The Need To Question Atheism

by The wanderer 142 Replies latest jw friends

Anti-Christ

Thanks Lt.
nvrgnbk

Yo vinny, I was considering believing in God again till I read your arguments. Now there's no way in hell.
Nvr
Vinny

Well, pretty much what I figured folks, a whole lot of NOT MUCH. Let's see what the atheists had to say today.

.......................

Sorrry Tetra, but I prefer the blue pill...

LTCMD.LORE says:.."But unfortunately I thought it was supposed to be an arguement against evolution when in fact you say it was intended to be against abiogenesis"

Tell me this, if you can buy into such laughable explanation as this, then you are STUCK with red corvette in your lap once again. And, if you can buy into such laughable explanation as this, then why can't a Powerful, Intellectual Creator be on your list of possibilities? Please answer that. Why be so adamant against creationism, when the alternative is just plain impossible?

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

All to often Einstein’s words have been misunderstood or misconstrued to represent a view that was not his own; though through honest inquiry, we see his views were very enigmatic and touching closest to the philosophy of pantheism.

pantheism |'pan?e?iz?m| |?pøn?i'?z?m| |?pan?i??z(?)m|
noun
1 a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2 rare worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

*****Like I said, do the math. Einstein KNEW all these incredible features did not just come to exist on their own.

The bible tells us that God had no beginning.

Psalm 90:2 ...Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.

psalm 93:2... You are from time indefinite to time indefinite.

Isaiah 57:15 ....God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’

Revelation 15:3 ...righteous and true are your ways, King of Eternity.Revelation 15:3 ...righteous and true are your ways, King of Eternity.

No human beings were there in the beginning of the universe to witness what exactly happened. Brilliant minds today can only guess and try to formulate theories. The bible says pointedly: "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". There is sound and reasonable reasons to believe, as many (including some of the most intellectual minds ever born) in Creation. That all life as we know it today was deigned by the only one who is not subject to time, the only one that never had a beginning. The only one that is not confined by space and bound by physical laws. Laws in which he created and therefore would not be subject to. None of which here is a stretch to either grasp, believe or understand. It makes sense to me. It is believable, logical and reasonable.

Some like to suggest, "well you cannot prove this, so you really cannot say with any certainty that you believe this". And for those that do feel this way, I disagree. I should add, I "respectfully" disagree. I have no problems with others that feel differently than I. But I can believe and do believe in the existence of God, through more than just faith itself. Though faith is an integral part of this equation too. In fact it is needed to a degree. But there is also EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today. Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed. Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively. Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer. The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

So in conclusion, I believe God had no need for a designer because he had no beginning. Time is his own creation, so he is not subject to it.

Almost atheists reply:... "No one knows. There are ideas being kicked around, but nothing definitive. There was a time when we didn't know how seeds sprouted, so we attributed it to God. Lightning, rain, earthquakes -- all assumed to be acts of God. Now we know better, but we still don't know how life originated. Does it make sense to simply assume it was an act of God, when all these others turned out not to be? Dave"

I can fully respect why anybody might choose to be agnostic. I can even respect those that are atheist, though adamantly disagree with you. Because I personally believe the bible is inspired does not mean that it is. Though, as I stated above, my reasons for such belief are not without a strong measure of evidence .It's more than "just blind faith" to be sure in my mind.

Most people today do have a difficulty with the "all things just happened to form into these beautiful, complex, intricate features out of lifeless matter, by a series of chances" concept. Well, the difference between many of you and I then, is perhaps the degree of difficulty with which we find such a concept. I believe it is impossible for things, like the human brain for example, to have evolved from lifeless matter at all. When I watch a beautiful sunset (and I live in Hawaii as a professional landscape photographer, so get to see plenty of them), there is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by somebody.

The many systems that allow life on this earth to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and finely tuned with other systems. Again, by some accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just no way these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by chance or in fact did come together by chance. I disagree. I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another. Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

Though I do respect anybody's right to believe what they wish, to convince me to accept such beliefs then, one will have to do a whole lot better than what's been presented so far, which really is not much at all.

We can move forward and onward then. I will check back later, though have already spent far too much time away from other more vital things.

A hui hou,

Vince
Anti-Christ

Like it or don't like it Antichrist, there it is. All you need to do is READ IT this time.
I did read it but was not satisfied by your answer, you use the bible and I don't believe the bible to be the word of god. I not sure about the exitence of god. Just one more point, their is no "absolut" proof that the univers had a begining.
nvrgnbk

Yo Vinny. the " i didn't read it... I have ADD" thing is called sarcasm.
I love you. Not just saying that. My point is that your meandering explanations did not some how wake God up and
get him to arrive on the scene.
As for attacking WAC's flatulence, well your God created it, so I am sure even He must have more of a sense of
humour about it than do you.
You've got a really angry way about you. That tends to alienate people and besides it's not healthy for Vinny. That is
not sarcasm.
Love and respect(you deserve both because you are my human brother),
Nvr
AlmostAtheist

>>"No one knows how" would be correct to put it mildly. And THIS is what you want to put full belief and faith into today?
I know it sounds foreign to someone that has strongly-held beliefs, but I don't "put full belief and faith" in anything. Like others have said, if God showed up with some evidence of his existence and some proof that he created things, I'd believe him. From my perspective, the evidence available points to evolution. So I believe that. If someday it doesn't, then I won't.
The only "evidence" that life came about without god is the lack of evidence for god himself. Just as you don't believe man was formed by elves from mars (since you see no evidence for it), I also don't believe life was formed by god. How did life originate? I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. I'd LIKE to know, but until I do, I wait.
Dave
nvrgnbk

I'd LIKE to know, but until I do, I wait.
DITTO Dave!(Almost Athiest)
Nvr
funkyderek

The Wanderer:
I see your point, but what would be the
meaning of life then?
Who says there has to be a meaning to life? Perhaps it really is hopeless and bleak. The only way we can know is by looking at the evidence. Wishful thinking won't lead us closer to the truth.
What does atheism say about life?
Atheism says nothing other than that "there are no gods".
Does it take the "we are 'recycled' into the something else approach?"
In a sense - in fact in several senses - we are recycled. We are made of atoms that once burned brightly in the first stars, light years away and eons ago. Those atoms have been rocks and trees and water and are now us. Our DNA, that marvellous molecule, is both reincarnated and created anew every generation. It has lived a billion lives, filtered each generation to produce us, the distilled essence of success. If we reproduce we pass on that helical baton, merged with that of someone we love, a virtually immortal testament to our existence. And when our consciousness fades and we die, we leave behind memories in those whose lives we have touched, and as we decompose we give our nutrients back to the earth, generating new life.
That should be meaning enough for anybody! However, if the only thing that would give your life meaning is the eternal continuation of your consciousness, then, no, you won't find it in atheism. But perhaps you should ask yourself why that should be your only criterion.
MerryMagdalene:
I have heard many athiests claim that if only God would reveal God's self to humanity with obvious proof (also claiming this would be a very simple thing) they would no longer be athiests. But I have long disagreed, suspecting that many would still not believe in God but would sooner assume that someone was just pulling an elaborate trick, a grand illusion, or else that they themselves had gone insane and therefore could not trust their own perceptions. The Qur'an says the same thing.
There is certainly always the danger of being fooled by a hoax, an unexplained event, a psychotic episode or just a smooth talker. That's why many people prefer to err on the side of caution. The fact that there are a billion Muslims who have no more evidence for their beliefs than the vile nonsense of the Qur'an is surely proof that humans in general could stand to be a little more skeptical.
DanTheMan:
Birthrates among white Europeans have been falling for years. I think this is because of their failure to find a sense of purpose in their (much moreso than the USA) post-Christian cultural milieu.
I think it's because people are living longer and enjoying the freedom of an extended affluent adolescence with reliable contraception readily available, and thereby starting families later and having fewer children who are better-fed, better treated and better-educated.
I'm not saying these things as an argument for belief. I'm just uncertain as to whether or not people that don't perceive that there's an externally sanctioned purpose to their lives lives find enough mmph in life to ensure that it continues. I know I sure don't.
Perhaps that goes some way to explaining the spread of religion, that people want it to be true or they'll be unhappy. Of course that says nothing about the veracity of the actual claims. A true claim and a comforting one are not necessarily the same thing.
proplog2:
This is why it is impossible for a human to know if an entity claiming to be God is really God. Even if he does something extraordinary you don't know that he is the only one that can do that extraordinary thing.
Excellent point, brings to mind Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
More than that, God himself wouldn't know if he was truly omnipotent. He could have been created by SuperGod to believe he always existed and was completely omnipotent but in reality to have domain over one small part of a universe too vast for him to understand. He would have no way of proving or disproving this hypothesis, which must certainly have occurred to him.
Abaddon

vinny
Enough of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' routine. I know you're naked.
Please explain where god came from without using special pleading.
You are accusing atheists of exactly what you are doing; speculating on how something can come from nothing.
You call your something from nothing 'god'. Atheists call it 'the Universe'. Your hypothesis contradicts the very arguments you use against atheists.
Merry
I have heard many athiests claim that if only God would reveal God's self to humanity with obvious proof (also claiming this would be a very simple thing) they would no longer be athiests.
Are you saying it would be too complex for god to do this? Isn't that like, blasphemous?
But I have long disagreed, suspecting that many would still not believe in God but would sooner assume that someone was just pulling an elaborate trick, a grand illusion, or else that they themselves had gone insane and therefore could not trust their own perceptions. The Qur'an says the same thing.
In imagining this occuring, I think there would be some God-believers who would feel the same way about this manifestation as atheists and would not be certain if it could be trusted as real. There would be others, believer and non-believer, who would accept it.
To me this is a cop-out (English English for an evasion or failure to deal with an issue). It is a 'clever' argument put forward by theists over the years to explain why there is no proof of god. It blames humans for the absense of proof... and limits the power of god by saying god could not manifest in a convincing enough manner. It's a crock.
Rather than admit god is a concept not rooted in provable reality, a thing of a totally different paradigm, theists would rather limit the Almighty power (in one breath before claiming the power is unlimited in the next). How is it better to 'emasculate' god than admit god's apparent nature?
So much for faith.
There is no proof of god. Does this mean god does not exist?No.
Does it mean that god (if it exists) desires itself to be unprovable?Either that or god by its very nature is not something that can be proved.
If god desires that it is unprovable, when by definiton it could prove itself (to say otherwise is to limit god's power), then this INEVITABLY results in potential harm. A person can REASONABLY not believe in god, as there is no proof. This conclusion is the result of the human mind, supposedly designed by god, coming to the very supportable conclusion that things that are real can be proved, so something that cannot be proved is not real. Thus to accept that god willfully does not prove itself is to make god cruel monster, denying its children certain knowledge that they could easily have for their betterment.
If god by its very nature is not something that cannot be proved, it means that god is far from the all-too-human spite monster smiting left-right and centre as depicted by the goatherds who traditonally write about god. It means all that smiting has nothing to do with god, as if god HAD done all that smiting there would have been proof. It might also mean that god is a concept, an ideation, a grand metaphor, an abstract. But still real enough if you believe, and I did think it WAS meant to be about faith, yes?
To me it seems many lack the courage to see god as it might be.
They are lost in the valley of pitiful excuses, worshiping petty cruel gods cast in man's image, as such 'gods' can be dealt with on a transactional basis; loving your brother as yourself or fasing at Ramadan is just another form of killing a sheep to show god you like it.
The idea of god being far grander and greater than that, a way of thinking that unites everything, is everything, seems far too scarey for many, as such a god comes without a manual written by a goat herd telling us what to do.
Terry

Terry says:... "Einstein used "God" as a metaphor for order and predictability and made quite clear he was not talking about a person or intelligence one should pray to or serve."

**** Einstein was NOT an atheist. You can do the math from there.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
To which Einstein replies:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it".
Einstein also clarifies with:
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty."
Further religious declaration:
"Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
And just to make sure you REALLY get his point; Einstein dots his "i"s and crosses his "t"s:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
A God without a theology or intellect who is unconcerned with his creations and cannot connect man with eternity is nothing more or less than a METAPHOR philosophically.
Einstein is, for all practical and definitive purposes, denying the God you would recognise as a person.
Ayn Rand, an atheist, would thank people when they said "God bless you" because she understood their intention to be the "highest power" and that sentiment was enough for her.
One cannot escape from the God metaphor in human society.
But, using Einstein and his great intellectual achievements as a prop to formal religious representations of a personal God is just plain dishonest.

The Need To Question Atheism

Share this