't survive on someone else's religious faith. Hear God speak for yourself. Know and heed His word. Allow His Word to displace your sinful rebellion and prejudice against Him.
b) We must come to Christ and forsake our sin. There is a moral component to knowing God. And there is only one solution to our sin. If you want to know God, you must come to Him through Jesus Christ: 1 John 2:23 - ?No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.?
If you are searching for God this morning, if you don't know Him, He has much more to give you than proof of His existence. He offers you His love and grace. He wants to give you His pardon and His peace. He brings eternal life as a gift. But you can only know Him through Jesus Christ. If you reject Jesus Christ this morning, you will never come to find God. Open your heart today. He will fill, not only your mind with truth, but your heart with His forgiving mercy and renewing love.
quote from paster don
WhitU4ever says:
Nick, then why are you here answering these questions? Simply to taunt me, or to learn what I have found out that possibly you have not?
One is not a Christian "once upon a time." See Eternal Security to understand what I mean by that.
As for this question, I mean no offense by it. It was honestly asked with much respect for you as a person not afraid to answer it honestly, without insulting my God in return for what you only perceive as a personal insult.
WhitU4ever says:
Mac and tenbears, according to your statements, even if you believed He were real, you wouldn't see anything wrong with rejecting your Maker? That is quite ungrateful, if you ask me. Do you enjoy being around people who reject you?
I think the One who made me loves me and doesn't wish for me to perish at all. Obviously, you never got that from what you have (or haven't) read so far. Like myself, I think that it makes God quite sad to see and hear the things that people like you do and say about Him. Being a Christian is full of much sadness. It has it's joys, but never fully until we know you have come to your senses. Because people like me care deeply about people like you. Neither my God, nor I, wish for you to go to hell. If you are condemned to separation from God in the end, it is because of you alone, and your choices. After all of this, if anyone has fewer excuses to avoid searching for evidence of the existence of God, it would be you. And if you can't see Him all around you by now, you probably never will. I hope and pray that isn't the end result, but I guess that's what a true miracle is. The true miracle... true love... is that Jesus chose not to get off of that cross, all for sinners who don't deserve it. I don't. But you seem to think you are more entitled to His kindnesses than the rest of us have ever been. Good luck.
Dethroning Jesus
Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ
Amazon Price: $6.57 (as of 05/31/2012)
.New York Times best-selling author Darrell Bock teams with Daniel Wallace to help lay readers separate fact from fiction and help from hype in the recent best-selling Jesus books and television specials.
There is a quest going on. It's the quest to reduce Jesus to a mythic legend or to nothing more than a mere man. Scholars such as Elaine Pagels and James Tabor are using such recent discoveries as the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas to argue that the Christ of Christianity is a contrived figure and that a different Christ-one human and not divine-is the "true" Christ.
In his trademark easy-to-understand style Darrell Bock takes on these attempts to redefine Jesus in a convincing, winsome way that will help readers understand that the orthodox understanding of Christ and his divinity is as trustworthy and sure as it ever was. Joining Bock for the first time is fellow scholar Daniel Wallace.
Meaning and Purpose
Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Most definitely. I am therefore I am not a banana.
Ben says:
NO, and atheists should think before they answer. Atheism does not provide anything and it is not a belief. It is a lack of theistic belief and nothing else. One can be an atheist and an agnostic, a nihilist, a communist, a capitalist, and objectivist, a vegetarian, ect.
That said, I have meaning and purpose out the wazoo.
manchester says:
Yes. Absolutely.
Humans are incredibly capable of emotional response and it's love for my family and friends, pride and self-respect that give me my personal sense of purpose.
I do not see how beliving in a God would give anyone a greater sense of purpose than those who do not.
person without god says:
Yes. My purpose: to explore the universe and all it has to offer. I have given myself this purpose because I saw no other, and it is good enough for me.
CJunk says:
Its good enough
SK says:
Yes. I see great purpose in trying to live my life as it is and not tying any theistic strings to it.
Nick says:
Of course. I wish to make the world better place to live in for future generations, and hopefully for this one. In pursuit of this goal, I; participate in habitat for humanity, volunteer for the local sheriffs department, lead youth extracurricular activities without pay, provide free tutoring to those without the means to pay, and most of all, I work towards an aerospace engineering degree so I may forward humanity's progress across a number of areas. Forgive me if that sounded arrogant, but it is exactly what I do. I ask for no thanks from anyone, only that I might inspire someone to "pay it forward".
I make a difference in this world, and it is extremely fulfilling.
Anonymous says:
Yes. I'm perfectly happy. I get to decide my own purpose in life rather than have it dictated to me.
Bolt says:
Since meaning and purpose are human concepts, yes, it does.
mac says:
Sure.
You may be making the mistake a lot of theists do by assuming nonbelievers are lacking in someway.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Ben, although I agree that atheism is the lack of belief in God, being an atheist is a huge part of your worldview. Just as Christianity colors the way a Christian has everything to do with how you treat others and how you are treated by others, as well as how you look at life and live it, being an atheist affects the way you act and react to others and the world around you. So, I guess the question is... does atheism provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose? You answered yes, which is fine. For me, atheism is a dark way of looking at our existence and it doesn't seem to provide satisfaction, but doom and gloom regarding meaning and purpose. If I were an atheist, I would still ask what I did right from the start... why be good if our destiny is simply being buried in the ground and that's it? We ruin things even when we try to do them well, so why try? I have reasons to try now. But when I was without God, satisfactions were short-lived, superficial... vain, if you will. What for? I asked. I like that being a Christian means that I place the focus on God, rather than myself. That is more than adequate. I love words, but I have to admit that this kind of satisfaction is hard to put into words.
WhitU4ever says:
Well, Manchester, believing in God gives Christians a better sense of purpose because we don't just live for now, but for eternity. We see not just this life, but the one we will live together with God for eternity. We see the value in sacrifice, while many who are not Christians call that foolishness. We strive to live out what matters to God, not just ourselves, and we aren't afraid to die because we know that isn't the end of us. We know that our lives continue beyond this one and that what we do now matters for eternity, not just in my life while here or in your memory when I am gone from here. Eternity is our reality beyond the temporary place we occupy presently. It is outside of time and takes place in the presence of God. A Christian considers what God thinks as more important than his/her peers think. So, it makes a difference for those who truly believe in God. Problem is, there are many out there who claim they do, but really don't. And many make mistakes along the way, so it doesn't always give an accurate picture of what that is supposed to look like.
WhitU4ever says:
Yes. As a Christian, everything has meaning and purpose. The song, Amazing Grace, sums it up for me.
Faith Has Its Reasons
Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith
Amazon Price: $25.95 (as of 05/31/2012)
Ever since the apostle Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Athens, relating the Christian worldview to a non- Christian world has been a challenge. And despite Peter's charge to be "ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), most Christian laypeople have left apologetics-the defense of the faith-to the ecclesiastical "pros."
Faith Has Its Reasons is a study of four different models of how apologetics should be done, an assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, and a proposal for integrating the best insights of each.
Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman have assembled a wealth of information about what Christians believe and how to present that faith to an unbelieving world. Remarkable both in its depth of content and ease of accessibility, Faith Has Its Reasons gives Christian laypeople the tools to address such critical questions as:
* Why is belief in God rational despite the prevalence of evil in the world?
* What facts support the church's testimony that Jesus rose from the dead?
* Can we be certain Christianity is true?
* How can our faith in Christ be based on something more secure than our own understanding without descending into an irrational emotionalism?
Hundreds Verify Biblical Reliability
What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
Ben says:
There's lots of Star Wars books too, and I think they're more fun to read.
Nick says:
I have found no scholarly evidence in support of the Bible, and I have tried quite rigorously (remember, I was a christian as one point in my life).
Also, your link leads to people who are a scholars on the bible, and not on works that "support" it.
Bolt says:
How many of them are peer reviewed or actually use scientific evidence? From my understanding, none do.
Tim says:
Hey Whit4U, instead of launching into a huge accusatory diatribe about me being a hypocritical truth-relativist when it's convenient for me, let's actually examine some of this solid evidence you claim to have. I promise to weigh all the evidence equally and fairly, if you will do the same. You will find that I in no way shy away from the evidence. Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is.
mac says:
I haven't seen a book yet that could convince me of any god's veracity.
What say you of the many volumes that clearly point to the fallacy of deities?
tenbears says:
I say the same thing about them as I say about the bible. They are just writings. If god wanted me to believe in him and love him so much he would understand that some of us have a higher standard of evidence than others. He would know what I would require to believe such an unnatural claim. What is he waiting for?
As far as the scholarly books that "document" the bible. I have yet to actually read one.
Tim says:
I say that the word "scholarly" is thrown around an awful lot these days.
I read Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ", who interviewed a lot of these scholars. It made it pretty clear to me that there wasn't much real historical science going on there.
Sketch Sepahi says:
I cannot comment on unspecified books. I might have read them, I might not have. However, unless they are specified, I cannot tell if I have or not and obviously I cannot comment on books I haven't read.
When I do read such things, I assess them critically - as I do everything else I read. Just because someone presents an argument in the form of a book, it doesn't automatically make it valid.
Cheers,
Sketch
ciao says:
Please provide a bibliographic list of at least 200 scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the bible, and I'll get back to you.
spirituality says:
They're not really scholarly.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
So, Ben, do you think it is wise to only read a book because it is fun to read? Isn't that a little bit like only eating candy because it is sweet? What if you are missing out on something that truly is good for you, and better tasting than you were told?
WhitU4ever says:
As I said to Tim, Bolt and Nick, you cannot consider the Bible to be a non-historical document, nor can you exclude it based upon the fact that your fellow atheist scholars and scientists have not reviewed it and approved of it as a historical document. You do not set the rules for who is considered 'scholarly" and what is considered "scientific evidence." Coming from a Christian or religious person or source does not negate its validity. That is an unprofessional, biased point of view that should have no place in the scientific world (or any other for that matter).
WhitU4ever says:
Nick, if you think that I have only left one link, you obviously are stagnant in your research and closed to further investigation, as I have left many links to sources that support the Bible's veracity, both Christian and non-Christian sources. Are we Christian scholars invalidated by our faith in Christ? Your bigotry and the way you ignore what is posted on the Christian side of these questions handicaps you, both as a scientist and as a person.
WhitU4ever says:
Tim, I've posted enough information via links all over this page for you and your friends to browse through. You don't take me seriously anyway. So, when I know you've read it, we can have a friendly debate. Until then, I need to attend to the every day duties of life.
WhitU4ever says:
Tim, you cannot exclude the Bible from the evidence category, as too much of what is written in the Bible has been supported by archaeological findings, the writings of secular historians, such as Tacitus and Josephus, to name two, and early manuscript evidence, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., which, when compared to today's copies, still have the same message, almost word for word, minus a few minor grammatical errors that rarely change the meaning of the text, if at all. I would encourage you to study these things, if you truly are interested in being fair and open. I, too, have read Strobel's book. It seems to me that you have mentally dismissed every solid piece of evidence that Lee provided in A Case for Christ for the sake of conveniently remaining loyal to solid atheism. The above IS solid evidence... factual, supported by artifacts, and to dismiss it as irrelevant is to be unfair and dishonest with yourself and others. It nothing more than your opinion, based upon your own preconceived beliefs, that Strobel's facts are irrelevant. In fact, your comments are a fine example of what you denied to be true in the previous question about being absolutely relative or relatively absolute... it seems to me that you choose to make truth relative when it is convenient for atheism, but deny it and accuse the average person of faith of being relative when confronted with this question. I am aware that new age religions do preach relativism, but they also believe that all religions are paths to God, which is impossible, according to each religion's doctrines and writings. Mormons believe that we are gods, Muslims call that blasphemy, Christians believe that Jesus is God, and Jews call that blasphemy, and so on. The average person of faith does not believe that all religions are paths to God, but that there is only one way to God (the One that their Holy book ascribes to), nor do most people of faith subscribe to the idea of relativism in science, but rather facts supported by evidence. Now this idea of relativism is running rampant in secular universities. This too is a fact. It is a convenient fallback for people when confronted with truths that they do not wish to acknowledge as truth, so they call it relative, or dependent upon how a truth is perceived. In other words, let's make nice and not exclude anyone's ideas, but then, no conclusions are capable of being formed about anything, when relativism is applied to solid truths.
As for the existence of God, that is why we are called people of faith. He cannot be seen. We don't deny that we cannot show you God physically, other than the evidence of creation, because we are not Him and He is described as invisible; Spirit. It is written that when he did appear, he appeared in a cloud to the Israelites and to Moses as fire, as three men in the Old Testament to Abraham, or as Jesus, both before and after His resurrection to many people. If he were to manifest his being without covering Himself somehow, either with flesh, cloud, fire, or something else, it is written that looking upon Him, because He is holy and we are not, would kill us. It is also written that Moses saw only His backside and Moses' face shone with the "glory" of God for days after his visit on Mount Sinai, so much that he had to wear a veil. So, for those looking to see God via any way other than faith, I sure hope you are ready for the challenge, as most of those involved with God in manifested form had quite a challenging existence. You'll have to decide if seeing God is that important to you and He will have to decide whether or not He has a really good reason to show Himself to you in spite of the fact that you have absolutely no faith in Him whatsoever.
But we can not prove God's existence any more than atheists can prove that God doesn't exist or that Darwin was right about monkeys turning into men over billions of years or that a two or three bones, that which were later identified as those of a Lemur, are the bones of an ape-man. My opinion is that there is more evidence leaning toward God's existence than there is to support His non-existence, and the Christian explanations and evidence for God make more sense and outweigh the Atheist explanations and evidence (which doesn't exist) against God.
WhitU4ever says:
I have plenty of evidence to support the historical facts written about in the Bible. What evidence do you have to support your belief that there is NO God, Tenbears?
20 Compelling Evidences
20 Compelling Evidences That God Exists: Discover Why Believing In God Makes so Much Sense
Amazon Price: $9.14 (as of 05/31/2012)
Is it Reasonable to Believe?
Remarkably, even though millions upon millions of us do believe in God, when we are asked why we have such faith, we become tongue-tied and struggle to give a reason for our hope. No wonder those who don't believe God exists remain unconvinced-there's too few of us ready to speak on God's behalf!
Ken Boa and Robert Bowman, have provided a resource that tackles the most profound arguments from philosophy, science, sociology, psychology, and history ... and presents twenty clear, concise, and compelling evidences that show that faith in God-and specifically Jesus Christ-is reasonable.
Evolution: Another Faith System
Because the evolving from one species to another is not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
There are no gods!
Amadeus says:
I'm paraphrasing Richard Dawkins, and many other atheists, but "if there is a murder and no one was there to see it, we still can gather evidence about the crime." Evolution works in the same indirect sense.
Ben says:
lol
Dale says:
We don't put our faith into Evolution just because we believe in it because its been proven,
but for example Creationism "Creation" is what you put faith into because you wish so hard and believe so hard that its real that it "must" be real.
Its been proven thousands of time that evolution is real/true and the facts are there.
manchester says:
There's incredible amounts of evidence proving evolution and natural selection is a process still taking place today in countless species.
SK says:
Because there is accurate evidence of life's processes, which demonstrate evolution. Can't say that about creationism.
Nick says:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
There ya go.
Nick says:
It appears that you have bought into the lies spread by creationists.
1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
References:
1. Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
2. Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Anonymous says:
It's observable. Next time you get superbugs, we'll give you regular medicine. Have fun dying.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here. Quit copy/pasting and only say something if you know what it means.
Dawkins says:
Evolution is verifiable, observable and there are many who have tried to falsify it and failed. Evolution is and undeniable fact.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Amadeus, why are you so willing to believe in the theory of evolution based upon circumstantial evidence, yet when it comes to Christianity, the standard changes to hardcore evidence?
WhitU4ever says:
Where is the evidence, Amadeus? I dare you to compare what you think is evidence with the evidence that supports the validity of Biblical events, places, and people.
WhitU4ever says:
Dale, show me the proof. Saying that there is evidence, doesn't make it so.
WhitU4ever says:
Manchester, show me the archaeological evidence of transitional forms of evolution from one species to another. Micro evolution has of course been proven... that is, a species adapting to its environment or survival of the fittest. But macro evolution or Darwinian evolution has no proof, only theories and guesses. Try to find examples that haven't been exposed as mistakes, fakes, or pranks.
WhitU4ever says:
Nick, the very title of the reference you provided calls this a: Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors
* Example 1: reptile-birds
* Example 2: reptile-mammals
* Example 3: ape-humans
* Example 4: legged whales
* Example 5: legged seacows
These are examples of POSSIBLE morphologies, not proofs or evidence. They are theories and possibilities. All things are possible. But not all things are probable without good evidence. This is not evidence. It is guessing.
WhitU4ever says:
SK, show me the evidence of life's processes that proves that one species evolves into another. You need to provide references. You cannot simply state that there is evidence without backing it with scientific evidence. And yes, there IS evidence of creation. Look around you... and watch this video: Scientific Proof of God
WhitU4ever says:
NIck, do you believe everything you are told by evolutionists?
Also, you need to specify which type of evolution you are referring to when you use it in a sentence... micro or macro. You seem to have forgotten that fossil evidence should verify that macro evolution (one species being transformed into another) has taken place by showing us transitional forms. But there aren't any. There are only theories and drawings of what they might have looked like, not what actually has been found. Recently, atheistic scientists tried to piece together a whole animal from the single bone of a Lemur. This isn't the first time atheists have attempted to outwit the public in order to make their claims seem valid, and it probably won't be the last. But you and I both know that it is dishonest and unscientific.
WhitU4ever says:
You're right, MerkinBill and Sketch. I re-worded the question to say what it was meant to say. Now, if you still believe in the theory of evolution, please answer the question accordingly.
Montanabeliever says:
Name 10, no I'll make it easy. Name 5 that have been directly observed, verified, and taken from theory to fact. Include sources, photos, documentation, and anything else that will support that claim.
The Farce of Evolution
The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution
Amazon Price: $6.97 (as of 05/31/2012)
Looking into the face of our alleged ape ancestor, popular Christian apologist Hank Hanegraaff dissects and debunks the astonishingly weak arguments for the evolutionary theory, revealing it as nothing more than a "fairy tale for grown-ups." The author uses his own Memory Dynamics to make it easy for Christians to speak intelligently about evolution and speak persuasively about the Creator.
Cause and Effect
If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Once again, please read my lens- explains nearly everything!
Favorite atheist says:
the universe has been here forever the big bang is just how it got to it's current form and based on the idea of the question who created god?
Alex says:
I don't know. At the very beginning, in the singularity that was the big bang, almost all the laws of physics as we know them break down. We aren't even 100% sure that the big bang really was the beginning of everything, just that we cannot look past the big bang, we can't see what came before it.
Also, I would like to add that even if all the historic accuracy in the bible were proved, it still doesn't prove god. Just because you can logically deduce, or that evidence A points to B, and from B we have evidence of C, you still cannot make a leap and conclude Z. Prophecies, the garden of Eden, heck, even Noah's flood still wouldn't prove god. To prove god you need proof that an intemporal, intangible, all-powerful being existed outside of time and space. Sadly, with religious people putting him outside of space and time, it is thus impossible to prove god's existence. The closest one could come would be to have strong inferential evidence of there being an unknown being out there, and that's the deist position. The fact that all other religions equally posit the existence of their god, putting forth proof of their god that disproves all other religions, shows just how unreliable that proof is.
So in the end, we don't know. I don't know. And you can't claim that because we don't know, therefore goddunnit.
Gandalf says:
I don´t know. But when I don´t know I don´t make up a story. I just don´t know.
A couple of centuries ago nobody knew how planets orbited their suns, today we do.
Rallade says:
We don't know, so what? We admit that we don't know, and we're still finding out.
CJunk says:
have no idea....and nor do you
James McCurdy says:
Where did god come from WhitU4ever?He was just here?Has no origin?He was just here.....well i much rather belive scientist who have years of experience and a higher IQ then you and us both combined,why do you belive in a being that came from no where?Why do you critizes us when you dont know where your god came from?The fact is we were both born athiest,if your parents didnt force you to be a christian then we wouldnt be having this conversation,hitler did the same thing with the hitler youth,forced them to belive when they were little kids,because little kids dont know whats really going on,when you were born you had no idea who god was!No beginning and end,yeah okay, that makes alot of sense.Fairy tales and myths,which were quiet commen in those days.
Nick says:
We don't know, and that's the beauty of the subject; We still have more to learn.
Why can't the universe have been here forever? Your argument that "god" has been here forever is is a logical fallacy by your own assumptions. You cannot make up your own rules. Creationists say that "everything has a beginning and end... except for god". Who are they to assert such a thing? I see no proof of god, and no proof of his "foreverness". If you find some, please notify me.
Anonymous says:
If every effect has a cause, who or what caused the thing that caused the universe?
Bolt says:
We don't know. That doesn't mean we can assume it was God. While we are on the subject, if every effect has a cause, what or who caused God?
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Oh yes, it explains things alright, nephthys! :)
WhitU4ever says:
Alex, you're absolutely right. Evidence of Biblical events, people and places are not evidence of God's existence, but there is more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence by far than that which supports Darwin's theory of evolution. And there is plenty of evidence that throws many of the so-called facts written in the text books... or lies... or assumptions stated as fact... out of the argument. It is very obvious to me that atheists want very badly to pretend that God doesn't exist. So much so that they have made up lies and taught them to our children so that they can also pretend that they don't have to be accountable to a holy God for their lifestyles and choices.
WhitU4ever says:
CJunk, don't state your opinions as truth. I DO have an idea who caused the universe.
WhitU4ever says:
The question to you is... If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe? How do YOU explain it. I did not ask what or who caused my God.
WhitU4ever says:
Everything in our sphere of time has a beginning and an end, an effect and a cause, but God is outside of time, and is not subject to the laws of the universe that He created. So, to assume that God had a beginning is a non sequitur; logically, it does not make sense.
WhitU4ever says:
Again, James, answer the question if you can or just skip it. God is eternal and perfect. He has no beginning or end. He is not bound by time.
WhitU4ever says:
Nick, did you just finish taking a philosophy class? You are so bent on accusing me of posing logical fallacies with my questions. Just answer the darn question. As for who asserts that God has no beginning or end, it is the God of the Bible. I am only passing it to you because you bbviously haven't read it yet.
WhitU4ever says:
Guess I'm a fool... for following God's Own Fool.
WhitU4ever says:
No questions for answers. But I think you know what Christians say... God has no beginning or end. He isn't restricted by time like we are.
Enough Evidence
Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?
ATHEIST RESPONSE
nephthys says:
Eight deities...
etc.
Favorite atheist says:
Give me cold hard proof show me god himself show me his powers and I'll become christian simple as that get crackin. And just something else why does the "security" word say "jesus is lord"?
Ben says:
This is an excellent question, and one I've been wrestling with. I'll first say that I think that the kind of benevolent god that is most often posited would interact more the natural world than is observed. This goes along with the simple answer that a god who wanted me to believe, could do so easily. If he wants me to be convinced, then he could tell me or any of his followers what to tell me and they'd have a hell of an easy conversion.
However, miracles are not convincing in the slightest. Observation is highly fallible, and personal experience is subject to a great deal of misconception. If I were to witness even something like god writing on the moon, or speaking to everyone on earth at once in their own language, I would be more likely to search for a natural explanation for my experience and memory long before I considered any deity, especially a christian one.
The god hypothesis is so extraordinary, and so often self-contradictory, that only he could convince me, and he would probably be the only one who would know how. However, that would be a true conversion. The easiest way to make me believe anything is to drug me or reprogram me. Whether or not that new belief would be as valid as conversion by argument is a whole other interesting question.
Dale says:
There isn't enough evidence in the bible to make me believe that god exists, just because there was apparently "somebody" that just created us for the 'heck of it' doesn't mean he exists and just because its in a book doesn't mean he exists either.
But with science ever adding on to the facts, my beliefs stay same.
Because I could never just make myself believe there was a superior being without a solid right there evidence...
Seriously you don't even know who wrote the bible you just have to trust its words, there's no solid evidence to make me believe in God,
Rion says:
There could indeed be such evidence, but it would have to be appropriately magnificent and undeniable by multiple individuals, as well as being clearly observable. There's a lot of evidence against a deity that it will have to compensate for.
person without god says:
I have said this before and i am restating it now. You show me evidence that God is real, I'll start looking for a church. Until this happens, a lack of God seems more plausible, and my life is fine without a holy figure, so I am an atheist.
CJunk says:
Any day baby........geez, I would even accept good reason.
Nick says:
Of course I would accept a god if I found reasonable proof in favor of one. So far, I have exactly no proof in favor. I would be a poor scientist if I ignored actual evidence and facts.
Anonymous says:
Evidence would persuade me, but there is none. Quit asking loaded questions, you're not clever.
Bolt says:
I would accept God appearing before me, water becoming wine, people flying on their own, limbs healing themselves, and any other miracle as evidence of my beliefs being wrong. Once it is verified that a god did it, I'd be inclined to believe there is a god. Once it is verified that YOUR god did it, then I would be inclined to believe in him.
You'll find that most Atheists are open minded, that's WHY they became Atheists.
Tim says:
Coming back to this question, I actually had an experience on PalTalk where I truly felt myself open to the possibility of being proven wrong. A Christian was explaining the basis for his faith and told me of his "spiritual senses", in particular his hearing. he could hear God, all the time, he said, speaking to him. Furthermore, he told me that the things God said to him had never been proven wrong. He had told many people ting about themselves that he had no way of knowing. I asked him to ask God to tell him something about me that he couldn't possibly know. I truly felt ready for a revelation there. I was anticipating the moment where, for instance, my name, adress or dream I had last night turned up on the screen, and I would have renounced my atheism then and there. It was a great feeling of openness to evidence contrary to my worldview. It's exhilarating, in fact.
Sadly, all God could think of saying was that I needed to find some quiet time and seek him inside myself. That was far too generic to even begin to convince me. But I was truly open at that moment - as I always am, really, though not often in a position to be aware of it.
mac says:
Not much would prove it.
Really, this is a BS question. No god exists, therefore no evidence exists to convince me otherwise.
Now, when are you coming aboard the Ted plan?
John says:
Probably, but it would have to be something extraordinary. It would also have to stand up to a thorough investigation for fraud. But this sounds like projection. So let me revise the question for you:
Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a non-believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?
tenbears says:
Yes, I would want go to show himself to the world, all at once so that we all know what we are viewing is real and not a trick of the mind. This would make me believe in a god, but not automatically bow down and worship him. I am not a coward and refuse to worship something just because it can destroy me. Again, might does not make right.
Tim says:
Well, it would have to be pretty extraordinary, since becoming a believer would require tossing out most of science (which I have much better reasons to believe). It would require an event that could not be explained in a naturalistic way at all.
Sketch Sepahi says:
Yes there is. The most obvious evidence that would satisfy me of God's existence, would be - well - meeting God.
Other than that I'm not so demanding. If it could be proven that a mind could exist detached from any material medium (i.e. a brain) then that would go along way for me to believe that souls, ghosts, angels, demons, gods etc. could exist as well, since they presumably don't have brains either.
The funny thing about this is, that I have never gotten an answer to this same question from Christians. Usually they just say that nothing could ever persuade them that God does not exist.
Cheers,
Sketch
incomposmentis says:
There is nothing that would convince me to believe in the Christian god. Too many of the traits ascribed to yahweh are mutually exclusive -- an omniscient creator cannot give his creations free will (I don't believe in free will anyways). Hell is incompatible with omni-benevolence if we do not, in fact, have free will. The Bible is too heavily riddled with contradictions.
I might be persuaded to believe in a god if the existence of that god were supported by an extremely specific prophecy that could not be fulfilled by chance. An exact date and time would be required, it would have had to have been made about 1000 years in advance, there could be no logic fallacies in either the prediction, or the event itself, etc.
Talesian says:
People will always believe what they want to believe. This is not unique to atheists or Christians. If a Christian wants to believe in the God of the Bible, and by definition that is the case, they will see enough evidence in everyday things around them. An Anti-theist will view a personal one on one interview complete with accompanying angels and miracles as a hallucination brought on by a schizophrenic episode. The question is a good one, but maybe we should be asking the question of us all, not just atheists. Are our beliefs based on the evidence our do we only allow ourselves to see the evidence that fits our beliefs?
spittlebug says:
This is my second time answering this. The first time, it disappeared.
It's tempting to say that a visitation from god/Jesus would do it, but even if I had an experience that seemed to be just that, I would have to wonder if it were a hallucination, an alien, an entity of a sort we don't have knowledge of, a really good hologram, etc. etc. Someone who believes in god must have the same problem, I expect. If a Christian met being with superhuman powers who claimed to be god or Jesus, how would they know it wasn't just a trick of the devil? Is there a secret handshake?
pulpfixion says:
Believe me I would like to believe God exists (well not the one in the bible). I would like to know that there's something more after death and that life doesn't end just like that. Yet, there isn't enough evidence for me to believe in a deity and so believing in one is a waste of time.
MerkinBill says:
If God were to pop in to visit, I would have to change my current way of thinking. Otherwise, no. It wouldn't make me worship him, however.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
WhitU4ever says:
Favoriteatheist, please read the evidence presented on this page. Other than that, I can't help you. Don't be lazy. You were able to find this lens. Continue your research, and stop placing yourself in an educational bubble in which exists only the things you wish to hear and excludes all that may contradict what you think is true.
WhitU4ever says:
Exactly, Ben. Would our conversion be real if we didn't choose it? I think God shows Himself through the elements and everything, living and dead, but we choose what we want to believe. Free will means that we HAVE a choice. If you were God, would you want someone to believe in you and love you because they were forced to or because they chose to? Read 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. .
WhitU4ever says:
Dale, sounds like you are one of those people who, by simply refusing to read it or investigate its claims, has given yourself license to invalidate them on an assumption. How convenient... for now. But not so convenient in the end... If you have held on to your stubbornness and pride all your life, you wasted the time you were so graciously given to look into it. Are you going to let peer pressure or the desire to hang onto vices or vanity cheat you out of the freedom you have to at least take life seriously and look into these things to be sure there isn't something very important that you are missing? Unfortunately, that is the wide road to destruction spoken of in the scriptures that many choose to travel. The road to life is narrow and it's up to you to find it. So, come back when you're ready to take this life, me, and the Bible seriously. And your accusation that I somehow wished the Bible to be true and therefore it is to me is ridiculous. The Bible was there WAY before you and I. And it was written by many authors over many years, and I know their names. Now, written within its pages are the words that the scriptures are inspired by God. My choice to believe that is based upon not only reading it, but researching those claims. But reading it can really help your understanding. I challenge you to do so. It took me seven years at first. I kept slamming it shut because of the miracles, like you might do. But it is the compilation of evidences, way more than atheists have for macro evolution, that compelled me to believe. I think most people are afraid that if they do their homework thoroughly enough, what they find out may require a huge decision and lots of changes that they just don't want to deal with. That's what I think.
WhitU4ever says:
Sounds to me like you're just going to believe what you WANT to believe. Some of you have stated clearly that you cannot "see" any evidence, even though it has been provided on this page.
WhitU4ever says:
Is there no evidence on the links I provided on this website? There sure is. Did you study them? Don't you think you should?
WhitU4ever says:
MerkinBill, I think there is plenty of evidence that points toward God in the world that we live in and in the way that things happen in this world. If you don't believe in His very existence after living in this amazing world, then chances are you still wouldn't believe if God "popped in to visit."
Secular Sources For Jesus Christ - Dr. Gary Habermas
FOR THEISTS ONLY (Those who believe God exists)...
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN A DIVINE BEING/GOD?
1. Do you believe for social reasons? (ie: your relatives/friends believe.)
2. Do you believe because of some mystical or miraculous personal experience? (ie: you got better because someone prayed for you; had a dream/vision that you feel pointed to God's existence.)
3. Do you believe because your in-depth studies have led you to believe in God? (ie: you studied the Bible, archaeology, science and nature, and/or conducted your own investigation for evidence.)
4. Do you believe because your conscience agrees with what you have read in the Bible?
5. All or several of the above.
6. None of the above or some other reason. (Explain)
What do you base your beliefs on?
One or more of the above.
Diana Lynn says:
#3 and #4.
WhitU4ever says:
Ah, elementalism: an intelligent sounding disguise for pure superstition.
WhitU4ever says:
I believe because of my own in-depth studies and because of my own personal experiences. I have read the Bible many times over for all it is worth, and each time, I grow more persuaded of it's authenticity, not the other way around. The Bible is not just another book. It is the Word of God. It is His plan revealed for mankind. It is His love letter to humanity. And all it takes is for us to truly listen to what He is saying. Be critical, but answer your questions... don't walk away as if your question is proof that you are right! Prove that you are right! Prove that the Bible is wrong! But don't be a slob at researching the facts. Dig in with all your might. After all, if the Bible is true, it is a matter of spiritual life and death!
None of the above.
nephthys says:
Elementalism
Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Amazon Price: $11.11 (as of 05/31/2012)
Sensible and concise, witty and wise, the authors offer compelling arguments for and defenses of every aspect of Christian belief, including faith and reason, God's nature, creation and evolution, providence and free will, miracles, the problem of evil, the Bible's historical reality, Christianity and other religions, and objective truths.
- Questions For Atheists | Why God?
- When it comes to religious discussions, have you noticed that it is the atheists who are usually asking the questions? Most often Christians are on the
- 100 Christian Apologists
- Apologetics 315
- Was Darwin Right?
- Youtube channel
- 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
- Various lists of 100 scientists who shaped world history. Plus a list of 48 scientists who were devout Christians, from the book Scientists of Faith, by Dan Graves.
Digging Deeper...
-
-
brynimagire
Mar 26, 2012 @ 12:22 am | delete
- Great information ! Excellent lens !
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Dec 25, 2011 @ 1:48 pm | delete
- Should the God of the Holy Bible be obligated to us -- a perpetually stubborn and rebellious people -- to do anything nice at all for us? Several of you have asked why God doesn't just pop in and show Himself to us just to make it clear that He exists. At the same time, several atheists have also admitted that even that wouldn't be enough.
Although mankind has survived the wrath of God, as the Bible tells it, God has desired to eliminate us altogether on several occasions. Frankly, after what I've seen and heard, I don't blame Him in the least. After all, look at what we say about Him. We go so far as to deny His very existence. We are quicker to believe and worship humans that preach atheism than to believe the Bible's witnesses, who lived closer to the beginning of time. We now call them "primitive," suggesting we are smarter than they are. Yet, the very laws of science atheists tout (as if it somehow backs their claim that atheism is valid) such as entropy, suggests that they must have been smarter than we are, rather than dumber.
We continually attempt to excommunicate God from the existence He gave to us, preventing us from spiritual growth beyond the most basic of questions: "Does God exist?" We truly are getting stupider, and it's our own fault. Shame on us for thinking that we can somehow fool God and wait until we are on our death bed to convert. Isn't He going to see right through that plan? With that, I will just say that, because we don't understand how this temporary life effects the eternal, we need to sober up and stop wasting time.
As Ben Stein (and the silence that followed his words) depicted so well in his documentary (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) in which Dawkins admitted that aliens could have been responsible for the beginning of the universe...
"Anyone?"
-
-
-
Alex
Dec 27, 2011 @ 12:08 am | delete
- Hello Whit! Just to say, I can't see my original comment, and I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but I will answer this as best as I can.
Should he be obligated to us? Well, not really, but he DID create us. Either he should take responsibility for us and try to help us, or he could give up entirely and go create himself another species on any one of the trillions of other planets in the universe. Unfortunately, there is not much evidence of the former, and should the second be true we might very well never have evidence of that.
As for my position, if god popped up and told me straight up he existed, I could not deny his existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean I would start believing in him. I would know he existed, I would not need faith, and it wouldn't really make me go to church more.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that by slandering his name, god was justified in slaughtering millions of people on the planet? Do you not see that it's hardly an appropriate response? The worst man can do to god is piss him off. The worst god can do to man according to the bible is absolutely horrifying. Why would you praise a being that is ready to exterminate thousands when he feels insulted, I don't know.
Also, I am not very well versed in this, but I have learned recently that the human population was at one point in time reduced to just a few thousand individuals. However, there seems to be nothing special about the climate conditions of the time, and there certainly is no evidence of Noah's flood.
I don't understand very well your point about entropy. Do you want to explain me more what you mean?
I am not trying to excommunicate god. Why would god care if he were taken out of the state offices and the schools? He can hear what you say in your heart anyways, no matter where you are.
As for spiritual growth, I understand many people stay blocked at that question and are unable to move on. But such people more often than not seem unable to see that they do not need to answer that question to move on. There are other questions, other paths, other means. Heck, I don't try to answer that question, but I have grown a lot spiritually and morally in the year and a half since I discovered I was an atheist.
I do not see the relation between god and becoming stupider. We now have nuclear powered plants, gene splicing technology, and are able to send man to the stars. I hardly see how that is stupider from the much more religious middle ages.
As for waiting until the deathbed, yes, I believe god sees through that. I also believe he sees through the people who believe just to be on the safe side, or who believe because they fear hell. Thus, just a small fraction of Christians would truly go to heaven anyways, despite what many people would say, because they don't believe for the right reasons.
I will just say that there is rationally not enough evidence to say there is an eternal life. One needs faith to believe that. On the basis of rationality however, we need to stop thinking that this planet is doomed and that god will save us, and instead try to save this planet ourselves, because it's the only one we'll ever get.
I have not seen Ben Stein's movie, but I have heard a lot of criticism about it, some coming from the religious side too.
To answer Mr. Stein's question, I will say we are still waiting to have an answer. That is why the SETI project exists. How exactly would Mr. Stein suggest we communicate with a possibly intelligent alien life form, somewhere in the galaxy? The unimaginably vast distances would mean that any message we send will be received thousands of years after it has been sent, if it is received at all. So how does Mr. Stein suggest we do find out if there is someone else out there?
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 15, 2012 @ 2:16 am | delete
- Some of us are so blind we can't see the answer that is screamed at us from all sides. Hello? Anyone???
READ THE BIBLE. That is the message left for us many years ago (from outer space if you will) that you are looking so hard for!
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 20, 2012 @ 1:08 am | delete
- Alex, if you'll take a closer look at the scriptures, you'll see that God did not slaughter us for sinning. In every instance written about in the scriptures, God kept warning people of danger. He was VERY patient, repeating Himself again and again before destruction would hit. Can you not see that the destruction was self-induced?
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 20, 2012 @ 2:23 am | delete
- The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-
-
-
JustOneGuy
Jan 28, 2012 @ 7:04 am | delete
- Have I told you lately that I love your lenses? I'm an atheist, I guess. I really don't fall into any particular category because I suspect that as we argue over what each of us believes is true, the actual truth might be far different than any of us would want to believe. I think that the people arguing against the idea of God would be much better off not trying to prove it by using the historical records such as those contained in the bible. The bible has turned out to be much more accurate than its detractors ever imagined. I am not surprised about that either, although I consider myself an atheist. I suspect that we have been visited in the past by people much like ourselves who impacted not only the earth but the life on it at the time. If life is primarily the same throughout the universe, it would explain how these visitors could come here and modify things in a way that would be beneficial to themselves. This allows for a third possibility versus just evolution and intelligent design. It would mean that life is driven into existence by properties yet unknown. By allowing only the two choices we currently have, we have probably blinded ourselves to the road containing actual answers. Evolution provides nothing except a rather doubtful scenario explaining how life works. Intelligent design implies a God or a race of Gods but even that falls apart because if they exist and developed in the universe, they didn't create it. If they did create it, they are not of this universe. And if they/He are/is not part of the universe, then He/They are not comprehensible to us. And why would God want us to worship Him? It all makes so very little sense. Whatever the cause of life, whether it explodes into existence under the right conditions or is zapped into existence by a creature not of this universe, it makes no difference to me or anyone else, except that in the case of spontaneous creation something might be understood and used by us to extend our own lifetimes. Let's say God did create us. We are His design. He gave us the ability to attempt to understand the world (not just the earth, but the cosmos as well and everything in it). If "believing in God" means that we must work contrary to our design and tell ourselves that there are mysteries about the universe we should not solve, then I'm all for NOT "believing in God" because that would be contrary to how we are designed. If God is used as a roadblock to understanding existence, then God Himself would be against our believing in Him. That's the fundamental contradiction in much that I see as the world of religion. The other thing that I have a problem with in religion is that it has siezed domain over Morality, which in my mind is a valid science and should be treated that way. The science of Morality should cover the two fundamental acts, virtue and sin. Religion does a good job at defining sin but falls short when it comes to defining virtue. But that's all I'll say about that subject here because I'm working on something a lot more in depth in another lense that is currently just a work in progress. Anyway, if I haven't told you lately that I love your lenses, I do now. I love your lenses. :)
-
-
-
With Love
Nov 24, 2011 @ 6:51 am | delete
- According to Pascal, there are two propositions: God exists, and God does not exist. Pascal proposed that before placing your bet, you should consider the four possibilities:
1. If you choose to believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
2. If you choose to believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
3. If you choose not to believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
4. If you choose not to believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.
-
-
-
favorite atheist :)
Apr 17, 2012 @ 3:16 am | delete
- exactly my point god is a tyrant
-
-
-
sudoking
Apr 21, 2012 @ 11:34 pm | delete
- Ah, Pascal's wager, the most flawed argument in the book!
Atheists' wager:
You may live a good life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may live a good life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
You may live a good life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
You may live an evil life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
You may live an evil life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.
You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.
-
-
-
nephthys
Apr 25, 2012 @ 10:56 am | delete
- Hell's a nice place!
-
-
-
manchester Sep 11, 2011 @ 1:39 pm | delete
- It was intrigued by this Lens.
I am an Athieist. But I'm not exactly a militant Athiest. I don't go around telling everyone there's no God, trying to persuade Christians that there is no God or getting into debates and arguments.
I respect everyone's right to their Faith.It doesn't matter to me or make a difference to my life what other people believe in and as such, I don't expect my Atheism to be a problem for other people or something that other people try to talk me out of.
Interesting Lens though and it has sparked some fascinating debates.
-
-
-
dirtyGermMan
Nov 22, 2010 @ 4:33 pm | delete
- I have recently been shown the some of the final pieces i've needed to complete my faith and I can describe the journey. I grew up in a non-denominational Christian family who went to church every Sunday until I was 14 (I'm 23 now). I always seemed to remember at least acknowledging that the world is way too complex for there not to be a God. No matter what anyone thought. Until college years things start to happen and you kinda fall off. But I soon learned that the only way YOU can understand any of this (ATHIESTS), is by first hearing who our God is and how awesome he is from someone (careful of false Christianity in last days!), and then the Bible says understanding stems directly from obedience to God. In other words, you have to put your pride aside and want to simply find out the truth. I have to say I've almost lost friends from these arguments b/c they were so belittling and they didn't even realize it. God says the Devil breathes his aura into the hearts of men and it causes violence, ignorance, lust, and all sin. The frustration from the Christian side can break someone down. But from what I've learned and studied on the archaeological side is that we as people deny the validity of the Bible, which has more historic credibility than most of our text books, some of our most esteemed ancient poetry and literature (Homer, Buddha, Shakespeare, etc.), but we dismiss it, cause we cant believe a god told just these people something and we have to take their word for it that its the truth. If thats what you think, like I did at one point, you're in for an intellectual awakening. And on the design topic, scientists in every field have pretty much agreed on the evidence of "Design." There's so much info out there, that any athiest I meet, I assume he's is lazy or isn't looking for truth. Turns out I'm right most the time. Not proud of it though. The debate now a days is simply, "WHO made all this stuff?" (Sorry so long.)
-
-
-
SK
Nov 1, 2010 @ 10:40 pm | delete
- you have a weird notion that atheists bare a burden of truth on matters such as spirituality. Lack of belief is default; positive claims always require proofs. Do we demand proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? No, but we would demand such proof from anyone who does claim that.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 2, 2010 @ 12:44 pm | delete
- SK, Claiming "There is no God" is a positive claim. You said positive claims always require proof. So, prove it. If atheists wish to discuss issues regarding spirituality, then atheists who subscribe to science as the basis for their beliefs DO bear the burden of scientific proof to back up the claims that they make. Science does not support the notion that God does not exist. Therefore, one cannot make that claim and guarantee that it is true.
Your statement about the tooth fairy is like saying that just because something seems ridiculous to you, it must not be true. That is a fallacy and the comparison is ridiculous to me. We do have absolutely NO evidence that the tooth fairy exists, and in fact, there is much evidence to support that the tooth fairy does not exist because not one parent that tells their children that the tooth fairy exists will say that they actually believe in the tooth fairy. Furthermore, every parent that tells their child the tooth fairy is real eventually acknowledges, even to their children, that the story was made up to make losing a tooth fun for children. That is very different from what people who tell their children that God exists believe themselves about God. Furthermore, those who believe He exists don't base it on a tale told to make life easier. Christianity does not make life easier, but harder. Also, we have a great deal of evidences and scientific facts that support the theory of intelligent design and that the Bible is true. Therefore, we cannot cancel out the possibility of the existence of God because not one scientific fact or law has ruled out that possibility.
So, yes, you do bear the burden of proof, as uncomfortable as it may be for you to know that.
-
-
-
SK
Nov 4, 2010 @ 4:59 pm | delete
- I don't believe that no god exists, I just don't believe. Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Every person is born without religion. I only speak out against Christianity because it tries to push its belief system into law and classrooms.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 5, 2010 @ 10:26 am | delete
- Which of Christianity's belief systems are bad for us when using them in a court of law or in classrooms?
-
-
-
SK
Nov 7, 2010 @ 5:32 pm | delete
- Laws against gay marriages and preaching the Bible in classrooms
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 8, 2010 @ 7:58 am | delete
- These are bad for us? What are your reasons for thinking so?
-
-
-
SK
Nov 8, 2010 @ 8:13 pm | delete
- 1. Gay marriage does not have to be sanctioned by churches - they could be sanctioned by the state.
2. Obviously preaching isn't good.. people will be offended, parents complain, and the school gets lawsuits up their arse. It's better to keep such a sensitive environment neutral.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 9, 2010 @ 11:36 am | delete
- Regarding the preaching of the Bible in school, it sounds like you care more about protecting a public school from parental lawsuits (not likely if their choice of education costs them nothing other than a mandatory state tax) than you are about instilling moral values into the conscience of our youth. What is wrong with teaching our children the ten commandments, for example? Or to love one another? Or to respect those in authority? Do you dislike feeling obligated to treat others with kindness and respect? Do you think we should forsake THOSE "ancient" and "ignorant" teachings?
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 9, 2010 @ 11:42 am | delete
- Regarding homosexual marriage, read: Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality
-
-
-
SK
Nov 19, 2010 @ 9:27 pm | delete
- I don't think I'm going to spend $8 to see what you're on to, but regardless... there isn't a point to ridiculing people for a condition they are unable to change. Well, just try it: Are you able to change who you're attracted to right now? Probably not. So don't assume the same for homosexuals. It is only fair.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 20, 2010 @ 5:41 am | delete
- You don't think that knowing the facts regarding the lifestyle you choose is worth $8? And ridicule? That's quite an accusation to derive from a suggestion to read a book full of research results.
-
-
-
SK
Nov 19, 2010 @ 9:42 pm | delete
- Furthermore, the psychology of homosexuality has nothing to do with whether it should be legalized (as marriage) or not. It does not harm anyone, and gives much needed tax breaks. If secular and religious marriages were separated, then Christians would not have to whine about "authenticity".
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 20, 2010 @ 5:48 am | delete
- Civil unions already exist. There is no need to further federally legislate this for homosexuals. There are already as many benefits for them as there are for heterosexuals. The tax breaks you are talking about are already the same. To ask for more is to ask for something that even heterosexuals don't have. Furthermore, homosexuals do not typically reproduce children, and both typically work. Therefore, most homosexuals already have an advantage over heterosexuals because they don't have the burden of having children as dependents to provide for, and those who don't have no need to be "stay-at-home" parents. If ill, the same benefits apply to all as well.
-
-
-
SK
Nov 20, 2010 @ 2:32 pm | delete
- Sterile men and women don't typically reproduce children, either. You seem to be stating that for people to be married, they have to have children. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. People want marriage because it shows that they are committed to each other. (Although I have to inquire about the Christian divorce rate being so high)
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 21, 2010 @ 5:31 am | delete
- No, SK. Focus. The statistics show that the average homosexual stays committed no longer than two years, with or without a certificate of marriage and that the common trend is for homosexuals to have multiple partners throughout their lifetime. This doesn't just mean 2 to 5, but 10 to 50. Some have had 100's. That is a different sort of commitment, and that kind of lifestyle is dangerous to both individuals and families. STD's, AIDS, and emotional separation are all caused by that kind of a lifestyle, whether straight or gay. That is not love, but pure pleasure seeking. Calling it marriage doesn't change the stats.
-
-
-
SK
Nov 19, 2010 @ 9:23 pm | delete
- You are implying that only Christians have morals, which is completely false. Religion is not necessary to learn mutual respect and compassion for people. Besides, school is for education, home is for discipline and moral development.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 20, 2010 @ 6:02 am | delete
- I agree. Not only Christians teach morals. All Christians teach morals. Not all non-Christians do. And for those who don't, it makes for a better society as a whole if our schools allow children to learn about the ten commandments, to respect authority, to love one another, to treat others with kindness and respect, and to acknowledge that we are flawed and imperfect by praying to someone greater than we are. I think it is healthy to ask for help from a superior being or force, whoever that is to us, for help in being good and doing what is right each day. It takes courage, and I don't think that comes easy. Prayer helps. To outlaw things like that simply because someone who hates those things MIGHT be offended doesn't make any sense.
-
-
-
SK
Nov 20, 2010 @ 2:29 pm | delete
- "All Christians teach morals." Giving great credit to Hitler, eh? Moral values are easily separated from any religion. Praying to a god isn't necessary to acknowledge flaws and imperfectness. I am a military cadet so I understand the importance of following a higher authority. But those higher authorities are physically present. Flaws? Yes, we as humans make mistakes. But we shouldn't be eternally punished for them (especially because of "adam's original sin") as your god would have for us. To state that your religion alone creates the rules of conduct of the world is barbarious. One does not need a religion to have morals, so your argument didn't really make any sense.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 21, 2010 @ 5:47 am | delete
- SK, Hitler wasn't a Christian and you know it. And as for whether or not we should be punished for it, I think you completely misunderstand what Christianity is about. It is not about punishing the wicked. It is just the opposite. It is about Christ taking the punishment that we deserve for our sins. He knows what we are like. And He knew we would need to be rescued. He did NOT want us to perish, so He Himself took the punishment, once for ALL.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Nov 21, 2010 @ 5:58 am | delete
- It is about taking the hand of the rescuer when in danger of drowning. And those rejecting that hand will simply sink because what they are hanging on to will not save them.
-
-
-
David Corpus
Mar 29, 2012 @ 2:59 am | delete
- Are the countless convicted church faculty child molesters also not Christian? If Christ takes the punishment which Christians deserve for their sins, where is the motivation to not sin? Christians obviously are not personally accountable. Hitler was raised Catholic. Bernhard Stempfle, a Catholic Priest, was one of Hitler's closest friends and the editor of Mein Kampf.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 15, 2012 @ 2:31 am | delete
- David Corpus, perhaps you should read the Bible. You are fully capable of looking up for yourself whether or not child molestation or genocide are behaviors that the God of the Bible accepts. Then study Mein Kampf and compare it to what you read in the Bible.
-
-
-
Kylyssa
Feb 18, 2011 @ 11:53 pm | delete
- In Uganda, Christians are fighting fiercely for the right to execute people for being gay and imprison people for not informing on gay relatives. Some American Christian groups are very supportive. Please explain how executing people for who they love is a good thing?
When any one religion legislates morality for everyone it isn't good for us. Would you be as happy if it were Islam in classrooms and courtrooms? If you don't want to follow Islamic law or Buddhist law, or Pagan law, why do you wish to force everyone of every belief to believe in your particular version of Christianity or follow its laws? Which Christianity are you supporting? There are over thirty thousand official sects of Christianity.
Would you support a law requiring rape victims to marry their rapists? The Bible does. The Bible also suggests we kill our disobedient children by stoning them to death and that men may beat their wives (however many they have).
There are some pretty brutal laws in the Bible. How can we be sure Christians won't press to enforce them instead of just the harmless ones? American Christian groups are going to other countries to suggest laws to kill people, how can we be sure they won't start trying to get gays killed here, too? American parents routinely throw out or disown one out of every four lgbt teens, most often citing religious reasons for the decision. If one in four parents can throw away their own children for failure to follow their belief system their way how can they be trusted to control the laws and school systems?
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Feb 20, 2011 @ 11:59 pm | delete
- Kylyssa: David Bahati, a politician in Uganda, introduced a private member bill in 2009 in parliament, proposing that a new offense be created in Uganda named "aggravated homosexuality," which would be punishable as a capital offense. The bill focuses on irresponsible homosexual acts, not homosexual acts performed between two consenting adults. Specifically, only homosexuals who practiced gay sex with people under 18, with disabled people, when the accused party is HIV-positive, or those previously convicted of homosexuality-related offenses would receive the death penalty. Do you think it is right for someone who is infected with the HIV virus to have sex with someone who does not? I think it is widely known that there is an AIDS epidemic there. And there is a huge fight to stop the spread of AIDS through education, medical treatment, and the improvement of living conditions. I heard that it is difficult just to find clean water. The epidemic has adversely affected the country's population and economy. So, I feel that, in such an emergency, if educating the people has not worked, then perhaps setting up laws against irresponsible behavior might be more effective. As for the death penalty, I'm thinking that may be overkill on some of those occasions, and hard to legislate regarding HIV infection. That's my personal opinion.
As for any one religion legislating morality for all, Christians were responsible for the laws that protect all Americans, religious or not. Those laws do not favor one religion over another. They are responsible for giving homosexuals freedom to have sex with whomever they wish, and every religion has been given the right to worship as chosen, provided there is no harm done to other living persons in the process.
Once again, Kylyssa, you speak ignorantly about Christians and the Bible, as though it teaches us to be violent and hateful toward fellow human beings. That is simply not true. Christianity is not like Islam. The laws God set up for Moses in the Old Testament were given with a motive... to show us that we are sinful and cannot keep the whole law, not to give us an excuse to kill one another. Even the Jews failed to see that after time went by, and yes, they were violent, using the scriptures as their excuse. And it still happens today. Jesus reprimanded those who did that when he walked the earth.
Furthermore, Jesus told those who wanted to stone the adulteress to let him who has no sin cast the first stone. Every one of them left without doing her any harm. And if Jesus were violent, he had every right to punish those who walked away, as well as the woman caught in adultery. But he let them all go. He was an example of mercy and grace. He wanted us to follow that example and treat one another with kindness.
To bring up the old testament laws, you must understand the Old Testament scriptures; that the Jewish laws in the Old Testament no longer apply. And, most importantly, you must know my LORD, Jesus. The only way to know Him is to read the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. By doing so, you will know that He teaches love and good things, not hate.
If the man, David Bahati, said he wishes to eliminate homosexuals, he is not speaking as a Christian, but as a maniac that most true Christians (those who take the scriptures seriously) would reject. I think it is safe to say, according to what I know about Jesus, that He does not wish to kill anyone, including homosexuals, but He wishes that all should come to the knowledge of God (Jesus Christ) and be saved. Those who do come to Him and are saved cannot help but be changed from the inside out. And then It is an ongoing process that, at least in a person's lifetime, is never complete.
Furthermore, I think that Christian morals, not simply one man's re-definition of them, are good for society, not bad. I also think that your view of Christianity has become a ghost that doesn't exist. It was invented in the minds of those who are simply afraid of what they don't know anything about. It came from the imagination, was born of fear, and love and tolerance are used to disguise it. But it has the adverse goal of destroying that very love and tolerance that it so highly esteems.
How can we be sure that brutal laws won't be enforced by Christians? That's a good question. After all, I agree that there are many who call themselves Christians that are not. I think it is important to know what Christ teaches in order to know the difference between those who call themselves Christians simply for ulterior reasons, or to get ahead in politics, etc., and those who are the real deal. Yes, there are many who like to redefine Christianity. I have never seen a religion that has been twisted and tweaked as much as Christianity. That is probably because the demands that Christ places on mankind are high and lofty. I mean, even following through with a demand such as "love one another" feels too vulnerable in a world full of cruel and insensitive people. But this is much needed, nevertheless. If someone doesn't do it, no one will.
But to answer the question, if one has read and studied the Bible, and knows the time periods it was meant for, the history of events as they took place, and who was being addressed, then the Bible makes much more sense, and the God of the Bible no longer seems violent. Instead, it is realized that God's own people were reprimanded by Him as stubborn and rebellious. They were the hateful and violent ones. They continually tested God, complained after their lives were saved, refused to trust Him, and resorted to idol worship and child sacrifices, which infuriated God. Do you blame Him? Although He performed miracles before their very eyes in order to rescue them from slavery and death time and again, they still were ungrateful and disregarded Him.
The laws you speak of were set up by God through Moses because there was no law or order. They had just come out of slavery and didn't know what normal life should look like, so Moses went to God and God gave them the law. But much of it was based upon things God observed amongst them at the time. Some of those things you and I would never dream of doing. But they were happening. These people were violent. God was holy. And He needed to show them how to have common ground with Him.
Regarding the law about raped women: A woman who was raped was looked upon with shame. She was no longer a virgin. She was spoiled. This is confirmed in the book of Luke, when Mary's husband Joseph was going to put her away secretly for being pregnant with Jesus. And I think you know the rest of that story. Anyway, the law was good in that day because the woman would no longer bear the shame that the man who raped her had caused. Because a woman had few rights in those days, marriage to even her rapist spared her a lifetime of misery. And because a person who rapes a woman is usually not commitment minded, he will think twice before raping a woman. I imagine that law as quite effective in their day. Today, in our society, things are different. But then, it protected women.
When reading the Bible, try to focus instead on reading God's heart, and consider the implications of what you are reading. There are hints throughout the scriptures that the culture and the times and people being addressed were different than we are now. One must take that into account in order to make sense of the Bible, rather than searching for a reason to accuse God of wrongdoing. Notice how the Pharisees and Saducees were spoken to harshly by Jesus. That's because He knew their real motives for being there. They weren't really interested in what He had to say. They were looking for a reason to accuse and arrest Him.
That said, perhaps you can tell me whether or not I'm wasting my time with you or if you are truly interested in hearing my answers to your questions. Are you simply looking for a reason to call me a hypocrite? Or proof that God (or Jesus) is hateful? Or that the Bible is violent, and therefore, invalid? Could it be that you simply wish for the Bible to not be true, and like so many who are living in unabashed rebellion toward God, going to great lengths to defend your lifestyle and find people who will share and validate your views; egg you on so that you can feel justified about what you say and do?
All aside, what's the bottom line? Whose opinion will really matter in the end? Yours? God's? Honestly, Kylyssa, it is a dangerous position you have placed yourself in if you haven't turned your focus inward instead of pointing your fingers at everyone around you. It is not good to wait until your life is almost over. You don't know when it will end. None of us do. So, I say this humbly and in love, remembering when I had to self-reflect with painful honesty: please turn your eyes backward and take a look inside. Don't be afraid. I think the outcome is better than you know. God is gentle and patient, and He desires to converse with you in your heart. But you must give him your ears too. Be assured that He will not condone sin and He cannot be fooled. But He will also not leave you without answers to to your sincere questions.
-
-
-
favorite atheist ;)
Apr 17, 2012 @ 3:18 am | delete
- With that reasoning who can make a true claim god exists?
-
-
-
mcochs
Oct 22, 2010 @ 9:01 am | delete
- Fantastic lens,could not stop reading it.Thank you for making it.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 16, 2010 @ 6:48 pm | delete
- This is Jesus speaking to Jewish priests harassing Him for healing on the Sabbath:
"Your approval or disapproval means nothing to me, because I know you don't have God's love within you. For I have come to you representing my Father and you refuse to welcome me, even though you readily accept others who represent only themselves. No wonder you can't believe! For you gladly honor each other, but you don't care about the honor that comes from God alone."
Well said, Jesus.
-
-
-
Kylyssa
May 7, 2010 @ 3:18 pm | delete
- I feel the discussion is somewhat neutered by the fact that you will accept no questions of your questions and no questioning of things you state as absolute truth. If your point is to convert people to Christianity, using this approach will not be very effective. "Because I say so" or "because someone says so" is not a very convincing argument unless the person using that argument has coercive power over the person she is using it on.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 16, 2010 @ 6:26 pm | delete
- Kylyssa, exactly. I can't convert or save anyone. I don't know anyone with coercive power over anyone else, illegal acts excluded (let alone forbidden). I'm here to provide information and thought-provoking questions. If you can't answer the questions directly, without changing the subject or diverting attention, you don't have to answer them. If you think they're unfair or too "said so", tell me which ones. Obviously Christians and Atheists are going to have differing opinions on things, even on what constitutes truth, but I'm willing to consider what you have to say. Lord knows I'm not perfect.
-
-
-
JustOneGuy
Jan 28, 2012 @ 7:20 am | delete
- Kylyssa, I think that whit's motives here are good. I'm an atheist but I value greatly any discussion that ends up talking about morality because I think our world is perishing from a total lack of understanding about that subject. The solutions to the problems all people face today are essentially moral solutions. What is Good. What is Evil. Any discusion that sheds light on these mysteries is a good discussion. Whether Whit converts anyone into a "believer" is beside the point. The act of trying to understand this subject is, in my mind at least, a virtue of the highest order.
-
-
-
faithfuljim
Feb 16, 2010 @ 9:30 am | delete
- Great idea. Another great lense in defense of the faith, which I'm lenserolling to my lesne on apologetics (http://www.squidoo.com/appologetics), and in fact I'm going make a favorite lenses module and add it there if they still have that module.
-
-
-
kab
Feb 1, 2010 @ 9:23 am | delete
- I have a question: If your child is on the verge of death after a horrific accident. Will you look up and say "I don't know if you are up there, but if you are, please help her?"
-
-
-
JustOneGuy
Jan 28, 2012 @ 7:14 am | delete
- You bet I would! I would get on my hands and knees and beg God/the world/the universe to do something to help my child. I would sacrifice myself for my child without a moments hesitation if I could make the trade. But, I am an atheist. That doesn't mean that I don't love and wouldn't splinter into a thousand pieces if the most important thing in the world to me was dying. That simply means that I can love so deeply. You probably attribute that to my Godliness. I say it's just my love of life and my humanity which all rational humans have.
-
-
-
Talesian
Oct 4, 2009 @ 10:03 pm | delete
- Ever since the Vatican removed the position of Devil's Advocate, I have decided to take on the role. I try to think of myself as open minded, but not so open that my brains fall out. One of the questions that Atheists are often asked by Christians is if you will excuse my paraphrasing, "If there is not God, what is your purpose in life?" The question is asked with the underlying assumption that a purpose has to be given to us. I have decided on my own purpose. Aside from the usual things like survival, enjoying life and search for the perfect fruitcake recipe, I want to make people think. I don't care if the answer they come up with is right or wrong, I just want them to believe in it because it makes sense to them, not because that is what they were told to believe. My oldest has a t-shirt with a slogan that I wish I had thought of. "Think. It's still legal".
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Feb 21, 2011 @ 12:44 am | delete
- I couldn't agree with you more, Talesian. It's so important for people to think for themselves.
-
-
-
spittlebug
Sep 30, 2009 @ 6:55 pm | delete
- I don't understand how anyone can be said to believe for social reasons. If you decide to *profess* that you believe, that's one thing, but you can't actually *believe* as a matter of convenience. That isn't belief. That's faking it. Real belief is an inescapable conclusion. That old chestnut Pascal's wager, for instance, makes no sense because you can't just decide belief is the better course and start believing. That's pretending to believe and thinking you can fool the almighty. That's pretty stupid.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
May 16, 2010 @ 6:40 pm | delete
- I agree, Spittlebug. Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christians do so because they were raised that way, but not because of knowledge of Christianity. I would urge anyone who feels that they haven't done enough personal searching for answers about Christianity to begin right now. One step at a time, one day at a time. It may be a long journey, but if you are completely honest with God and yourself, I don't think you'll be disappointed in God. You may be disappointed at the prospect of being continuously shunned and verbally bashed for associating with Jesus Christ, the ultimate sufferer, but not disappointed with what you find out about who God really is and how much he loves you.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Aug 22, 2009 @ 9:24 pm | delete
- Read about the Tolerance Trap. It looks like several people who have replied on this lens have been duped by the new definition of the word "tolerance." I think you will find the link very helpful.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Jul 31, 2009 @ 11:46 pm | in reply to MerkinBill | delete
- I so appreciate your answers. Thanks so much for stopping by! :)
-
-
-
MerkinBill
Jul 29, 2009 @ 4:10 pm | delete
- Some interesting questions, although, as noted, some of them are opinion-based and therefore neither side can honestly claim victory. Thanks for the prods to my gray matter.
-
-
-
WhitU4ever
Jul 25, 2009 @ 7:52 am | delete
- Thank you so much, Spirituality and Montanabeliever for participating in this debate. You have been the first two to make this debate interesting, and your answers were quite thought-provoking! :)
-
-
-
spirituality Jul 23, 2009 @ 3:33 am | delete
- Great debate :)
-
Christian Humor
Who Am I?
by WhitU4ever
"If you drive God out of the world, then you create a howling wilderness." ~ Peter Hitchens
I'm a Christian. Deal with it.
- 129 featured lenses
- Winner of 11 trophies!
- Top lens » Wagon Wheels
Explore related pages
- New Atheism | Common Questions and Misunderstandings About Atheism New Atheism | Common Questions and Misunderstandings About Atheism
- Religion is a Mental Disorder Religion is a Mental Disorder
- Jesus’ Body Found!!! Jesus’ Body Found!!!
- New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
- There is no God There is no God
- Antony Flew Abandons Atheism Antony Flew Abandons Atheism
