What atheists actually think

[everstill]

You said "when you thought you were saved":

Ah yes, you did say that, for you said of yourself, "I once believed." You are guilty of a doubletongue when you also said, "I never ever thought I was saved..." The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

I find that Christians are so inconsistent within their own speech that it's no wonder that they're fine with the inconsistencies of the Bible.

I don't. I am glad you can't show it.

You have no knowledge of the real world. You're a delusional religious fundie that only wants to see the world from within your own bubble. You're likely uneducated and ignorant to the true aspects of reality and completely unschooled in science.

This is what I think of you.

Your understanding of cause-effect and time is infantile. Scientists DO say that radioactive decay is uncaused. It's because you don't understand this why you're able to make such ridiculously weak arguments for god as you've presented. At a quantum level we realise that time doesn't cause anything and is just a dimension just like the 3 dimensions of space. You can go backwards and forwards along it. Cause and effect are not caused by it, the causes of things are caused by the four fundamental forces. Not trillions of random ****.

I don't know any credible scientists who thinks radioactive decay comes from nothing. That's infantile. Something doesn't come from nothing, that which does not exist. How absurd! It's because you are delusional you can't see something can't come from nothing. That's why you make ridiculous claims something can come from nothing. Of course time is a dimension, but that doesn't exclude causation. How absurd! Time is integral to the process. You can't go back in time. Once something has happened it has happened. You're watching too many sci-fi movies. Time allows for causation in nature along the spans of time. There are trillions and trillions of causes and effects in nature. Try it out yourself, you could list a hundred fairly quickly. You're typing right now because your fingers are pressing the keypads, you are typing because you want to rationalize you are not going to Hell, and you are doing this because of your evil heart and this is the way you want to be. And on and on and on. Cause and effect. Quadrillions and Quadrillions. Time to grow up!

Your argument fails. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science, a complete lack of understanding of time and a complete lack of understanding of logic.

Do more research before you make arguments.

You failed to answer my question. Do agnostics believe in god?

I am glad you can't show your accusations but only assert them. I already said agnostics are not sure either way; they are not atheists, for atheists claim God does not exist and don't believe in Him. You've got to stop asking me the same question over and over when it was already answered. If you can't find the quote, I'll find it for you.

[Yrost]

Wrong...

I said I once believed. I did. I was once very religious... I simply have never believed in the Christian god, nor do I know very much about it.

Also, I'm typing because of electromagnetic forces inside my mind instruct my body to do so. As my fingers strike the keyboard electromagnetic forces come into play which moves the keys downwards and more of the same forces send the information across the world. These forces are consistent because of nuclear forces and gravity that hold me into the composition that I am. This is what real science tells us. Which basically means:

Everything is due to gravity, electromagnetic and nuclear forces.

I'm not trying to rationalise that I'm not going to hell, because such a place is not proven to exist. Even if there was a god, hell need not exist. But what is happening here is that you are desperately trying to hold on to middle eastern myths about a fantastical fun house that you will go to after you die.

[everstill]

Saying you once believed and were religions yet not in the Christian context I was discussing is deceptive at best.

Real science doesn't limit itself to the means, but also can infer the purpose, since nature can't always have existed, then there must be a Creator outside of time and space, and since there is a Creator, there is purpose. Your striking the keys has purpose behind it, it doesn't just happen because electromagnetism exists.

Hell is proven to exist, since God is proven to exist and Jesus is proven to be God who spoke on Hell more than anyone. So really deep down inside you are just not being honest with yourself that you really want to go to Hell.

Hell is necessary since obviously you can't cease to exist and you can't be with God's people.

I don't think of the New City as a fanciful fun house. I see it more as a place of enjoyable work, sinlessness and wonders God has for us, for He said nobody knows all the things He has planned for us who love Him.

[Yrost]

Saying you once believed and were religions yet not in the Christian context I was discussing is deceptive at best.

Assuming that belief is tantamount to Christianity shows how much you believe everything revolves around your god.

Ceasing to exist is actually the most obvious end.

There is nothing to say that my striking of these keys has any other reason than the existence of the 4 fundamental forces. Electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity.

Real science is limited to our knowledge. We have no scientific knowledge of god, we have no scientific knowledge of how the first atoms formed. To explain these two things with each other is circular and fallacious.

There is no reason to believe that nature did not always exist.

[everstill]

When one person is arguing for belief in Christianity and then you say you once believed too when you actually didn't, you're giving the false impression you believed in Christ also, since it would be oddly out of context to be referring to some other faith.

Obviously you can't cease to exist since you are made in God's image, which never ceases to exist. Just like when an image of something is taken. So since you will never cease to exist, but you don't want to saved, you can be certain you will go to Hell.

While these 4 forces are in play, your striking the keys can be seen because you have fingers, a brain, and because you want to rationalize your flesh you are not going to Hell. These are the causes I am referring to, not the constants and variables of nature that allow for the fingers and brain to exist.

The basic scientific knowledge we have we always had of God is that there are trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so we know nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. We would not need to know all things to know this, for it is sufficient to have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt like in a court of law.

To try to explain where atoms came from naturalistically when you don't know the natural cause would be circular and fallacious, but we do know they ultimate originate from the source, which is the uncreated Creator as described and whom we know to be Jesus who created all things, because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Amen.

As we have discussed, you know nature did not always exist, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

[Yrost]

You were talking about God, whom I once believed in.

We aren't obviously made in god's image.

I have fingers because of electromagnetism, controlling the communication of the atoms; strong and weak nuclear force, holding my structure together; and gravity keeping me in the safe confines of the earth. Nothing more. My thoughts are also based on those forces.

Trillions of causes are not god and therefore can not be knowledge of him.

There is no evidence to support the assumption that nothing comes from nothing. On the contrary there is phenomenon that scientists know to be spontaneous and causeless.

The disciples actions can be explained as an elaborate work of fiction.

Time breaks down in quantum mechanics. Physicists explain it as traversal dimension with no beginning nor end, which means that time is naturally eternal.

[everstill]

You gave the false impression it was the Christian God. What you believed in was what you called God but certainly not God of the Bible whom is the only One True God. You could go further and admit you believed in Satan because he was not God of the Bible. You could still go further and say, you still believe in the Devil and bow to him, because you still reject God of the Bible.

We are obviously made in God's image since we are (a) quite unlike any other creature in the universe; (b) Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection; (c) He died to save us from our sins; (d) He testified to us that He was as our Creator, made in the image of God; and (e) He said we would be resurrected as He was.

Your thoughts can't exist by nature alone, for nature alone can't produce thoughts, sentience, life, will, feelings, intuition. You prove this because you can't empirically can't make your case.

That the trillions of causes are not God IS knowledge of Him, since this proves nature always needs a cause, yet you would have happened already. So nature can't always have exist but must have a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. I, therefore, have knowledge of God, firstly, that He exists and secondly, that He created this universe. Hence, Romans 1.20.

The laws of thermodynamics tell us something can't come from nothing. Energy always has a source of energy. There is no energy in that which does not exist. A billion pound gorilla can't lift you upon onto a mountain because it has no energy and doesn't exist. Trillions of causes in nature additionally show causation is always necessary, so nothing always comes from nothing. Scientists have no evidence for anything spontaneous and causeless which is why you could only assert it, but were unable to show it. Just because you don't know the cause to something doesn't mean it is causeless. Presumptuous indeed! You're special pleading. Where's your humility? How do you overturn the trillions of causes in nature? You can't even come up with one artifact of evidence something comes from nothing. You sure like playing a losing game, possibly the worst lottery every known to man with odds against you more than a trillion to one.

Even if time breaks down at singularity, Hawking said it still needs a cause. Your always existing traversal dimension can't merely always have existed, for you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If your mystery "traversal dimension" that can't be found on Google or Wiki, and always existed without end, then we would never have come into being since it would still exist and not lead to the universe. Since you admit time is "naturally eternal" you're admitting an infinite regress, yet you would not still be happening by now, having had an eternity to do so. Each theory you come up with fails because it is not grounded in reality of what we do have for evidence of trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing.

To try to thwart off the problem with infinite regress, you produce an always existing timeless state of pre-universe conditions. If it is always timeless then the universe would never have existed. Whereas God who is outside of time can bring the universe into being because He has a will. You're producing a timeless dimension in place of God. What I would suggest is that is effectively your mindless god or idol. So you have proven the uncreated Creator exists except you make him a timeless dimension. But for the Creator to create a mind, He must be a mind and not a dimension. Dimensions have no minds. The lesser can never produce the greater. It's never been see in history.

Since so many corroborating independent sources of apostles knowing apostles, disciples working with disciples, across different periods of time, and you have no evidence for your fictional theory, then your theory is false. The burden is on you to show a fictional theory could be true. Ancient critics tried to refute the resurrection, indicating it was historical.

The award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas says it best I think. "If we look at the New Testament material on Jesus' resurrection, there are indicators that the accounts were meant to be understood as historical rather than mythical [or fictional]. Consider the two sermon summaries of Peter and Paul, recorded in Acts, that contrast King David's buried body with Jesus' resurrected body" (Acts 2.22-32; 13.34-37) (88-89).

They claimed that Jesus' body did not decay in the grave as David's did, but rather was raised by God. It is difficult to imagine how Peter and Paul could have been any clearer if they meant to communicate a literal, physical resurrection. If a mythical [or fictional] genre was being employed, Peter and Paul could have easily said, "David died, was buried, his body decayed, but his spirit ascended to be with God. Jesus likewise...."

On page 294-295, we read, "Also note that Peter's sermon as portrayed in Acts 10:40-41, he claimed that he and others "ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead." Luke seems to be intending to record historical events when in Luke 1.1-3, he writes,

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the world, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have taught."

New Testament critical scholar Bart Ehrman comments,

"There may indeed be fictional elements in the account, as we will see; but judging form the preface to volume one [i.e., Luke's gospel] from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and from the main characters themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can be more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Christianity, not a novel. Moreover, all of the ancient Christian authors who refer to the book appear to have understood it in this way." (Bart D. Erhman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], 124)

See also A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 188-89. "The work of Luke cannot be evaluated properly if we group it with inferior contemporary literature that treats of heroes, thaumaturges and other popular characters. It is genuine history" (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981], 3:395).

Some scholars have noted that the appearance language in the New Testament is the language of sight (Luke 24.34, Acts 10.40-41, 13.30-31, 1 Cor. 15.5-8). The writers did not use metaphorical language, so they at least thought God had acted literally upon them in the appearances of the risen Jesus.

Although 2 Peter cannot be part of the "minimal facts" argument because many scholars question its authorship by Peter, it still provides early testimony that at least some Christians within one hundred years after Jesus were interpreting events such as Jesus' transfiguration and resurrection as historical events.

In summary I would say, if the intent was to be historical and not mythical or fictional, I am not sure how they could be any more clear. And if they wanted to be mythical or fictional, I can't find any evidence for this proposition from the historical record. Praise the Lord!

[Churchwork]

On page 295...

We can also note with New Testament scholar Craig Bloomberg, "A careful reading of the patristic evidence suggests that indeed the vast majority of early Christians did believe that the type of information the Gospel writers communicated was historical fact, even as they recognized the more superficial parallels with the mythology of other worlds."

[Yrost]

In what verse does Jesus testify that he was god?

Thoughts are just processes, we have re-created similar processes with computers. There is no reason to believe they are supernatural.

Our consciousness is the only consciousness we can certainly be sure of. All others are assumed an not known. It is this fact that leads some towards Solipsism.

I still do not see what trillions of causes in nature there are. I only see the 4 fundamental forces.

Thermodynamics is currently being reconciled with Quantum Dynamics as Quantum Thermodynamics. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics needn't always apply.

Radioactive decay is known to be spontaneous. Disproving your claim that nothing is spontaenous.

The traversal dimension of time I speak of is called Imaginary Time. There is no past and future in imaginary time. Therefore it does not require infinite regress.

The synoptic gospels are almost identical. Usually this would imply that the authors were simply copying from the same book or books. This is the basis for the Two Source Hypothesis and the idea of Document Q.

So how can we tell exactly who wrote them or if they're fictional or not?

[everstill]

In what verse does Jesus testify that he was god?

Jesus never said he was a god, but God. Did you want some verses where He said He was God?

Thoughts are just processes, we have re-created similar processes with computers. There is no reason to believe they are supernatural.

Computers don't have free will, thoughts that can create and contemplate, feelings, volition, intuition, communion, conscience, ability to procreate, self-consciousness and God-consciousness. What a silly conversation.

Our consciousness is the only consciousness we can certainly be sure of. All others are assumed an not known. It is this fact that leads some towards Solipsism.

That is a false belief, obviously, since nature can't always have existed, nor start up from nothing, thus requiring a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and must have a mind because the lesser can never create the greater. It stands to reason since God created your mind, a maximally great God would create others, so when you talk with me, you can be confident you are talking to a mind and vic versa. There are so many dumb ideas out there. I can see you are reaching? You are reaching with your flesh to be unsumbmissive to your Creator. That's asinine and bound for hell.

I still do not see what trillions of causes in nature there are. I only see the 4 fundamental forces.

When you pick up a rock, it is because you wanted to. That is a cause. There are other causes such as your ability to do so. Just because you observe 4 laws, doesn't mean these causes are not real and not utilizing those laws. So we trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and not only that, but EM, Gravity, etc. need a cause too, since if they always existed, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Take this further. You only see these 4 forces, but I only see God. Simply compare your always existing forces to God, and your forces lose out, because your forces can't produce a mind, morality, conscience, free will and feelings.

Thermodynamics is currently being reconciled with Quantum Dynamics as Quantum Thermodynamics. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics needn't always apply.

Why's that? There is no reason to think like you do except hostility to your Creator.

Radioactive decay is known to be spontaneous. Disproving your claim that nothing is spontaenous.

Just because it is complex in its nature is no reason to assume it is spontaneous without causation. Every time you can't figure something out, don't you feel arrogant by asserting it happened all by itself? I would. I am glad scientists are not like you, closing up shop, but they keep searching for the causes. You're not very scientific.

The traversal dimension of time I speak of is called Imaginary Time. There is no past and future in imaginary time. Therefore it does not require infinite regress.

If your theory is true you must ask where it came from, since you can't arbitrarily invoke it as the root cause of all things. Since it doesn't have a mind it can't produce a mind. Since it doesn't have free will, it can't give us free will. Since it feels nothing, it can generate no feelings. We need God for this. Praise God, we are made in His image!

The synoptic gospels are almost identical. Usually this would imply that the authors were simply copying from the same book or books. This is the basis for the Two Source Hypothesis and the idea of Document Q.

Most people argue there are so many differences, contradictory differences, so they cannot be from the same source. I agree there are many differences, so there were was no copying, but none of those differences to my knowledge are contradictory. Whether you want to think one or two of the gospels worked off an imaginary source, there really is no evidence for it. They are just taking common points and constructing an imaginary source out of it. You can make endless imaginary sources this way. Silly. I consider Mark to be very excited about Jesus as his own independent source, would be included in the 500, and mentions himself running in the streets naked. He is quite impetuous, so much so, Paul did not want to go on his next mission with him, but they reconciled later in life.

So how can we tell exactly who wrote them or if they're fictional or not?

Since there are no problems, as described, what's the problem? Historians don't throw the whole Bible out, but can glean some facts from it like other historical documents. One of those facts are there were multiple different group settings having seeing what they believed to be Jesus alive from the dead, talked with Him and touched Him. Paul confirms this reciting the gospel in 1 Cor. 15 and some of those eyewitness accounts, for Paul spent 15 days with Peter, and with James and John. He mentions also being with them on more than one occasion and said they added nothing to him which indicates they were in complete agreement. Amen.

Realize why Christians are Christians. We are Christians because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and appearances, and because you invoke a non-mind for the causation of all things even though, obviously, a non-mind can only act and react, but can never produce sentience. That is just a pipe dream you cling to that you use to send yourself to Hell. As you wish.