Atheistic Confusion

[Churchwork]

Agnostic or Atheist?

Many self-proclaimed atheists don't like to be called agnostic even though that is what they really are, because they admit there is no evidence for God and there is no evidence for naturalism. All they know is their experience which is they assume to be naturalism, because they only know the world around them, but just because there is this world around them is no reason to leap by faith to assume the atheistic stance, for the world is around them in a would be theistic view also.

But these self-proclaimed atheists are not making an absolute claim God does not exist. So these double talking atheists have this "doubletongue" (1 Tim. 3.8) of contradicting themselves for they claim to believe in naturalism even though God in their view could still exist. This is really just agnosticism.

We need to be intellectually honest with ourselves and draw the distinction between agnosticism and atheism, so that if a self-proclaimed atheist is saying that God could exist, then he in fact is an agnostic. If this person who is really an agnostic is unwilling to come to the table and admit what he really is, then there is dishonesty at the start and no point in discussing.

Objective Morality

An atheist will say that objective morality does exist, except that it is not absolute morality as from a God, because it could change as man changes to whatever he changes into. Whereas Christian moral objectivity remains the same. The collective morality ascribed to by atheists that can change is problematic since it has no moral compass. The whole world could turn Nazi, rape could be legalized and everyone could own a nuclear device if that just so happens to be the direction of man's nature, and it would be objective in the eyes of an atheist. Whereas a Christian would tell you, this goes against the objective morality given by God in His Word.

Fine Tuning

An atheist will say to you sure there is fine tuning, but it is just one of many multiple universes that naturally arises. However, if that were true, then what is changing the independent constants and quantities to bring life into existence? It would be far more likely that the universe would be radically smaller than a universe in which so many variables and quantities are required. The universe would not exist if the weak nuclear force or gravity were off by just by one part in 10th to the 100th power. That is exquisitely fine. Multiply that to all the other fine tuning and you come up with a much more likely scenario of a smaller universe that does not demand so much fine tuning as our universe does. Christians believe just Earth has life on it and the reason the universe was so large is because it was needed to produce the full elemental table and to bring about just one planet that could sustain life.

First Cause

Any universe requires a cause, since they all have a singularity. Nothing can arise out of nothing. Thus, there is a cause to all possible world ensembles which exists outside of the world ensemble.

Christian Religion

Why does the Christian religion become the only one that could be valid? (1) Because of the eyewitness claims of those who saw the Lord Jesus resurrected in groups upon groups, (2) the empty tomb concurs, (3) disciples' transformation from doubters to bold proclaimers, and (4) they were willing to die and did die for their eyewitness testimony.

Personal Experience

Unless you can explain away naturalistically the experience of experiencing God, then a person goes with their experience. If it meshes with the proof of resurrection of Jesus being God, then it is valid. If it doesn't not gel, then the experience is still real, but it is not of God. As the Bible says, test the spirits. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me the reason why atheists are so antichrist is for the same reason Cain killed Abel and the Jews got the Romans to put Jesus to death. They are jealous of us because they have no experience with God. Plain old jealousy!

Conclusion

Because of these findings we can be confident God exists, Jesus is God and Hell has a purpose.

[Churchwork]

I am not absolutely sure that there isn't an invisible, insubstantial dragon living in my garage. This is, after all, completely impossible to prove. However, I would not describe myself as agnostic toward the possibility of garage-dwelling dragons.
Since an invisible dragon would be part of nature, it has a cause, so even if there was an invisible dragon living in your garage, that doesn't do damage to the proof of the fact that since nothing in nature is without a cause, therefore the uncaused Creator must exist.

Do you have any evidence for dragons let alone invisible dragons? If not, then why speculate on something that you have no evidence for. If you are atheist towards invisible dragons, then you are not an agnostic towards then, but you shouldn't be atheist towards them because of your feelings, but because you can't find anything in nature like that. Whereas God is not part of nature, but outside of nature for being that uncaused which is needed to start up the universe, since no other possibility is known to exist. We go with the current understanding of our present knowledge of possible choices and we are left with just this one choice--the uncreated Creator did it!


I also can't be absolutely sure that there is no god. I am, however, absolutely sure there is no personal god as described in the bible - the ascribed properties (i.e. all-loving, forgiving) do not match the observed actions (i.e. killing every man, woman, and *child* on earth except one family). A more deistic god, however, is impossible to disprove so I can't honestly say that I'm absolutely sure one doesn't exist. However, I'm exactly as agnostic toward such a god as I am toward faeries and invisible dragons.
You misread the Bible. The flood was a local flood, their perspective world. The sins were so horrible at that time they were irredeemable, so the flood was necessary. A loving God who is all forgiving realized they would never repent, so it would be unloving God to let them persist to infect those who were redeemable, that is, Noah and his family.

You can disprove a deistic god, because a deistic god is one which has no personal interest in his creation, but that is illogical, for why create the universe and then not care about it? That is purposeless. Whereas God of the Bible is personal as humans are. Why should God hold to a lower standard than humans? And there is nothing more personal than entering into creation to grow up as a man and pay for the sins of all mankind on the cross. Throughout the Bible you find how personal Jesus really was.

You seem to contradict yourself, because you said you were not agnostic towards an invisible dragon in your garage, but you are agnostic towards fairies and then said you were agnostic towards invisible dragons as you are to a deistic god. Yet, you are atheist towards God of the Bible? It seems to me that in proving the deistic god false and there being no evidence for invisible dragons in nature, that it would be strange indeed to be agnostic towards these and atheist towards God of the Bible, for God of the Bible is personal, just, holy and pure. He has the solution to our sin problem, but your other entities do not.


Such attempts at word bending ("if you can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE then you have doubt!!!!") is misleading at best and more likely deliberately dishonest. Science doesn't declare absolute truths, so reserving a word for people who declare god's non-existence as an absolute truth is an exercise in futility - it wouldn't apply to anyone, making it a useless word.
But you apply this same standard to the law of cause and effects in which if you can't be God and know all things, then it's possible God might not exist because you still hold out hope something could happen all by itself in nature. That doublestandard is deliberately dishonest. If you admit you can't be absolutely sure, then you are agnostic, not atheist. For an atheist is sure God does not exist. Be what you are, don't be embarrassed by it. Unless you are honest with yourself, how can you be honest with others. I am not afraid to say I am a Christian, that Jesus is God, and I know this with 100% certainty. If you can't say the same about your atheism, then you are agnostic. Otherwise you are just playing mindless games. Because we are 100% in God's existence and Jesus is God we can have fellowship with Him. Whereas there is always lingering doubt in your faith as there should be for these reasons given why atheism and agnosticism are false. You should be honest with yourself and call yourself what you are, an agnostic. Otherwise you are an atheist which says 100% there is no God. Otherwise you confuse the terms agnosticism and atheism. You should know in your mind what the difference is between agnosticism and atheism.



Opps, you appear to have made a horrible mistake. This point alone discredits your entire "moral objectivity" argument.

FACT: The vast majority of the religious establishment today (including your "christian morality") abhors slavery as morally despicable. However, can you guess which side the vast majority of the religious establishment was on at the time of the civil war? Hint: they quoted the bible as the source of their morality and their side name rhymes with "the mouth".

From wikipedia:

"'Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.'

-Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor"

Since the Bible doesn't teach slavery, then anyone professing to be a Christian who condones slavery is not a Christian. Therefore, your argument fails. It is a sin to bear false witness and realize you can't prove it in the Bible. So those who were promoting slavery were atheists, agnostics and false Christians. In fact it was the Christians who fought against slavery.



Flaws in the fine tuning argument:
1.) It may be as possible for the "fine tuned" states to be different then they are as it is for the value of "pi" to differ.
2.) It may be possible that there are many universes.
3.) It may be possible that the vast majority of values for the constants would eventually develop life - just in some radically different form.

1) The independent constants and quantities may be different, but they are still fine tuned.
2) Even if there are many universes, they still need fine tuning.
3) Still finely tuned as you need to set them just right.


If any universe requires a creator, then any creator requires a creator. Therefor "goddidit" answers nothing, as usual.
That is illogical since God is not in nature. What we have proven is true of nature, but since God is not in nature, it does not apply to God. What God is is the uncreated that is required for the first cause.



Yawn. Do you doubt the existence of mass witnessed miracles for the truth of Islam? But lets look at your silly claims anyway.

Yes, I see no evidence for it, and you didn't show any. Why play pretend?



1.) Wow, mass visions. Just like UFO's. Also our only accounts of these are through the authors of the bible, whom it has been proved added things in whole hundreds of years later. Not reliable accounts of witnesses, and even if they were not reliable witnesses.
2.) Wow, someone stole a body. Amazing. The dead guy must be jesus if someone would steal his body. Again, if that even happened.
3.) Yea, obviously people who declare themselves his "disciples" aren't ready to believe in him. Color me crazy but I don't think someone who dedicates their lives to a man can be called a "skeptic".
4.) Getting killed for saying something doesn't prove its truth, only its undesirability.

1) UFO's are off in the distance and these eyewitnesses were not claiming a vision, but bodily resurrection they could tough, talk with, eat with and walk with as they did in various group settings. Multiple visions in various groups is group hallucinations, but group hallucinations are impossible according to DM-4 for modern psychology. There no such things. Since the church that was built in the fist century was founded on the resurrection, the resurrection was not added. The early church fathers in the late first and second centuries quoted 25 of the 27 NT books, so the Bible was written in the first century, not as you mistakenly claim of things added centuries later. Nobody is more reliable than those who spent 3 years with Jesus, and the skeptic Paul and the skeptic James, brother of Jesus. They did not believe Jesus could be resurrected, but then He was. Since you can't find anyone who is a better eyewitness, then accept these as the best eyewitnesses.

2) Who would steal the body? Not the Jews, for they rejected Jesus being God. Not the Romans, for they could care less about the King of the Jews. The Romans gave permission to a member of the Sanhedrin to put the body in a tomb and the Jewish documents record this. It is illogical to think the disciples stole the body and then lied about Him being resurrected because people don't die for something they know is a lie. And none of the disciples ever changed their minds.

3) Paul did not believe in Jesus. He was a skeptic and then converted based on the appearance of Jesus to him personally. The same is true of James, the brother of Jesus. The disciples who spent 3 years with Jesus thought it impossible a person could rise from the dead, but when Jesus did they had no explanation other than that He must be God.

4) People don't die for something they know is a lie. The disciples were put to death for their eyewitness testimony, so they truly believed it. If you can't find a naturalistic explanation to explain it away, it must be true.


That's an easy one. The experience of god has recently been scientifically replicated with a little carefully controlled magnetism.

Here (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-argument-from-religious-experience/artificial-religious-experiences/) are a couple explanations.
That article disagrees with your conclusion, for read it to the bottom where it's conclusion is "There is a limit, though, to how far this argument can take us" and lists two reasons why God is still using these faculties. Therefore, what is the true test? The true test is whether the experience agrees with the data. What data? The data we have is the resurrection of Jesus. If a faith in some channeling or talking to dead spirits occurs, you know this does not agree with God's Word, so it is an experience not of God but from demons or other source.

[Churchwork]

You seem to be heading for a banning with your recent behaviour. Is "martyrdom by moderator" really so attractive?
I think it is quite beautiful, for we are being martyred for the truth unto rewards.


After all these posts, and you are still lying about what we say? You very well know what we think, so this statement can only be taken as a deliberate lie. Shame on you! You are gambling with your afterlife! Or do you expect that pious lying will be acceptable to God (like the lies in the gospels)?
If you are an atheist, then admit with 100% certainty you believe there is no God. Otherwise you are agnostic, so your hangout place at www.atheist.net (http://www.atheist.net/) is false.


Nothing is 100% certain. Even the Tooth Fairy may actually exist, but God and the Tooth Fairy both share the same low probability of existence, which makes it as certain as anything I can think of.
Christians believe with 100% certainty Jesus is God. If you don't believe with 100% certainty there is not God, then you are agnostic. You even think there could be tooth fairies, even though tooth fairies are disproven as we can easily explain then away by parents putting the child's tooth under the pillow. You can be 100% certain Jesus is God because no naturalistic explanation fits the data. So He resurrected supernaturally.


Why? Let me make this quite clear: I do not think that objective morality exists! So the rest of your argument is just a meaningless straw man attack.
But many atheists will say objective morality does exist, because the Christian says objective morality can't exist without God. Since you have no objective morality then anythings goes and it was acceptable for Hitler to do what he did and we would have no need for jails. You are really an anarchist as well as antichrist. The objective morality of atheists though keeps changing, so that is not very objective. If one day rape is legalized, for the atheist this is just how it is. Wheres the objective morality of God says this is forever and always wrong.



Not necessarily. There is apparent fine tuning, but it really depends on the unknown possibilities. Bowmore wrote you a list of problems with this argument (http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?p=31580) that you have studiously ignored:

The fine tuning argument says
That the determination of the physical constants is like a die roll, one with an incredible lot of dice.
That there is only one winning combination
That apparently the winning combination has been rolled in one attempt
That therefore the dice must be loaded (i.e. god intervened)
Problems :

1 : Is it correct to model the determination of the physical constants as a die roll? We don't know.
2 : We don't know there is only one winning combination
3 : We don't know there was only one attempt
4 : The conclusion does not follow logically, it disregards the (non zero) possibility that it actually was luck.

So, like so many times before, you have shown complete ignorance of our views.

1. A die roll is not random, but each turn of the sides of the die have natural cause and effects, so it was determined ahead of time for the one who understands these effects. Therefore, this is still fine tuning.
2. Even if there were more than one winning combination, it is still finely tuned.
3. Even if there were multiple attempts at the roll, it was still finely tunned in its apparatus.
4. Since it was not luck, it was finely tuned.

So as shown before, it still remains, the universe was finely tuned, and a finely tuned universe requires an Intelligent Designer since it can't happen by chance. Fine tuning is the opposite of randomness.


Please explain why this is so. Time and causes need not exist before the singularity, so this argument is not worth very much.
If the universe has events in it without time that come into being as proposed by atheists then why can't the universe as a whole be caused without time? For is the Creator of time bound by time? Of course not. The Creator is always greater than the created. Realize, when you have a doublestandard, that exposes your argument as false. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).


All completely busted arguments! Refer to tons of posts on this forum where you have repeated this nonsense time and again. But with your low reading comprehension you have of course ignored everything that we wrote. To me it seems like a silent admission that you have no argument against our criticism, so you choose to ignore it instead.
I am glad you couldn't disprove these points here and now and only claim you have or could. Proof is in the pudding as they say.

That is no problem at all! It all takes place within people's heads. chemicals and nerve impulses flowing back and forth. Nothing supernatural here.

Nobody is doubting it is perceived by their brains, but the question is whether it is supernaturally given, such as seeing Jesus resurrected bodily, touching Him, walking with Him, eating with Him and talking with Him as the disciples did. So the true test is whether it agrees with the supernatural proof of God. If it doesn't then it could be from the evil spirit or there is a naturalistic origin.


Why? If people have hallucinations about UFO's and they mesh with descriptions of UFOs, will that be a validation of UFOs? Your standard for proofs is low indeed! Do you want to buy a used Eiffel Tower of me? I can give you a cheap offer!
A hallucination doesn't mesh with UFO's actually existing just as a hallucination about Jesus doesn't mesh with Jesus actually existing. But 12 different group settings is impossible to hallucinate, so this agrees with the resurrection of Jesus. I would say your standard of proof is low, because there is no precedence in history for group hallucinations and since you can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection appearances, you still call Jesus and the Apostles liars. This poses a big problem for your faith in atheism.



As usual, your conclusions are based on flawed arguments. Or the original author of this peace of crap has just a flawed grasp of atheistic arguments as you have.
You didn't mention any flawed arguments. I think the problem is you contradict yourself, for you admit you are not 100% sure God does not exist, so be honest, you are not atheist, but agnostic.

[Churchwork]

Atheists are Selfishly Ephemeral

Atheists don't have grounding or foundation for moral values because their's is ever shifting and ephemeral. There is no sign they will come together on proper ground, or even what that might look like, for an agreed upon morality, otherwise the world of atheists wouldn't be as evil as it is today. But with God His morals are objective and given in His Word--the 66 books of the Bible.

Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, the universe can't exist according to atheism. Whereas God is something and He creates out of Himself.

Atheism is responsible for 200 million deaths due to war in the 20th century for sake of power which had nothing to do with religion. But Christians have more charities in the world than any other belief system, are martyred for their faith in Christ and are rewarded by God for standing on the truth even if one must lose their life or be jailed for life. And when war is needed, such as the Allies coming against the Axis powers, a Christian is willing to stand up for it and against enslavery or the atheism of communism.

There is 5 reasons for belief in God of the Bible:
1) That which begins has a cause.
2) Fine tuning requires intelligence.
3) There is no moral objectivity without God.
4) There are no naturalistic explanations for the resurrection of Jesus.
5) Personal experience confirms a personally involved and communicative God.

We should encourage atheists to let go of their dogma, and intolerance towards Christians, to help them realize they are shutting their minds down to the challenge presented to them in these 5 points as proof of God. To make God a trivial matter when God created the entire universe Who has a plan for us as well as consequences for our choices is to trivialize life given by God and create idols for oneself on selfish whims to thwart His moral objectivity.

Why not work together for a common cause to do God's will and not divide from people who accept the proof of God? The atheist has his own personal agenda and therefore, does not agree with or coincide with the big picture that God has. He often blames God for something so there is a difference in what is deemed moral values. Whereas a Christian has Christ in mind first, so whatever a Christian does do through prayer, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and agreement with the Word of God, there is common ground for all people to build from.

The absolutism of atheism to deny God's existence is special pleading for the sake of their ephemeral selves to subjectively pursue wherever their whims take them and usually possesses their own morality in contradiction with other atheists. I find that atheism is a pretentious humility and self-conceit in contradiction with itself, making oneself the center of the universe, to suggest that a bigger God is out there than the God we know now (called gnosticism). Remember, the atheist by definition says there is no God.

Whatever else we learn about God will surely maintain agreement with the God we know now for God does not contradict Himself. Atheistic assertion saying there is no God and saying you can't know if God exists all the while not responding to the proof of God, I find to be quite disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt. A viable naturalistic explanation must be forthcoming for the resurrection of Jesus if you deny He is God. If you prefer legend, then you must show how Paul who said he met the Apostles John, Peter and James had not meant they saw Jesus resurrected bodily.

The pragmatism of doing good in the world is not mutually exclusive of religion, for why are there so few atheist charities in comparison to Christian charities?

[DD2014]

Since an invisible dragon would be part of nature, it has a cause, so even if there was an invisible dragon living in your garage, that doesn't do damage to the proof of the fact that since nothing in nature is without a cause, therefore the uncaused Creator must exist.

What if they claim that the Dragon has been for eternity and is the creator of everything? Would that give the claim anymore truth because the dragon is without cause and it is a creator? If you argue that then you could claim...well anything, and the claim requires no proof.

[Churchwork]

What if they claim that the Dragon has been for eternity and is the creator of everything? Would that give the claim anymore truth because the dragon is without cause and it is a creator? If you argue that then you could claim...well anything, and the claim requires no proof.
Then compare the evidence for your presumed invisible dragon in your garage with the God of the Bible and see who wins out. Who's nature and characteristics are more appealing? Who is more righteous and true? A God who fashions Himself in our image to be the likeness of men to atone for our sins or a dragon without scientific evidence and only you seem to be exalting in your own garage no less (perhaps someone else is worshiping their own dragon in their own garage too). It would seem your idolatry is really just of your self and make the dragon in your own image whom you follow, Satan that dragon. These are just words, but they are your words about whom you are really pointing to which is you (that is selfish), not your dragon as Satan the dragon points to himself also. Of course, if you don't believe it, then don't propose it; otherwise, you are just arguing for being selfishly minded in separation from God, for which Hell is the only remaining solution.

Really, where is the documentation? Do you know anyone else who professes an invisible dragon in your garage? But nobody is more well documented in antiquity than is Jesus, fulfilling at least 365 prophecies of the Messiah (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5491#post5491) in religio-historical context by 40 writers in perfect agreement over 1500 years. Should we not go with the more powerful evidence rather than fairy tales? How does your dragon deal with the fact of your sin nature? Since all sin gets punished and leads to death, don't we need a perfect atoning sacrifice which none could be better or of higher standard than God Himself, able to pay for the sins of all mankind on the cross? Amen.

[DD2014]

Then compare the evidence for your presumed invisible dragon in your garage with the God of the Bible and see who wins out. Who's nature and characteristics are more appealing? Who is more righteous and true?.

Sorry you are right, that was a bad analogy. What makes your God "true" over any other religion? A better question is, what makes someone's God false if they have just as much evidence as you to support their god?


Of course, if you don't believe it, then don't propose it; otherwise, you are just arguing for being selfishly minded in separation from God, for which Hell is the only remaining solution.

I am simply asking questions, hoping for answers. Like a lost sheep.

[Churchwork]

There is no religion that has the evidence Christianity has and no religion has the person walk the earth claiming to be God and proving it by His promised resurrection. Nor is there a religion that so effectively deals with the sin problem. Perfect atonement by God Himself on the cross and power over sin by treating the flesh as utterly corruptible, unsalvagable, dying on the cross with Christ.

Try not to play both sides of the fence, but just go where the evidence takes you. The evidence is the resurrection by using the minimal facts approach in which you just focus on what almost all skeptical scholars agree on about the resurrection (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm).