Atheism

[Woody]

.

[phkrause]

Not sure what the point is Woody? or the agenda? Maybe you can enlighten me? Thanks! or I should say I'm not sure where you going with this.

[Woody]

I guess it's whatever you make it pk.

I report U decide.

[miz3]

Mega, mega Dittos Woody.

That says it perfectly. I like it. Can you tell?

[BobRyan]

Great thread post -

Satan is in charge of foisting error on to the masses - as the opening post points out. And yet -- Satan has a tough line of baloney to sell - and yet being the over-achiever that he is -- he manages to do it!!

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Great thread post -

Satan is in charge of foisting error on to the masses - as the opening post points out. And yet -- Satan has a tough line of baloney to sell - and yet being the over-achiever that he is -- he manages to do it!!

in Christ,

Bob

You give satan more credit than he deserves. The story of Job demonstrates that satan is just a tool of God to show how infinitely superior God is. This satan can only do what God allows satan to do. Where does satan's power come from? God of course. This satan does not have power or any ability of his own.

Only God has things of His own. The rest of creation derives their things from God Alone.

[Raphael]

And they called it Science & the triumph of reason.. when it's so insensible.. So they had to add the figure on trillion of trillion of years with hope that such infinite spans would result in supporting logic, which simply doesn't.

Well, if the story of evolution was capably trashed, I'm certain some other new weird form will reappear.. which can be called our world's Tao where both the dark & the light still resides. Only later when the darkness is fully recycled in hellspring then truly can there be heavenly slumber..

[M. T. Cross]

I think that everyone has missed the point.

The point is that most people look at the beliefs opposite of their own with a degree of scorn. Since having beliefs is a guessing game at best or based on personal experience it is foolish to scorn or mock anyone elses beliefs.

[Woody]

I think that everyone has missed the point.

The point is that most people look at the beliefs opposite of their own with a degree of scorn. Since having beliefs is a guessing game at best or based on personal experience it is foolish to scorn or mock anyone elses beliefs.

Excellent though EC.

[cardw]

This is a complete misrepresentation of atheism.

Atheism has nothing to say about first causes.

It is basically the admission that there is no evidence for god or gods specifically described in any religion.

Just as most of you don't believe in Zeus, atheists simply add Yahweh and Jesus.

Evolution has nothing to say about first cause. It is simply the study of how life transformed from one form to another.

You might be interested to know that recent studies of water show that when exposed to light it tends to organize compounds within in itself due to a fourth state of water.

You can view the following video by Prof. Pollack at the University of Washington.

[miz3]

Of course Atheism tries to avoid the discussion of "first cause". Such discussions are death kneels to those who do not believe in God.

There are only two possibilities:

1. God created and is the THE CAUSE of everything.

2. Nothing produced something.

Atheists and Evolutionists try to dance around this by saying they only study "change" in the observable world and that this "change" leads them to believe there is NO GOD. Its a back door way and a dishonest approach to reality.

They assert that such changes "prove" that something came from nothing.

They pretend to be objective when in FACT they have predisposed themselves to reject God and follow their own instincts and call it "science".

Again FACT: The only real important issue that decides everything about the human is what that human believes is the "first cause".

Being dishonest and saying that I am only going to look at the "after evidence" and won't think about "first cause" does not cut it.

[cardw]

Of course Atheism tries to avoid the discussion of "first cause". Such discussions are death kneels to those who do not believe in God.

[miz3]

There are only two possibilities:

1. God created and is the THE CAUSE of everything.

2. Nothing produced something.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: miz3

There are only two possibilities:

1. God created and is the THE CAUSE of everything.

2. Nothing produced something.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is called a false dilemma. In fact there are infinite possibilities. One of them is that the universe wasn't created at all, but has simply been here forever in various forms.

In other words your infinite possibilities is nothing more than a rehash of number two above.

No you are redefining infinite as finite.

[miz3]

Being dishonest and saying that I am only going to look at the "after evidence" and won't think about "first cause" does not cut it.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't claim that there is no creator. The evidence does show that if there is a creator, it is not the god of the Bible or any other god that people claim is there. There is zero evidence for the god of Bible. And it is dishonest to claim that your belief is evidence.

Quote:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[phkrause]

miz3, great post and I'm in 100% agreement.

[cardw]

I have not misrepresented what Atheists state. The FACT is that Atheists make themselves the Arbiter of their own truth which is the truth as it is in their mind. In other words their truth is nothing more than their opinion based only the evidence they want to acknowledge.

[Windsor]

I agree with miz3 for once. Miracles do happen! :)

[olger]

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't claim that there is no creator. The evidence does show that if there is a creator, it is not the god of the Bible or any other god that people claim is there. There is zero evidence for the god of Bible. And it is dishonest to claim that your belief is evidence.

Quote:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I don't claim there is a creator either.

If there is no evidence for a deity then one cannot make claims about that deity. Atheism is a default position. It is not a belief.

There are various forms of atheism. There are hard line atheists who actively state that there is no god and believe in a deterministic universe and there are soft atheists who don't believe in a deity because there is no evidence for one. They haven't removed the possibility that someday there might be evidence of a creator.

Christians are atheists to Zeus, Thor, etc. but you don't have atheists saying that Christian's lack of belief in Zeus is actually a belief because that idea is nonsense.

[BobRyan]

This is a complete misrepresentation of atheism.

Atheism has nothing to say about first causes.

It is basically the admission that there is no evidence for god or gods specifically described in any religion.

Just as most of you don't believe in Zeus, atheists simply add Yahweh and Jesus.

Evolution has nothing to say about first cause. It is simply the study of how life transformed from one form to another.

1. I think everyone here agrees that the atheist has no intention of "appealing to God" to get to solve his "the universe exploded out of nothing" dilemma.

2. I think everyone here agrees that the atheist is stuck with a big hot mass of exploded universe that then "organizes itself" to "form water" but first it needs to "form gravity", the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism.

3. And then it needs to work out some nucleosynthesis operations to get yourself up to the point of having "carbon" lying around so you could begin working on carbon based life forms.

And so the story goes.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

1. I think everyone here agrees that the atheist has no intention of "appealing to God" to get to solve his "the universe exploded out of nothing" dilemma.

2. I think everyone here agrees that the atheist is stuck with a big hot mass of exploded universe that then "organizes itself" to "form water" but first it needs to "form gravity", the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism.

3. And then it needs to work out some nucleosynthesis operations to get yourself up to the point of having "carbon" lying around so you could begin working on carbon based life forms.

We are humble enough to admit that we don't know. That's the truthful thing to do.

You're stuck with the same thing. You have no proof that the god of the bible did it. We just don't claim to know things that we can't possibly know.

You are simply being arrogant and lazy by claiming that some god did it without even taking to time to actually provide some evidence. And then you have the arrogance to condemn me for admitting that I don't know.

That's why I don't have respect at all for this type of Christian thinking.

[BobRyan]

You might be interested to know that recent studies of water show that when exposed to light it tends to organize compounds within in itself due to a fourth state of water.

You can view the following video by Prof. Pollack at the University of Washington.

This is a great example of the sharp line between atheist storytelling and science.

In the video we see "science demonstrated" in the form of proving the crystalline state of water, demonstrating its physical properties and then demonstrating with experimental results the claims that this 4th state of water can be used to purify water and can be used to generate electricity.

In the midst of all of that "science" is the "non-science" discussion about life forming in an abiotic -- sunlight+water environment where nothing at all of the kind is demonstrated in the experiment. No compounds formed, no amino acids self-organizing in water -- nothing at all but the "hope and wish" that someday this could help the atheist out of his dilemma when it comes to the origins of life.

Oh well... I guess they are every bit "as stuck" as the OP illustrates.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

1. I think everyone here agrees that the atheist has no intention of "appealing to God" to get to solve his "the universe exploded out of nothing" dilemma.

2. I think everyone here agrees that the atheist is stuck with a big hot mass of exploded universe that then "organizes itself" to "form water" but first it needs to "form gravity", the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism.

3. And then it needs to work out some nucleosynthesis operations to get yourself up to the point of having "carbon" lying around so you could begin working on carbon based life forms.