john_v_h

In order for a claim to be testable, it must be capable of being shown false. How could we possibly show false the claim that God created the world in one week? No mountain of evidence to the contrary can overcome the prerogatives of an omnipotent deity.

nessa20x

4god-you obviously have no idea about science, the scientific method etcetc

quote
Origin of the Universe - The Big Bang Theory
So began the effort to purpose an atheistic mechanism for the origin of the universe. Enter the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian Evolution. The original Big Bang Theory seeks to explain the sudden appearance of everything from nothing, while Darwinian Evolution seeks to explain the origin of complex life forms from their supposed simpler ancestors. The premise of the Big Bang is that the entire universe was compacted into a teeny tiny little ball, which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an instant. Yes, that's the theory. No Ph.D. required.

Can you not see for yourself how incredibly biased this statement is. Can you not understand the concept of theory, evidence, fact, experimentation=science...vs blind faith w/o any evidence=religion.

Do you not understand that partial truths do not make whole truths? Do you not understand that religion has been trying to fight science for centuries...while science doesn't ever try to disprove religion? Science and the scientific method do not challenge religion, religion simply is proved to have less and less truth behind it as scientific knowledge grows. This is because religions try to explain those concepts in the universe that people years ago could not explain. Now we can explain many of the universes' phenomena thru the sci method.

So take the good parts of your religion and others (moral and social beliefs) and believe in those if you want. God can never be proven/disproven because the defining characteristics of gods are untestable, just like all other supernatural activity. So try to understand that your particular faith had a couple things wrong about the world...science can explain those things for us now...such as the sun being the center of the solar system, epilepsy being caused by brain disorders, and evolution accounting for speciation. If you reject science and the scientific method...which is not at all atheistic...then you reject logic and reason. If you do that, then you will never win an arguement here.

Steven Carr

And the Gospel writers are under the mistaken impression that people WOULD believe women, and hated Samaritan women at that! See John 4:39.

Absurd! They followed him. They left what they were doing and followed him, saw all these miracles, walked on water, were given the secret of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4), heard (and supposedly remembered) all these prophecies in enough detail they could write down exactly what was said and when.

And yet you say that it seemed like nonsense to them when people said the prophecies of their Leader had been fulfilled, when they had just seen a whole raft of prophecy fulfillment, a 3 hour darkness, Jesus healing the ear of somebody at the arrest etc etc.


Sounds like after the fact apologetics for the known embarrasment of the disciples packing in their Christianity (see Matthew 28:17 where Matthew gets around the fact that they STILL doubted, even after the resurrection)

No wonder Mark has to have women discover the tomb, if it was known that some disciples packed it in. They could hardly have been cited as witnesses. Hence Mark's discovery of the tomb by women, who tell nobody. A good way to explain why nobody had heard of the story. The women tell nobody!

You mean the greatest teacher who ever lived spent 3 years telling his disciples what message from God they must learn to pass on to others, yet he never explained this rather basic point????

Jesus told them many times he would rise from the dead, yet somehow he never checked to see if they understood plain speech???? This is all just absurdity upon absurdity.

How then can we trust the Gospels if the disciples got such basic info wrong? What else did they get wrong?

What? You mean Jesus had raised people from the dead, had prophesied that he would rise from the dead, and yet his closest followers, that he hand-picked, thought it was nonsense when the last part of the prophecy fulfillment came through, just as Jesus had many , many times told them.

These disciples had been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, had been sent by Jesus to teach and preach, yet they thought Jesus's own prophecies were nonsense and made no sense to them?

Matthew 26:62The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.'

Apparently these preacher-teacher disciples who had been given the secret of the Kingdom of God, thought it was nonsense that Jesus claimed he would rise again after three days, as Jewish Messiahs don't do that, yet Jesus's opponents understood exactly what Jesus had been prophesying???

This is really hard to believe.....

Hobbs

I haven't yet read how you say God has specifically answered your prayers (obviously, since you haven't written it yet), but I bet I can accurately predict right now that I will not conclude that you are making it up. There is another alternative, which I very likely will think: that you are mistaken in your sincere interpretation of the events. Just like you think Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, and others who you believe are not in real communion with the real God yet who are themselves utterly convinced that they are, and that God speaks to them and answers their prayers. If they can be sincere but profoundly mistaken, why can't you? Why should we accept your interpretations over theirs? Why should you accept your interpretations over theirs?

Gawen

ALL humans? And "because higher than self is what created human life"? Well, that depends doesn't it? I do not seek for perfection, knowing that I can never attain it. And I also do not know what 'perfection' is. It seems very relative and subjective to me. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I seek to better myself. I can better myself by looking back and seeing what I've done....or not done. As for your interesting dilema for atheists, I think it falls flat. The atheist has to believe in a higher self (and by this term you use, I consider it to be another use for god) outside of himself.
I do not seek what I think does not exist. I am myself. There is no other self. I can make myself lower by doing horrid things. And that is easy. But it's much harder to make myself higher. Actually, I like the way I am. I am content, as an atheist, that I am comfortable in myself and my beliefs. I need nothing higher.

Once again I must reaffirm that I do not seek a "higher than self" either to know it or to become like it.
Who am I to explain anything virtually unknowable? At the same time, who am I to seek out, to know, to become something that is virtually unknowable and highly subjective? I will not presuppose that ALL people do this. I also have a hard time thinking that the 'big bang', being a chemical explosion, as you somewhat put it, is something higher than myself and worthy of seeking the truth, knowing and become like that truth. I am not concerned of creation. I could care less. I am full of chemicals and electrical transmissions. I can come together with a female counterpart and acheive the 'big bang' and spawn life against virtually all odds. How is that any higher or lower than the original big bang or higher or lower than any other autonomous 3 dimensional bag of chemicals doing the same thing, countless times per day?

I have heard this a million times. Why must every person have faith in SOMEthing? I have no faith at all in anything supernatural or metaphysical. I do have faith in myself, however. I do not have faith in science either. Science does what it can. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. But it has a better track record than a 6000 year old god.

Your dilemma for atheists must have them assume a higher self. Most of us believe that we are the highest there is. And some of those wish to be better at it.

Evolutionist

to be honest i was taking 4god seriously up until he gave away the fact that he's a young earther... now i find it hard to take anything else he says seriously- wish it wasn't so, but i'm only human, and his misuse (or at least liberal) use of the word "faith" to describe two essentially different things doesn't help too much.

talking about religious faith (belief without evidence/belief in any god), and faith in a person or thing (belief that when you leave your house it won't get up and walk away so you can find your way back, or belief in your senses being accurate etc) as if they were the same thing is a bit cheeky...

mfaber

The Bible says that in the "Days" creation story that plants were created on the 3rd "day" (Gen. 1 (KJV):12-13) and the sun was created on the 4th "day" (Gen. 1:16-18).

A creationist who claims that God created the universe in 6, 24-hour days, based on a story told by scientifically-unsophisticated, Bronze Age Middle-Eastern nomads who claimed that God didn't create the SUN UNTIL THE FOURTH "DAY" have a number of problems................

QUESTION: "Our clock time is based on the Earth's rotation with respect to the sun from solar noon to solar noon. This is a solar day, and it is divided into 24 hours." (From Earth's Rotation and Apparent Daily Motion) ]How was "time" calculated without the sun? In other words, how can one have a "24 hour day" with a morning and evening without the sun?

QUESTION: Plants were created on DAY THREE. Plants need the sun to perform photosynthesis, how did they survive without the sun? If you are correct, then the Genesis story shouldn't contradict known scientific facts. Plant photosynthesis is dependent specific wavelengths of light generated by the sun (not all "light" is up to the task).

This brings up another problem... It is quite obvious that the ancients did not have a clue about the nature of "light" and thought that "light" and "dark" were mutally exclusive, i. e., darkness was the "absence" of light. This is NOT true. Light has a specific definition: Not all electromagnetic radiation is detectible by the human eye (infra-red, x-rays, radiowaves, gamma rays)

• "Light" that the ancients understood would have been those wavelengths detectible by the eye ONLY.
• There is actually "light" in the form or x-rays, radiowaves, infra-red in the "darkness" of outer space ("dark" to our eyes)===>This is why there is really no such thing as separation of "light" from "darkness".
• "Darkness" is relative in that it a term defined by our inability to perceive certain spectra without the aid of special instrumentation.
• In reality, there is no such thing as "darkness'" if one tries to define it as the absence of "light".

ALL light has a SOURCE:
The problems with Genesis with respect to "light" are these: (summing up)........

First, "light"(incandescent light) creating the day had to have a SOURCE. Where did the "light" mentioned Genesis come from for the "morning and evening" of the "days" (light sources NOT created until late in the game)

Second, Genesis says that God separated the "light" from the "darkness". That is also erroneous because "darkness" is NOT the absence of light. "Darkness" is simply an term that illuminates the fact that we are blind (in the dark) to certain types of light.

Last, not least, you do know that there are Genesis has TWO creation stories and they conflict with each other? (The "6-DAY" Priestly story versus the Yahwist "Adam/Eve" story? ) How do you explain this?

4God

This thread began as something...and has moved to something else.

MY original intent was to pose the question...is atheism a form of religion?

perhaps if i didn't inflect that I was Christian this would have garnered more objective debate(the name "4GOD" doesn't help either)

But instead, it seems as though I have been called to defend the Christian faith (though, i owe part of the blame to myself through my original post) Unfortunately, that wasn't the aim of this thread and I'd still like to talk about the implication that atheism is a religion.

I'll start here.

At present, I do not know of any information that leads me to the logical conclusion that atheism is no more than a religion of self. In other words, I would like someone to describe for me their atheism and how it in no way shape or form resembles a religion.

So we all are clear, by religion I mean

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Also, I didn't realize how much "faith" was a buzzword. Perhaps as one respondent suggested, I should have used "trust". However, if you trust something to be true, doesn't that imply you have faith in it? In any event, a better wording probably would be "we all believe something." if you believe nothing, that in and of itself is a belief. I say we all believe something, because we, especially in this forum, are thinking animals, and at the very least have been able to survive the external forces acting against our survival(please don't run with that...i only mean that a baby will not survive on an island by itself...this is an assumption, so please take is as a generalization, not a statement of fact.)

If you think this statement is fallacious as well please illustrate, it would be a very interesting read i think! As a sidebar, what is atheistic thought on psychics? And if any believe that the psychics do speak to those dead, how do they do it? Just curious.



Finally, to address those that asked about what prayers God has answered for me...i think I'll try with three examples--one from my wife. Obviously, I do not expect many of you to believe them. But, I am very curious as to what you have to say about these typical situations that have occured in my life since walking with God.

1. 1997--I am told to pray for my "wife and son" and that "my wife was near". I didn't have a wife, or girlfriend at the time. Within a month of said prayer, I meet my wife-to-be. Obviously, i wasn't sure she'd be my wife for a while, so I didn't tell her this. But, when I did reveal it, she also revealed that at the time of my prayer she was going through a deep depression. So for me, this was God's way of lookin' out for His daughter. As far as son goes, this goes to 1a. in which God told me "within a year you will have a son". Needless to say 11 months later we had a son. Worth noting, my wife and I never used protection and this was during our first year of marriage...so you fill in the details....After I rec'd this word I didn't really change much and went about life as normal.

Objections you may have: Coincidence. Anyone could have been my wife, and the woman i chose for the job just-so----happened to have problems when I prayed. This is no big deal....and your son...don't let me get started. You used no protection and were within the first two years of marriage...statistically speaking...you should have gotten pregnant!

2. 1993-I ask God please don't let any babies die tonight. I live near philly(and it was Feb), pa so i'm not out in the boondocks where such a thing couldn't occur with any sort of frequency. In the morning...a baby was found in the dumpster...ALIVE!
Objections: Just another coinky-dink.

3. 1996. This same wife whom had not met me was instructed with this "you are to marry 4God(err..my real name that is) and sing for my glory" Again, she hadn't met me and I her. We met and are married. She didn't drop this nice little piece of info on me for quite a little while, though, if God had told me the same...i'd have been like duh...but that's neither here nor there.
Objections: (if you knew me) I was a radio disc jockey on a program that she listened to. I definitely had a following and my handle was Brother 4God. So, it is possible that she was listening to the program at the time and related the name to the program. Statistically possible but highly unlikely. Two, she could just be lying. Three, b/c she "believed" she heard the name "4God" it was inevitable that she made this belief a reality. IMO, this last objection is the only one worth noting...however, she's a hottie, but who's to say a guy named 4God would want to marry her anyway.


Fire at will...

blindwatchmaker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4God

At present, I do not know of any information that leads me to the logical conclusion that atheism is no more than a religion of self. In other words, I would like someone to describe for me their atheism and how it in no way shape or form resembles a religion.

So we all are clear, by religion I mean

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

4GOD, Atheism is not a cause. It is simply the rejection of the existence of god, on the grounds that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for such a claim

It is not a principal in the same way that lack of belief in Santa is not a principal.

Atheism is not a system of beliefs. It is a lack of one belief. Nothing more. Some subscribe to what is known as Strong Atheism (The positive belief that there is no God), but this is not a "system" of beliefs, rather one specific belief (in the same way that believing that unicorns are not real is not a system of beliefs)

Therefore according to YOUR definition above, it easy to use logic to show that atheism is not a religion. Case closed there?

As a note, I wouldn't say that atheism " in no way shape or form resembles a religion." There are things they have in common (strongly held belief etc) but this does not make them the same thing any more than strong belief in racism and strong belief in equal rights are the same thing. According to your logic, one could describe strong belief in equal rights as "just another kind of predjudice". Clearly this is ridiculous.


As a sidebar, what is atheistic thought on psychics? And if any believe that the psychics do speak to those dead, how do they do it? Just curious.

Unfortunately, the very fact that you ask this question shows a deep lack of understanding on your part. There is no such thing as "atheistic thought on psychics". This is like saying "What is the position of republicans on psychics" or "What is the christian thought on who shot JFK".
I do suspect however, that the majority of atheists would probably reject psychics as not really speaking to the dead. This is because the thing that makes an atheist an atheist is unwillingness to believe things without sufficient evidence. It is quite easy to show that not a single "psychic" has ever shown sufficient evidence of speaking to the dead to take the claim seriously. If you doubt this, examine the works of James Randi and Carl Sagan.

Unfortunately, the world is full of gullible people, who are eager to be duped and fooled by psychics, mediums, spoon benders and other cracks as well as by the claims of many religions.

As for your stories of god answering your prayers, you pretty much shoot them down yourself!

Do you think the level of evidence you present would be sufficient to convict a man of murder or determine a medicine to be safe?
Any reasonable society would demand a much higher degree of conclusiveness.
You are pre disposed to interpret events in your life within the framework of your religious belief and are therefore bound to see patterns and connections between your thoughts in prayer and what happens to you.

There is a very useful principal by David Hume that says that for a miracle to be believed, the falsehood of the miracle must be an even bigger miracle. If you apply this test to your stories you willl soon see that they don't hold up as evidence for your prayers being answered.

I'm very pleased that you are happy to engage in reasonable debate and I don't think that at this point you realize how much you have to gain by hanging out here for a while. If you are truly willing to examine your beliefs and let reason, logic and truth guide you, then trust me friend, you are at the start of an amazing journey that will change your life for the better. If however you have decided that whatever you learn or however your present beliefs crumble under scrutiny, you will not change your position then you are only kidding yourself and wasting time being here.

I really hope it's the former.

Merry Christmas

Steven Carr

4God
MY original intent was to pose the question...is atheism a form of religion?

CARR
1) No. No more than theism is a form of religion
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism are religions. Theism is an adjective describing certain religions. It is no more a religion itself than , say, 2000 year-old. To say Christianity is a 2,000 year old religion is not to say that 2,000 years old is a religion.

To say Christianity is a theistic religion is not to say that theism is a religion.

2) Are atheist organisations given religious tax-breaks? No