Atheist diary at the GWT

[SivartM]

Actual diary at the GWT:

-blank-

Because it is a hypothesized future event, and nobody positively knows if it will take place or what it will entail. You may as well make your imaginary diary say "Turns out the Aztecs were right all along; oops!" or "Turns out that the creator deity is actually a naked mole rat leading a pantheon of delicious cookie gods; oops!"

Yes, you can believe that it will happen, and it could happen, but creating a fictionalized account of your predictions of the future is not an argument for any of your beliefs.

[Neil D]

There are two concepts that bother me....

Have you ever talked with someone in which he could not concider the possibility that something was possibly wrong....?

yeah, and that other one is also wrong too.......

[Igakusei]

Actual diary at the GWT:

-blank-

Because it is a hypothesized future event, and nobody positively knows if it will take place or what it will entail. You may as well make your imaginary diary say "Turns out the Aztecs were right all along; oops!" or "Turns out that the creator deity is actually a naked mole rat leading a pantheon of delicious cookie gods; oops!"

Yes, you can believe that it will happen, and it could happen, but creating a fictionalized account of your predictions of the future is not an argument for any of your beliefs.

This is highly advanced logic that is unlikely to make an impact on Bob.

[fccool]

Quote:

We would have started that conversation with Daniel 2, 7,8,9 and a discussion about how over 2500 years of real world history was accurately predicted. Sorta the way the atheist/agnostic Walter Veith (and other agnostics I have known) made the transition from agnostic to Christian.

I think it's a fair consensus in objective scholarship that Daniel was more likely written in Maccabian era, in which case making these predictions would be as easy as looking back in the past. And since Babylon captivity did have to be enterpreted in some sense that would both portray Jewish superiority over Babylon, and explain the captivity itself, since God of Israel was such a strong force, yet his chosen people were utterly annihilated... Daniel was coined as a typical hero tale of the middle east.

I lived in the middle east, and these type of rags to prince stories are prevalent.

Quote:

But in this case Daniel 2 is not my only point of persuasion.

I hope not, considering the silly anachronisms that would pass for true history... i.e.

Chapter 1:

Daniel 1:5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the royal rations of food and wine. They were to be educated for three years, so that at the end of that time they could be stationed in the king's court.

.....

Daniel 1:18 At the end of the time that the king had set for them to be brought in [three years according to verse 5], the palace master brought them into the presence of Nebuchadnezzar, 19 and the king spoke with them. And among them all, no one was found to compare with Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore they were stationed in the king's court. 20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.

Chapter 2

Now in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was troubled and his sleep left him.

No chronological problem there at all. Either Daniel was really old when he wrote this, or he did not, and it's a collection of stories fused into a single narrative with a terrible attempt to reconcile the chronology.

Quote:

I also have the Romans 1 argument that condemns both the TE and the Atheist POV when it comes to "observations in nature". This is an element that is at work - regardless if I mention it or not.

It's not an argument. It's a belief. Belief is not an argument.

Quote:

It is the same way with the John 16 point about the Holy Spirit convicting the world (yes - even atheists) of "sin and righteousness and judgment". Another point that works in favor of the Bible since "no scripture is a matter of one persons interpretation but rather holy men of old moved by the Spirit of God spoke from God" 2Pet 1:20-21

Likewise, this is not an argument. It's a belief. I think you are confused about a difference between the two.

[BobRyan]

Since CARDW has several threads discussing the atheist POV vs the Gospel. Here is an interesting scenario.

The atheist stands at the Great White Throne in Rev 20 and writes in his diary.

Dear Diary -

1. Just found out that God is real and really did create the world in 7 days -- oops!

2. Just found out that God made laws for the entire universe and the penalty for rebellion was said to be the 2nd death.... oops!

3. Just found out that Adam and Eve were created sinless - chose to rebel against God's Law and so mankind was doomed to the 2nd death since they were the only two people on the planet...oops!

4. Just found out that Jesus Christ really was the Son of God and came to save mankind.... oops!

dear diary - I now realize that if the beginning concepts were all true even though I doubted and disbelieved them - there is the strongest likelihood that the end of the Bible is all true as well.... big OOPS!

[M. T. Cross]

I think most atheists would be more concerned with your obsession of their lack of spiritual belief than they would be in the threat of a lake of fire.

[Igakusei]

I realize that for atheists this is a stressful topic -- I find it fascinating that some Christians fear to face the reality of it.

If I told you that there was an ancient and evil God named Cthulhu lurking beneath the ocean, and that upon awakening he would devour the entire Earth, and the only way you could achieve salvation would be to worship him and help him break free from his prison (in which case he would grant you a mercy killing by devouring you first), and maybe I even handed you a chick tract, how "stressful" would you find the experience? Would you lose sleep at night thinking that since you had rejected the message of Cthulhu, it might take revenge by devouring you more slowly?

That's about how stressed this topic makes me.

Edit: for clarification, Bob, it doesn't stress me out at all.

[BobRyan]

I realize that for atheists this is a stressful topic -- I find it fascinating that some Christians fear to face the reality of it.

[BobRyan]

I think most atheists would be more concerned with your obsession ...

God wrote Rev 20 -- not me.

God wrote Rev 14:10 -- not me.

God said in Matt 10:28 "do not fear those who kill the body and after that do not have power to kill the soul - but rather fear Him who is able to DESTROY BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell".

In fact this topic appears many times in the NT including 2Thess 1:7 where God "appears in flaming fire dealing out fiery retribution"...

Wayyyy too many texts to point to where the claim is that "God is the author not Bob" - in response to your "it is just Bob that notices this part of the Bible".

The Bible message for the atheist is to "flee the wrath to come" -- a few compromised Christians will respond to that Bible message with "oh no - pay no attention to that - focus on my swinging watch and listen. All will be well....goooo back to sleep...you and I can be friends if you just don't think about what God is saying in the Bible.."

And so my question for that group of Christians is this "Whose interests are you really serving?"

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

You DO understand that I grew up studying Daniel and I've read books by several pioneering SDAs on it, but upon careful consideration I have determined that there's no evidence of any supernatural predictions there, right? You keep bringing the same arguments up as if you expect them to mean anything to me, but all they do is reinforce my opinion that you have absolutely nothing new or interesting to say.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

I think most atheists would be more concerned with your obsession ...

God wrote Rev 20 -- not me.

God wrote Rev 14:10 -- not me.

***

And so my question for that group of Christians is this "Whose interests are you really serving?"

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I think the obsession is be obsessed with the idea that you can argue and badger and insult unbelievers into becoming believers; that putting them in their place is a good witnessing strategy.

I think it is time for you to rethink that strategy.

[BobRyan]

You DO understand that I grew up studying Daniel and I've read books by several pioneering SDAs on it, but upon careful consideration I have determined that there's no evidence of any supernatural predictions there, right? You keep bringing the same arguments up as if you expect them to mean anything to me,

[Igakusei]

That's one perspective....

[BobRyan]

Agreed - each person has free will and the Bible is there to be read or rejected.

So also is the Holy Spirit there to be accepted or rejected.

I am simply pointing out the truth that is behind it all.

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

Agreed - each person has free will and the Bible is there to be read or rejected.

So also is the Holy Spirit there to be accepted or rejected.

I am simply pointing out the truth that is behind it all.

in Christ,

Bob

Can you provide non-biblical evidence of the Holy Spirit's existence? I can't just take the Bible's word for it, since I find biblical prophecy highly unconvincing.

The observation that two groups of people can ask the holy spirit to guide their bible study and yet come to mutually contradictory conclusions (and this is repeated thousands of times) strikes me as powerful evidence for its non-existence, but I'm welcome to any counter-arguments.

Edit: Also, even if I DID find biblical prophecy convincing, why would that prove that the entire bible is accurate? And how accurate? Certainly a large portion of the early OT is myth and metaphor, so this jump from "Daniel 2,7,8,9" to "it's all true" is a non-sequitur. I'm always slightly embarrassed for people who cite 2 Tim 3:16, being the quintessential example of circular reasoning that it is.

[BobRyan]

The work and person of the Holy Spirit is like the laws of physics. Does not need your/our approval to work on each one of us - all day long.

Hence that whole Romans 1 "they are without excuse" thing.

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

I accept the laws of physics because I've seen evidence of them. I didn't ask the holy spirit for permission to exist, I just asked for evidence of its existence. Instead of providing any, you dodged the question.

[BobRyan]

I accept the laws of physics because I've seen evidence of them.

hence my point about the objective proof that we find in the Bible - starting with Dan 2,7,8,9 predicting almost 2500 years of world history.

Proof that even atheist evolutionist professors like Walter Veith found convincing, objective and instructive to the point of changing them from atheist to Christian against all odds and the demands of their atheist-centric profession.

in Christ,

Bob

[Igakusei]

[fccool]

The argument from Holy Spirit is a loaded argument. To understand what it sounds like from different perspective, consider the following argument:

Quote:

All of the cars are driven by the magical nano-squirrels that are imperceptible to human technology. These nano-squirrels exist in the engine, and then feed on the gasoline. When one turns the ignition, the nano-squirrels use their magical explosive powers to propel the pistons of the engine and power the car.

If I believed this, I would be considered either insane, or naive and ignorant. I don't think I would have to explain why. I take a perfectly natural phenomenon, and I go on ascribing it the super-natural explanation.

Now let's consider the idea that Holy Spirit incites people to do good, and to accept God. Therefore, people only do good because of the direction of the Holy Spirit.

This claim is very similar to the idea of magical nano-squirrels that power my car. One step in the logical process is extra. It's not needed. There are very little reasons to believe that human beings are incapable of doing good on their own. If there are good reasons, I would like to hear them.

Before you start expounding on the power of the original sin, and how it incapacitates the human race... consider the following equation:

good works + religious belief = good works

Perhaps you can help me solve it.

[Igakusei]

The argument from Holy Spirit is a loaded argument. To understand what it sounds like from different perspective, consider the following argument:

...

Before you start expounding on the power of the original sin, and how it incapacitates the human race... consider the following equation:

good works + religious belief = good works

Perhaps you can help me solve it.

He's just going to cite Daniel again.

[fccool]

Quote:

hence my point about the objective proof that we find in the Bible - starting with Dan 2,7,8,9 predicting almost 2500 years of world history.

I'll be more gracious than Barney, and will explain.

Proof of the Book of Daniel is not an objective proof, neither it predicts the world history outside of it's immediate interpretation. Let's say that someone put a letter in your mailbox. I does not have any Post-Office dating stamps on it. It's self dated by a date written in the letter, and at the end of it.

It goes something like this:

Quote:

I, Fccool, this day of 2 year of President Bush presidency predict that Pittsburgh Steelers will win 2008 Superbowl. But their reign will not be long, because there will come a team from the south and will be the next superbowl champion in 2009. Then, in 2010, a team from Wisconsin will go on and capture the title.

But, behold, there will be a team that will come some time after them. It will be strong and have a quaterback that will lead them. And they will come from the great city, and it will capture the title.

I'm not sure about you, but I would be fairly skeptical about specifics painted in the first part, and then vagueness that follows it. I got the letter in 2011. The second part does not name ANY specifics. It leaves it up to the reader to fill the gap with any fitting facts that may be found.

Horoscopes work by similar principle.

Quote:

Proof that even atheist evolutionist professors like Walter Veith found convincing, objective and instructive to the point of changing them from atheist to Christian against all odds and the demands of their atheist-centric profession.

You are well-aware that there are quite a bit of cases of devout Christian ministers turning to agnosticism? Likewise, there are quite a bit of Christians converting to Islam. Of itself, someone acting a certain way is not evidence of veracity. You have to examine the facts.

[M. T. Cross]

I think most atheists would be more concerned with your obsession ...

[Igakusei]

Walter Veith is also fond of lying for Jesus. Having been a zoologist, he knows better than to say many of the things he does regarding origins. It's one thing to disagree with interpretations of the evidence, but I have a much harder time with people who misrepresent the evidence itself, or intentionally misrepresent the way the scientific community says things work when they clearly know better.

[Gerr]

I accept the laws of physics because I've seen evidence of them. I didn't ask the holy spirit for permission to exist, I just asked for evidence of its existence. Instead of providing any, you dodged the question.

ESV | ‎Job 12:7 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; ‎8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. ‎9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? ‎10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.