Making the case for atheism...can it be done?

DrTyore

The Prophet 22;395679 wroteMaking the case for atheism...can it be done? That was the question. I assume you think that God should have stopped it and because He didn't there must not be a God?

You would not be correct.

Mark

kwsteve

ISIS believes that Jesus will lead them to victory over the "armies of Rome" in the coming apocalypse. So, I have to ask whose side is Jesus on and how do we know which side is telling the Truth? Also, are the Christian believers prepared to fight ISIS in the Final Battle of Armageddon?

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

The Prophet 22

DrTyore;395683 wroteYou would not be correct. Mark

Care to elaborate how what happened Friday is proof positive for the question at hand?

Brent

The Prophet 22

kwsteve;395687 wroteISIS believes that Jesus will lead them to victory over the "armies of Rome" in the coming apocalypse. So, I have to ask whose side is Jesus on and how do we know which side is telling the Truth? Also, are the Christian believers prepared to fight ISIS in the Final Battle of Armageddon?

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

Good Question

According to scripture the Final Battle of Armageddon is about God's judgement on the nation of Israel. After the Antichrist has broken his peace accord the second half of the tribulation begins. [The first half is started when the Antichrist brokers peace with Israel at which time millions of Christians will be taken from the earth. Theologically speaking, we call this the Rapture. I will be in that group]

There are other interpretations to the book of Revelation, Daniel, Matthew, Thessalonians and Ezekiel, but (this is how I believe the end times will begin.)

Score of people, including Jews, will believe the two witness sent by God proclaiming the time is at hand, Jesus was the messiah you and your ancestors have been waiting for all these years. The time to believe is now God’s judgement draws near.

Judgements in the Book of Revelation the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls:

• First seal (vv. 1-2) – the Antichrist is let loose upon the world
• Second seal (vv. 3-4) – wars begin and peace is lost
• Third seal (vv. 5-6) – famine breaks out
• Fourth seal (vv. 7-8) – the ultimate result of war and famine, which is death
• Fifth seal (vv. 9-11) – persecution of God's people, which brings more of God's vengeance on the world, but not until their evil has been filled up with the last martyr's death
• Sixth seal (vv. 12-17) – a great earthquake along with other celestial upheavals

The seal judgments are also described in Jesus' Olivet discourse, found in Matthew 24. The first four are mentioned in vv. 1-7; the fifth in vs. 9; and the sixth in vv. 7 and 29.

The breaking of the seventh seal occurs in Revelation 8 and marks the second wave of judgments, the trumpet judgments: "When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. … Now the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared to blow them" (Revelation 8:1-2, 6).

The first six trumpets are comprised of the following judgments:

• First trumpet (vs. 7) – one third of earth, trees, grass is burned up
• Second trumpet (vv. 8-9) – one third of the sea creatures die and ships are destroyed
• Third trumpet (vv. 10-11) – one third of the waters polluted and many die
• Fourth trumpet (vs. 12) – one third of the sun, moon, and stars are darkened
• Fifth trumpet (vv. 9:1-11) – Locusts/demons are released to torment people
• Sixth trumpet (vv. 9:13-19) – Four bound demons are released to kill one third of humankind with an army

The sounding of the seventh trumpet proclaims Christ's soon coming and ushers in the last and final series of judgments, the bowl judgments: "Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is finished. … And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives forever and ever" (Revelation 15:1, 7).

Whereas many of the trumpet judgments affect one third of their target, the bowl judgments are more comprehensive in their effect:

• First bowl (vs. 16:2) - Horrible sores on those with the mark of the beast
• Second bowl (vs. 16:3) - Everything in the sea dies
• Third bowl (vv. 16:4-7) - All the waters are polluted
• Fourth bowl (vv. 16:8-9) – The sun burns and scorches people
• Fifth bowl (vv. 16:10-11) – Brings complete darkness over Antichrist's kingdom
• Sixth bowl (vv. 16:12-16) – The Euphrates dries up ; the kings of the East come, and the scene is set for the battle of Armageddon
• Seventh bowl (vv. 16:17-21) – Produces a great earthquake; cities of nations fall; a huge hailstorm occurs.

The seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments of Revelation teach a couple of important truths.

1. First, God's end times and eternal wrath are inevitable.
2. There is a way to escape God's wrath before it comes.
3. Revelation 3:1

Understanding the phrase as it is in the days of Noah?

Matthew 24:37-39King James Version (KJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Brent

trigs

The Prophet 22;395689 wroteCare to elaborate how what happened Friday is proof positive for the question at hand?

Brent

I'm assuming it's the regular response to this. If God is all loving, how could he let atrocities like this happen? So it's either he's not all loving or he doesn't exist. I'm not saying I believe this. I'm just saying that's the argument made in this regard.

compuease

Wow Brent, if that's truly what's in our future, don't think I want to be around.. Sure doesn't sound like any benevolent "insert God of choice here" to me... Sounds more like some sadistic non human entity (alien?) is controlling our little planet for his own entertainment. Maybe we have had it all wrong for centuries?

DrTyore

The Prophet 22;395689 wroteCare to elaborate how what happened Friday is proof positive for the question at hand?

Brent

Sorry for the delay.. was busy

I'll give the very brief one because I know it'll do nothing to convince you and yours. The Muslim person believes in their religion, and gives it the same range of gravitas / weight as any other religion. You believe that a thread like this deserves the consideration and thought processing akin to the meaning of life, medical research, study of physics (i.e. very serious, time consuming, difficult thinking), as does any given person under any other given religion. And it's stunningly wasteful.

Really it's more on a par with "Who would win in a fight - Batman or Wolverine", "Who played Spider-man better Garfield or Maguire", and "Who wore it better J-Lo or Kim Kardashian". I have no problem with discussion of any kind really, fantasy sports teams is a multi-billion dollar industry, I watch and discuss TV shows that are - essentially - trivial. The problem is that religion and theology is given such credit as to put it on par with international politics and peacekeeping efforts, when it should be on a par with fan fiction novels.

Nobody takes hostages / kills people / blows things up on such a level as religious zealots do, no matter how long they've been watching "The Walking Dead", and think Daryl is badass.

Mark

Bfillmaff

compuease

^^ Sounds a lot better than Prophet's version....:rolleyes:

Amazing how words can so easily be misconstrued... I'm still on the fence but am not overly enamoured with either sides arguments. Trouble is, neither side knows sh**, despite claims to the contrary.

DrTyore

compuease;395793 wrote^^ Sounds a lot better than Prophet's version....:rolleyes:

Amazing how words can so easily be misconstrued... I'm still on the fence but am not overly enamoured with either sides arguments. Trouble is, neither side knows sh**, despite claims to the contrary.

Amazing how much more amendable words are when they echo what you want.

Mark

compuease

DrTyore;395795 wroteAmazing how much more amendable words are when they echo what you want.

Mark

And tit for tat, both ways.. And what words do you want? I don't think you're sure..

DrTyore

compuease;395796 wroteAnd tit for tat, both ways.. And what words do you want? I don't think you're sure..

I'm a big fan of "don't be complete dicks"

Mark

Milo

I, for one, have always been glad that my dick is complete. Makes things more enjoyable and requires fewer explanations.

trigs

compuease;395793 wrote^^ Sounds a lot better than Prophet's version....:rolleyes:

Amazing how words can so easily be misconstrued... I'm still on the fence but am not overly enamoured with either sides arguments. Trouble is, neither side knows sh**, despite claims to the contrary.

that's why agnosticism is the best option. can't be proven either way right now. although, i would suggest that one way does seem a lot more plausible at the current time, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it takes to be a theist (the sad truth that neither side considers). however, again the big difference is you don't see extremist atheists killing people and blowing themselves up in the name of science.

MickeyHoldem

trigs;395800 wrotethat's why agnosticism is the best option. can't be proven either way right now. although, i would suggest that one way does seem a lot more plausible at the current time, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it takes to be a theist (the sad truth that neither side considers). however, again the big difference is you don't see extremist atheists killing people and blowing themselves up in the name of science.

I don't agree with the bolder part, but if you'd like to try and convince me... I'm willing to entertain any idea you'd like to put forth! [emoji6]

Bfillmaff

trigs;395800 wroteyou don't see extremist atheists killing people and blowing themselves up in the name of science.

No way... war has raged on for over 500 years between the Allied Atheist Alliance, United Atheist Alliance, and the United Atheist League, most notably in 2546 when the AAA launched a simultaneous sneak attack on the UAA and UAL while they were distracted fighting their own battle. The otters were destined to crush their enemies skulls like clams on their tummies, but were foiled by the ongoing efforts of the Time Child, whose only goal was to return to his home in the 21st century.

trigs

MickeyHoldem;395804 wroteI don't agree with the bolder part, but if you'd like to try and convince me... I'm willing to entertain any idea you'd like to put forth! [emoji6]

well, you can't actually prove that god doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. just because you've never seen him or any evidence that directly proves his existence does not mean that he necessarily doesn't exist. you can surmise that it is highly likely he doesn't exist (imho extremely unlikely), but that is about it. to be a true atheist (someone who even when presented with logical, sound evidence of god's existence would still not believe it) you have to take a leap of faith in that you for sure know that a god doesn't exist.

it's kind of like the problem of induction: just because you experience and see something every day and from all your observations of seeing the same thing, it still doesn't mean that that thing is only that way and nothing else. (wow that was not a great explanation lol.) the classic metaphor used as an example is "all swans we have seen are white. therefore, all swans are white." and then they eventually discovered black swans and realized they were wrong.

so simply saying that god does not necessarily exist because you personally have never in your entire life seen any evidence of god does not lead to a definite fact. the atheist is still choosing to put faith in their observations and take it as fact.

it's the problem in philosophy of whether or not inductive reasoning can lead to actual knowledge. science does this all the time in their belief in the current paradigm of the time. before einstein, all scientists just knew newton was right.

pretty sure this argument won't convince anyone here lol. however, even if it doesn't convince anyone, there are easily other alternatives that are quite possible such as a god that started the universe and from then on has sat on the sidelines watching and not intervening in any way. we would never see evidence of such a god and we'd never be able to prove or disprove his existence. luckily for the atheist, the vast majority of theists do not believe in such a god.

MickeyHoldem

trigs;395806 wrotewell, you can't actually prove that god doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. just because you've never seen him or any evidence that directly proves his existence does not mean that he necessarily doesn't exist. you can surmise that it is highly likely he doesn't exist (imho extremely unlikely), but that is about it. to be a true atheist (someone who even when presented with logical, sound evidence of god's existence would still not believe it) you have to take a leap of faith in that you for sure know that a god doesn't exist.

it's kind of like the problem of induction: just because you experience and see something every day and from all your observations of seeing the same thing, it still doesn't mean that that thing is only that way and nothing else. (wow that was not a great explanation lol.) the classic metaphor used as an example is "all swans we have seen are white. therefore, all swans are white." and then they eventually discovered black swans and realized they were wrong.

so simply saying that god does not necessarily exist because you personally have never in your entire life seen any evidence of god does not lead to a definite fact. the atheist is still choosing to put faith in their observations and take it as fact.

it's the problem in philosophy of whether or not inductive reasoning can lead to actual knowledge. science does this all the time in their belief in the current paradigm of the time. before einstein, all scientists just knew newton was right.

pretty sure this argument won't convince anyone here lol. however, even if it doesn't convince anyone, there are easily other alternatives that are quite possible such as a god that started the universe and from then on has sat on the sidelines watching and not intervening in any way. we would never see evidence of such a god and we'd never be able to prove or disprove his existence. luckily for the atheist, the vast majority of theists do not believe in such a god.

I do not need to prove God does not exist. I do not need to prove that little green men have visited our planet. I do not need to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

It does not take faith to NOT believe in something, just as it does not take effort to not get off the couch. I don't think to myself at various times during the day or week or year... "I have faith in my belief that God does not exist!"

It's a ridiculous premise to think that one needs faith to not believe in something.

Scientists did not "know" Newton was right. They believed that his model of gravity matched perfectly with known observations at the time, and used these models to make predictions that led to greater discoveries. This is how science works.

Not many people understood Einstein's early paper that threw Newton's existing model out and reinvented the wheel! Only as observations were made that confirmed Einstein's theory was the new model embraced.

This is how science works.

I have varying degrees of certainty about everything I understand. I'm 100% certain about various mathematical laws that have been found. I'm >99% certain about some fundamental models of the universe that have been developed. I can quantify my confidence that these laws and models are correct, but don't mistake that confidence with faith.

I don't need faith to believe that the earth will continue to rotate slowly about its axis, slowly bringing the the closest star into view, because I understand the physical laws governing the motion of mass in curved space, the laws of thermonuclear fusion, and electromagnetic theory! All of these things will conspire to brighten my morning as I sip coffee and read the paper tomorrow morning!

The rest of you can be happy with your faith that the sun will rise and shine tomorrow!

Milo

trigs;395806 wrotewell, you can't actually prove that god doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. just because you've never seen him or any evidence that directly proves his existence does not mean that he necessarily doesn't exist. you can surmise that it is highly likely he doesn't exist (imho extremely unlikely), but that is about it. to be a true atheist (someone who even when presented with logical, sound evidence of god's existence would still not believe it) you have to take a leap of faith in that you for sure know that a god doesn't exist.

it's kind of like the problem of induction: just because you experience and see something every day and from all your observations of seeing the same thing, it still doesn't mean that that thing is only that way and nothing else. (wow that was not a great explanation lol.) the classic metaphor used as an example is "all swans we have seen are white. therefore, all swans are white." and then they eventually discovered black swans and realized they were wrong.

so simply saying that god does not necessarily exist because you personally have never in your entire life seen any evidence of god does not lead to a definite fact. the atheist is still choosing to put faith in their observations and take it as fact.

it's the problem in philosophy of whether or not inductive reasoning can lead to actual knowledge. science does this all the time in their belief in the current paradigm of the time. before einstein, all scientists just knew newton was right.

pretty sure this argument won't convince anyone here lol. however, even if it doesn't convince anyone, there are easily other alternatives that are quite possible such as a god that started the universe and from then on has sat on the sidelines watching and not intervening in any way. we would never see evidence of such a god and we'd never be able to prove or disprove his existence. luckily for the atheist, the vast majority of theists do not believe in such a god.

This is one that just might.

The Prophet 22

trigs;395806 wrotewell, you can't actually prove that god doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. just because you've never seen him or any evidence that directly proves his existence does not mean that he necessarily doesn't exist. you can surmise that it is highly likely he doesn't exist (imho extremely unlikely), but that is about it. to be a true atheist (someone who even when presented with logical, sound evidence of god's existence would still not believe it) you have to take a leap of faith in that you for sure know that a god doesn't exist.

it's kind of like the problem of induction: just because you experience and see something every day and from all your observations of seeing the same thing, it still doesn't mean that that thing is only that way and nothing else. (wow that was not a great explanation lol.) the classic metaphor used as an example is "all swans we have seen are white. therefore, all swans are white." and then they eventually discovered black swans and realized they were wrong.

so simply saying that god does not necessarily exist because you personally have never in your entire life seen any evidence of god does not lead to a definite fact. the atheist is still choosing to put faith in their observations and take it as fact.

it's the problem in philosophy of whether or not inductive reasoning can lead to actual knowledge. science does this all the time in their belief in the current paradigm of the time. before einstein, all scientists just knew newton was right.

pretty sure this argument won't convince anyone here lol. however, even if it doesn't convince anyone, there are easily other alternatives that are quite possible such as a god that started the universe and from then on has sat on the sidelines watching and not intervening in any way. we would never see evidence of such a god and we'd never be able to prove or disprove his existence. luckily for the atheist, the vast majority of theists do not believe in such a god.

This was actually the point of the thread if you look at the OP:

[ Even if all the evidence for Christianity is wrong that doesn't proof that God does not exist. This is what Kai Nielsen has to say on the Atheist's Burden of Proof:

"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false...All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists."

Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4.]

The problem with the atheist position is they don't want to think. They only want to make holes in arguments of people who do want to think about the big questions, and try and come reasonable answers.

As far as the part of your response in bold:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

A modern definition has been created and provided by the World Union of Deists (WUD) that provides a modern understanding of deism.

After the advances in microbiology and our understanding of what takes place in a single cell, Anthony Flew abandoned his atheistic beliefs and converted to Deism. Certainly a more reasonable position better than Atheism or Agnosticism.

Brent

« Previous Page Next Page »