Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Guys we should gives mags some credit here for coming here to learn and demonstrating that he can change his opinion if convinced. This isn't something Shooter would do (though it would be a lot more hilarious).

Mags, if you really changed your opinions on the age of the universe and evolution based on internet forum arguments, I would wonder what you would think after even a years worth of college level physics. You're obviously smart and open to new information.

I don't get why intelligent design advocates need to try and undermine scientific principles just to shoehorn God into the conversation and try to discount the big bang or the start of life on earth. God can still certainly be involved. I mean, he is a giant magic man in the sky, he can do anything. ANYTHING! Why can't he just be the "author" of all the rules of the universe? The rules that caused the big bang and the start of life. The rules that we're trying hard to understand, but we still don't know them ALL yet. You can still stay "God did it." But, just not how the Bible says so. You already said you're open to an ancient universe and evolution, which run counter to the Bible, then why not the big bang and the start of life?
 
Sounds like something copied/pasted from a creationist web site by a person who never took Physics 101. Nothing I haven't seen copied/pasted a thousand times already.
 
hoojacks said:
Guys we should gives mags some credit here for coming here to learn and demonstrating that he can change his opinion if convinced. This isn't something Shooter would do (though it would be a lot more hilarious).

Mags, if you really changed your opinions on the age of the universe and evolution based on internet forum arguments, I would wonder what you would think after even a years worth of college level physics. You're obviously smart and open to new information.

I don't get why intelligent design advocates need to try and undermine scientific principles just to shoehorn God into the conversation and try to discount the big bang or the start of life on earth. God can still certainly be involved. I mean, he is a giant magic man in the sky, he can do anything. ANYTHING! Why can't he just be the "author" of all the rules of the universe? The rules that caused the big bang and the start of life. The rules that we're trying hard to understand, but we still don't know them ALL yet. You can still stay "God did it." But, just not how the Bible says so. You already said you're open to an ancient universe and evolution, which run counter to the Bible, then why not the big bang and the start of life?
Click to expand...

I actually believe the big bang theory could happen. In fact I actually think the big bang did happen. The difference is, I think a designer designed the big bang. After the universe was completed, then he designed life. Either it be through evolution by seeding the right types of organisms to help macro evolution or putting us here to be without macro evolution. Either way is possible.
 
hoojacks said:
Guys we should gives mags some credit here for coming here to learn and demonstrating that he can change his opinion if convinced. This isn't something Shooter would do (though it would be a lot more hilarious).

Mags, if you really changed your opinions on the age of the universe and evolution based on internet forum arguments, I would wonder what you would think after even a years worth of college level physics. You're obviously smart and open to new information.

I don't get why intelligent design advocates need to try and undermine scientific principles just to shoehorn God into the conversation and try to discount the big bang or the start of life on earth. God can still certainly be involved. I mean, he is a giant magic man in the sky, he can do anything. ANYTHING! Why can't he just be the "author" of all the rules of the universe? The rules that caused the big bang and the start of life. The rules that we're trying hard to understand, but we still don't know them ALL yet. You can still stay "God did it." But, just not how the Bible says so. You already said you're open to an ancient universe and evolution, which run counter to the Bible, then why not the big bang and the start of life?
Click to expand...

I actually believe the big bang theory could happen. In fact I actually think the big bang did happen. The difference is, I think a designer designed the big bang. After the universe was completed, then he designed life. Either it be through evolution by seeding the right types of organisms to help macro evolution or putting us here to be without macro evolution. Either way is possible.
 
crandc said:
Sounds like something copied/pasted from a creationist web site by a person who never took Physics 101. Nothing I haven't seen copied/pasted a thousand times already.
Click to expand...

Copied and paste, no. But definitely some of the creationist arguments that I have adopted yes. Wouldn't be anything more than, let's say you that have been taught physics 101 and used what you learned and create a case God doesn't exist.

If you actually think one man has the answers for everything, then you believe more about the improbable than I do. :)
 
It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but I don't see anyone saying God doesn't exist but rather that there's no compelling evidence he does. No more compelling evidence than unicorns exist.

Anyone who claims to be guided by science in their beliefs would not deny his existence (or that of unicorns) if there were objective and measurable evidence.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's a subtle difference, perhaps, but I don't see anyone saying God doesn't exist but rather that there's no compelling evidence he does. No more compelling evidence than unicorns exist.

Anyone who claims to be guided by science in their beliefs would not deny his existence (or that of unicorns) if there were objective and measurable evidence.
Click to expand...

Or Julius Caesar, or genghis khan, or so on. Yeah sounds good.
 
Are you putting Julius Caesar in the same category of proof of existence as god and unicorns?
 
westnob said:
the problem is that the claims of julius caeser are humanly possible. the claims of jeshua of nazareth are not humanly possible.
Click to expand...

Ask any credited historian on this and they would disagree. In fact, most historians actually say that there is more historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than any of the ones I mentioned. In fact, many historians say Jesus has the most.

But this is actually off-topic to the thread. I only brought that up because I wanted to expose the logic.
 
what criteria did denny lay out for existence?
 
RR7 said:
what criteria did denny lay out for existence?
Click to expand...

Because I've got my popcorn popping, I want to keep this conversation going:

"Anyone who claims to be guided by science in their beliefs would not deny his existence (or that of unicorns) if there were objective and measurable evidence."

I think the last phrase (objective and measurable evidence) is what Mags is talking about. Of course, the fact that Jesus only has a biography, while Casear has an autobiography might throw a monkey wrench into the works but whatevs. :D
 
RR7 said:
what criteria did denny lay out for existence?
Click to expand...

That there is no compelling evidence that God exists; like unicorns. And since he cannot except historical data, philosophy, logic or scientific theory; then that would explain the same criteria that Caesar doesn't exist.

I remember him saying that in order for him to believe; he must see God come from heaven and talk to him in a burning bush. Well he can discount every living being not on this planet during his lifetime. It's absolutely not logical.
 
hmm, I could be wrong. But I think he's referring to god the creator, and not jesus of nazareth. I don't know what historical data, other than the bible, shows god existed. If you are speaking of jesus, different story. philosophy, logic, etc. does not need to be used for caesar.
 
RR7 said:
hmm, I could be wrong. But I think he's referring to god the creator, and not jesus of nazareth. I don't know what historical data, other than the bible, shows god existed. If you are speaking of jesus, different story. philosophy, logic, etc. does not need to be used for caesar.
Click to expand...

The same rule applies RR7. Doesn't have to be Jesus. How can you prove that the cave paintings from prehistoric man were even made by prehistoric man? What happens when you think this way is you can go on forever. There will be no outcome. You must look at the evidence and make a logical decision one way or another. This thread can last forever and get no where with that logic.

And this is why I keep saying "I am not trying to prove anything, but give the evidence I see for you to make that choice all by yourself". I am not trying to win some argument. I am just giving a different angle. You can believe what you want because you have a "free thinking" mind. I, nor Denny, nor anyone else for that matter can force you to think in their way. Merely, they can provide you logical reasoning and possible evidence for you to make that choice all by yourself.
 
Last edited:
magnifier661 said:
I can alway count on you MARIS! :D

Would you consider yourself a "true atheist"?
Click to expand...

I abhor labels since they mean something different to each and every person, as has been demonstrated about the label atheist in this very thread.

I know there are no god(s).

I also know it's unlikely that anyone who has ever truly "believed" in god can be convinced otherwise, as they lack the basic powers of reason, logic and common sense that are required to make rational decisions.
 
MARIS61 said:
I abhor labels since they mean something different to each and every person, as has been demonstrated about the label atheist in this very thread.

I know there are no god(s).

I also know it's unlikely that anyone who has ever truly "believed" in god can be convinced otherwise, as they lack the basic powers of reason, logic and common sense that are required to make rational decisions.
Click to expand...

How did I know you were going to say this? But read the beginning part of the thread and you were arguing with fellow Atheists that true atheism isn't what you just wrote. Would you like me to link or quote them for you? Why the change of heart?
 
magnifier661 said:
The same rule applies RR7. Doesn't have to be Jesus. How can you prove that the cave paintings from prehistoric man were even made by prehistoric man? What happens when you think this way is you can go on forever. There will be no outcome. You must look at the evidence and make a logical decision one way or another. This thread can last forever and get no where with that logic.

And this is why I keep saying "I am not trying to prove anything, but give the evidence I see for you to make that choice all by yourself". I am not trying to win some argument. I am just giving a different angle. You can believe what you want because you have a "free thinking" mind. I, nor Denny, nor anyone else for that matter can force you to think in their way. Merely, they can provide you logical reasoning and possible evidence for you to make that choice all by yourself.
Click to expand...

Well, there's belief, and there's historical fact. There's a difference, but I guess believing in facts, and believing in a belief somehow are the same to you. That's fine.

As for not trying to prove anything, then you're confused. Evidence is provided to show proof. definiton: that which tends to prove or disprove. Something that furnishes proof. legal definition:Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

You showing evidence is you attempting to prove.
 
magnifier661 said:
In fact, most historians actually say that there is more historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than any of the ones I mentioned.
Click to expand...


historians would laugh at someone who claimed there was more evidence for jesus then julius ceasar. feel free to research this anywhere else than the propaganda you are getting that notion from.
 
MARIS61 said:
I also know it's unlikely that anyone who has ever truly "believed" in god can be convinced otherwise, as they lack the basic powers of reason, logic and common sense that are required to make rational decisions.
Click to expand...


That's a rather myopic viewpoint, in my opinion.

I, for example, have personally witnessed God's power and providence on many, many occasions. Reality trumps so-called rationality. Trust me, I was a God ignorer for the bulk portion of my life. That said, I had an amazing conversion experience over 20 years ago....alone, in my kitchen....followed by confirmation upon confirmation. Nobody can take that affirmation from me. Nobody.
 
RR7 said:
Well, there's belief, and there's historical fact. There's a difference, but I guess believing in facts, and believing in a belief somehow are the same to you. That's fine.

As for not trying to prove anything, then you're confused. Evidence is provided to show proof. definiton: that which tends to prove or disprove. Something that furnishes proof. legal definition:Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

You showing evidence is you attempting to prove.
Click to expand...

No you are dead wrong. Evidence is not to show proof. An innocent man could be found guilty because the prosecutor has more compelling evidence he is guilty. Also, a guilty man could be found innocent because the defense has more compelling evidence that he is innocent.

Everyone in this thread is the jury. You take in the evidence and make your own judgement. This is why I keep saying "the burden of proof" is on the Atheist that God doesn't exist. It actually makes a lot of sense. So far, I am providing evidence and the atheists are just trying to discredit that evidence. The Atheist hasn't provided a shred of evidence to show God doesn't exist. This is just a one way highway here.

The term "Proof" and "Evidence" are different in this context.
 
crowTrobot said:
historians would laugh at someone who claimed there was more evidence for jesus then julius ceasar. feel free to research this anywhere else than the propaganda you are getting that notion from.
Click to expand...

Really? I hate to bring up this link again, but I think it does apply. The historian is one of the leading and respective historians today. Plus he's agnostic too.

[video=youtube;u9CC7qNZkOE]
 
ABM said:
That's a rather myopic viewpoint, in my opinion.

I, for example, have personally witnessed God's power and providence on many, many occasions. Reality trumps so-called rationality. Trust me, I was a God ignorer for the bulk portion of my life. That said, I had an amazing conversion experience over 20 years ago....alone, in my kitchen....followed by confirmation upon confirmation. Nobody can take that affirmation from me. Nobody.
Click to expand...

Thank you for supporting my contention so admirably.
 
MARIS61 said:
Thank you for supporting my contention so admirably.
Click to expand...

Not a problem. I would imagine your circle of Christian friends might offer similar testimonies.....that is, if you were willing to listen. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magnifier661
Quite Reasonable that : God Does Exist
3 4 5
Replies
149
Views
5K
Sedatedfork
Sedatedfork
Eastoff
the universe is not ageless/eternal
Replies
3
Views
377
crowTrobot
crowTrobot
magnifier661
Give your best answer... Did the universe have a beginning or not
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
3K
BlazerCaravan
BlazerCaravan
magnifier661
  • Poll Poll
Religion Are Christians believing in life outside Earth compatible?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
jlprk
jlprk
SlyPokerDog
Science Our universe may have a twin that runs backward in time
Replies
11
Views
645
UncleCliffy'sDaddy
UncleCliffy'sDaddy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top