madmax2976

<strong> Atheism describes the lack of belief in or the denial of the existence of any God or Gods. An atheist says, "No, I don't believe in any deities". However, I doubt this is what you had in mind when you claimed atheism doesn't say anything.

<strong> Since when do descriptions "say" anything? I didn't know they were supposed to know how to speak. I guarantee you Christianity doesn't "say" anything either. Christians say many things however. As the only thing that unites all atheists is the lack of belief in deities, the only thing all atheists would agree on saying is, "We don't believe in any deities." But I expect you meant to say something such as "atheists" don't say anything. Obviously that would be an incorrect and non-sensical statement. Please be more specific in your claims.

<strong> What is this babble? Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. How atheists attempt to explain the universe, humanity, self, etc. will be quite different depending on which atheists your speaking about - Buddhists, Toaists, Pantheists, Naturalists, etc. may all have different ideas on these subjects. As atheism by definition only addresses a single issue, I fail to see why you'd expect it to address anything else other than that issue.

I suspect there are some atheists who offer no explanation for the universe and simply admit they don't know. I'm not sure what this has to do with their lack of belief in the existence of any deities. Something tells me your beef is with naturalists more than it is with atheists in general.

In any case, I did noticed you still haven't answered the question. You make reference to this "incomprehensible element", the universe, and humanity but don't draw any of them together to explain exactly what is incomprehensible about atheism.

Please tell us as precisely as you can what you find incomprehensible about someone saying they don't believe in any deities. I'm still waiting.

<strong> Our ignorance does not mean the universe is "incomprehensible". Its means we are ignorant of parts of the universe. It you have evidence of some aspect of the universe that we will never be able to comprehend, please present it. Otherwise withdraw the assertion.

If all you meant to say was that there are parts of the universe we don't currently understand, I agree, but I completely fail to see any point you could make from this.

<strong> Natualism/materialism has so far explained everything we've been able to verify. At least I've yet to encounter any phenomena where we've been able to verify a supernatural/immaterial explanation.

But please, by all means, present your evidence for the conclusion that naturalism/materialism does not account for everything. How could you possibly know this unless you had absolute knowledge regarding all that is natural?

I suppose you could claim that naturalism/materialism has yet to explain certain things, but thats an entirely different matter.

In all these 10 pages of posts David, I've yet to see you support a single assertion you've made regarding atheism, atheists or Christianity. The trend continues.

Theli

Douglas J. Bender...

First, thanks for the info on prophecies and Biblical equations.

Moving on...

Doug:
True. But that's where each testimony needs to be "tested". There are some which are not explainable by any known "naturalistic" means.

Me:
So, we don't know everything in terms of natural causes. Does this mean that we should jump on a completely unfounded assumption?

Doug:
The morning after I had seriously considered devoting my life to bringing the Gospel to Romanian orphans (very seriously), I found a burned-out section of a newspaper headline at the bottom of the stairs to my 2nd floor apartment (I was the only one who used the stairs, by the way, as it was just a house with one apartment on the second floor). The side facing up had only the following words on it (it was burned right around these words, with no parts of other letters appearing): "GO FOR IT". Of course, one could just say, "Ahh, that's just coincidence"; but if they did, they'd be willfully blind.

Go for it?

Go for it?!?

GO FOR IT!??!

How can you be so stupid to post something like this after my counterargument. You just did me a favour. If you want to oppose my claims you should post examples that doesn't fit into my claims. But you just posted an example that verified them.

This is excacly what I was talking about.
You identified the message as being a sign from god, based on prior knowledge. Just like I said above. If the info you used to identify the event is false, then your conclution from the event must also be false.

For instance, if you believed in ghosts, you might have thought that a ghost left the paper on the ground.
"God" has for some strange reason been established in people's mind as the last resort.
If no other explaination exist for an event, then god is behind it.
The note could have meant anything, it could been left there by anything, and yes - It could have been just a coincident.

Evolution is simply the most likely explaination derived from the observation made by us.
Are you a creationist?

That's what I said. For it to be "fine-tuned" to life then there must have been a deside/will for life to exist in the universe. You can't say that it was finetuned to a random result. That is not finetuning.

No, that's a theory/conclution based on an observation.
The observation in this case is that life exist.
You cannot observe that something was created by god. You can reach that conclution, but a conclution like that is faulty.

Oh, so you do assume that the universe was "finetuned" to a random result, and that there was no desire for life prior to big bang?

Might... perhaps... maybe... What am I supposed to do with "maybe". Maybe we will reach the conclution that elvis started life on earth. Maybe we will reach the conlution that life was created superman.
What point is there in posing unfounded possibilities?

And I suppose that "god" is a more likely theory, then?

Not indirectly either. It might be a reason to hope there's a god, or wan't there to be a god. But that's it.

Did I say I might think god exist?
Where?

I simply obtain the information of god's supposed actions or morals by ranting christians. And I've reached the conclution that they are inconsistent.

I never said that "nothing is random", I said that "not everything is random".
Can't you tell the difference?
If everything was random, including gravitational pull, there would be no planets. There would be no natural laws at all, since every particle would act completely random.

Society. Plain and simple. No imaginary god needed.

Morallity will always be subjective. It doesn't matter how powerfull god becomes, if people can disagree with his moral code, it becomes subjective aswell.

You can. But you must remember that there are consequences to your actions. If your morallity involve hitting people, then sooner or later someone will retaliate. And that is no good for you.

If your god existed, then yes.

To who's standard?
To my standard, no.
To a nazi's standard, yes.
To god's standard, I hope not.

This is what I meant about morality being subjective.
There are however moral codes held by the majority of people.

What I'm trying to say here is that it doesn't matter if god created a moral code, or if I/you created one. People will still break the moral code. That's another reason why moral codes can't be objective.

I never said constantly. The laws are there (idealy) to protect people from those who adapt killing people in their moral code. Among other things, ofcourse.

Only one, the bible.

How do you know?
I'm simply writing what I've read many christians write on this board. Except for the candy and whip part, that's a reflection.

Candy and a whip, heaven and hell. Excacly.
If god has to offer you reward for being nice to people then he must have failed miserably creating you. If you can't reach the conclution that killing is wrong without having a carrot dangling in front of you, then you most definatly belong in hell. I don't believe this is true though. I hope you don't need the carrot.

Always.

Douglas J. Bender

Mageth,

Two reasons, at least:

1) There is a clear and rational alternative explanation (that is, you thunk it up all on your lonesome, with no "inspiration" or direction from any supernatural being);

2) God does not lie.


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Baloney. I merely seek to express the truth, and in this thread, that was what I have done regarding David Mathews, especially given all the fawning I've seen here. As far as I'm concerned, now that I've said my piece about David Mathews (I'll say it again here, just in case it's been overlooked: David Mathews is a dishonest, hypocritical, apostate teacher, and is no Christian, but is closer to the prophets of Baal than to a follower of Christ), I consider him to be a waste of time, since he is clearly unwilling and unable to defend any of his beliefs.

Scientiae, you've really got to learn that lying isn't worth it.

Oh great and psychic, mind-reading, Scientiae, who will win the World Series, and what will happen in the coming months?

Scientiae, your behavior here, and previously on ARN, leaves you absolutely no room whatsoever to pretend to view me as a "child", nor does your lack of intelligence and discernment. I am telling you the truth here, Scientiae, when I say that there was a time I thought you were slightly more intelligent than I am, but after having read your arguments and posts for some time, I have changed my mind, and am quite confident that I am a fair degree brighter than you are. This is honestly how I have viewed you, Scientiae.



This thread is titled, "...David Mathews" - I don't see why my observations and comments about David Mathews and his beliefs in this thread could be considered "hijacking" this thread. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Well, in this case I agree - there is no justification for people attempting to hijack this thread and turn it into a "Bash Douglas" thread, especially considering that I have a right to express my genuine opinion about and observations of David Mathews and his beliefs in a thread "devoted" to David Mathews and his beliefs. Thanks, Scientiae.


In Christ,

Douglas

Ted Hoffman

Douglas,
I have news for you. I (you wont believe this) got a burnt newspaper fragment with the words DOUGLAS IS DELUDED. I got it this morning at the foot of my bed. Whats worse, I am an atheist and I keep my windows and door locked. I have no pets and no rodents or animals in my house.
I asked myself "Who the f*** is doing this"?, Who the f*** is Douglas?.
I wanted to refute your "compelling reasons" but the insight I got from the burnt newspaper basically led me to believe someone who bases his theology on burnt wastepaper does not merit the seriousness I wanted to devote to your responses.

One last word, when you get the words Kill them all. That will be the time to seek help.

Back to David Matthews, who I continuoisly find mealy mouthed, like a man in deep denial. But this, to me, is an opportunity to excersise restraint.

Another summary of Davids beliefs:

1. No one will Go to Hell. Rapists, satanists, murderers and atheists will all go to heaven.

2. God created the power of evil and infused it in man. But God is not responsible for humanity's evil deeds even though humanity did not design the nature of evil.

3. Every human being is comitted to all sorts of sins and atrocities except David Mathews. David has comitted some sins, but he is NOT comitted to all sorts of sins and atrocities like the rest of us.

4. Killing others is an evil act. But killing innocent people is Ok if its God killing because the people will still die anyway.

5. Although Prayer works, D. Matthews. does not believe prayer works when people are sick he says: ("My worldview is that the mothers of sick children ought to take them to doctors trained and equipped to help them in their illness."). Therefore, David Mathews does not believe in miraculous healings, even the ones that are mentioned in the bible.

6. David Mathews believes that God does not exist in reality.

7. There is no real evidence for God because that evidence would need to be real. God exists beyond reality therefore there is no evidence for his existence in reality.

8. However, David adds, if we search our souls, we will find one very compelling reason for believing that God exists.

9. David Mathews says we DO NOT EXIST. And when we say we exist, we are lying.

10. David Matthews says our language cannot encompass God because God does not exist in our reality like an apple or an orange does. Therefore we should not waste time trying to describe him.

11. David Mathews believes God is nothing.
This is deduced from David Matthews assertions that God is:
a).immaterial (ie Having no material body or form),
b) infinite (ie Having no boundaries or limits),
c) invisible (ie Impossible to see; not visible),
d) unchanging(ie not active or moving -change can only be perceived if initial conditions can be perceived)
e) physically undetectable (ie not discernible or perceptible by any physical means.)

a) b) c) d) and e) are the very definition of nothing. Therefore God is Nothing.

Just like if I tell you that God is a reactive, colorless, odorless, and tasteless and almost weightless gas. And that God occupies 90% or more of our universe and that the sun and the stars are made mostly of God and that we need God in our everyday life.
Oh, maybe I should add that if we put part of God in a testtube and introduce a flame with a wooden splint, a pop sound is heard)
What would this be that I am referring to as God?

David, please point out if I have misrepresented any of your views.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

HelenM

Originally posted by David Mathews:

Helen, you are exactly right. That is why the majority of atheists, and perhaps all atheists, will find a home in heaven after they die. God will have mercy upon them because they will recognize the magnitude of their mistake, humble themselves before God, and acknowledge that they deserve punishment for their blasphemy. God's love will save such people no matter how obstinate and stubborn their were throughout their life.

Well, shoot, then you're not a real Christian at all if you believe that!

*puts down toys and leaves in disappointment*

love
Helen

p.s. Seriously, I didn't realize you were that 'liberal'. I always heard that the C of C (some of it and not all, evidently) said no-one gets to heaven except those they baptize themselves - that even people who believe the same way as them wouldn't unless they are baptized C of C...seems a little superficial to me but anyway, I guess that's not quite your view...

Theli

David...

The first part I agree with, in most situations that is.

About the second part.
You seem pretty certain of this argument posted, you also seem pretty certain of god's existence.
Marginal certainty I would call conviction of the most likely conclution. And that we have on alot of things.

So how do you suppose we managed to invent the lightbulb?
How do you suppose we can sit here at opposite sides of the planet discussing, if we cannot have any knowledge?
I find you philosophy very strange.
Just because the universe is vast doesn't mean we can't know, or derive the most likely conclution from what we see.
How could the knowledge/claim of your god come to pass, if the universe is so complex we can't know anything?
This kind of philosophy isn't consistent with reality.

The only unique truthvalue that exist in all beliefsystems is the existence of the very system in question. If a beliefsystem cannot bring any new verifiable info, then it's useless as a beliefsystem. It fills no purpose to our worldview.
If a beliefsystem tends to be false in it's conclutions, then all of its unique claims based on that conclution are highly questionable.

It's only use, as I see it is to confuse your motives. Please explain how searching knowledge, and then say knowledge is useless to a belief/worldview has a usefull quality.

So, god is not real?
His qualities/actions/attributes only exists in your own mind?

First of all, no need to get offended. I wan't to keep this discussion civilized.
I am not terrified at any mystery regarding god, I merely tries to create a worldview for myself, and share my ideas/opinions.
And as a personal note, I think the mystery is solved. Atleast for now.

I find this argument of you very strange. Since you don't object to the conclution that god don't exist, you are technically a strong atheist. And you are hiding together with me behind my "atheism veil". So who are you to judge me, when you ultimatly are like me?

Actually, I don't know where I got that from either.
But it's a good example of unreasonable conclutions, followed by unreasonable actions.
Something that is not uncommon in religion.
About the stone, whatever that might terrify me could be just an invention in my own mind, and my fear is indeed unreasonable.
Your counterargument here is a strawman as it doesn't follow the intended issue.
Your first claim was that theism is ultimatly more reasonable then atheism because it has positive claims. This is however a great generalization as that would mean that all claims are reasonable and ultimatly true.
That would be a terrifying aspect, not to mention impossible. As all claims becomes true.

Thanks for replying, I really enjoyed it.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

What a liar and hypocrite. You claimed that you had NOT read ANY of my posts (which is patently false in itself, because you directly responded to my first post to you here, which was on June 25), and that the reason was because you did not want to discuss with "fellow Christians", but with "atheists". Yet you have directly responded to HelenSL, a Christian, any number of times here in this very thread. And it hasn't been even that long that I've been posting on this thread (my first post was June 25, to which you responded; my second post was late June 26, which you ignored).

This thread is the one which "welcomed" you here, implying you had not "visited" here previously - thus, prior to this thread, you would have been unfamiliar with me. So, just how "long" ago was it that you determined to ignore my posts, and considering that you had admitted that you hadn't read ANY, what prompted you to do so? Just the word of others? And how would that be fair to me, if they happened to have been wrong?

Of course, in my second post, I said to you, "I'm sorry, but if that is what you believe, then you are apostate", and I proceeded to ask you how you reconcile various Bible verses with your claim to be a "Christian". It would seem that you became so offended at my saying that you and your beliefs are "apostate" (note it was not said in a threatening manner, but simply factually) that you determined to ignore me from then on. Kind of shows your true colors, if that is the case, David - upon what basis would my opinion that your beliefs are apostate be any different in principle than atheists claiming your beliefs are unjustified or unsupported (and don't bring in the fact that you only want to discuss with atheists, because your responding to Helen would put the lie to that argument)?


In Christ,

Douglas

HelenM

Hi Douglas

Do you think he knows I'm not an atheist?

I suppose it's been clear on this thread, but sometimes people here mistakenly assume I am...

love
Helen

ju'iblex

except for example in...

• NU 14:30 where god breaks his promise
• 1KI 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception.
• 2TH 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)

taken from <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html" target="_blank">Biblical Inconsistencies by Don Morgan</a>