Atheist Arguments

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Atheist Arguments

 

 

 

[Dan56]

It seems it all come down to proof, one mans evidence is another man's trash, so where one believes another doesn't.

But what's missed by Atheist is that the spiritual realm cannot be undisputedly proven by scientific evidence or physical observation.

"God has revealed it to us by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10). So while Christians may believe in part by what can be physically observed,

it's generally not what solely convinces them that God exist.

 

Evidence such as Isaiah 53 is dismissed by nonbelievers, but they have no explanation of who its written about.

Written around 700BC, the prophecy foreshadowed the life and mission of Jesus, describing how Messiah would be rejected and despised.

That's evidence to a Christian, but just a lucky guess to an Atheist. So the divergence between believers and naysayers boils down to

what constitutes acceptable evidence. It might also be divided by philosophical arguments, a persons perception of what's

logical, natural, and likely to be true, differs from person to person. What's sensible to one may seem like a crazy notion to another. And finally, its

a difference in attitude, i.e; prove to me its right verses prove to me its wrong. Bottom line is that belief is not based on tangible evidence, proving that

something is factually true by conventional means establishes it as a fact, which invalidates the necessity of belief.

 

Belief is a choice, but its not blind faith. While it may not be factually substantiated to a degree that satisfies those who reject it, there's enough evidence

for many to embrace it. ..Just my cents

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

It seems it all come down to proof, one mans evidence is another man's trash, so where one believes another doesn't.

But what's missed by Atheist is that the spiritual realm cannot be undisputedly proven by scientific evidence or physical observation.   "God has revealed it to us by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10). So while Christians may believe in part by what can be physically observed,  it's generally not what solely convinces them that God exist.

 

Evidence such as Isaiah 53 is dismissed by nonbelievers, but they have no explanation of who its written about.

Written around 700BC, the prophecy foreshadowed the life and mission of Jesus, describing how Messiah would be rejected and despised.

That's evidence to a Christian, but just a lucky guess to an Atheist. So the divergence between believers and naysayers boils down to what constitutes acceptable evidence. It might also be divided by philosophical arguments, a persons perception of what's logical, natural, and likely to be true, differs from person to person. What's sensible to one may seem like a crazy notion to another. And finally, its a difference in attitude, i.e; prove to me its right verses prove to me its wrong. Bottom line is that belief is not based on tangible evidence, proving that

something is factually true by conventional means establishes it as a fact, which invalidates the necessity of belief.

 

Belief is a choice, but its not blind faith. While it may not be factually substantiated to a degree that satisfies those who reject it, there's enough evidence for many to embrace it. ..Just my cents

 

 

It's a miserable bit of evidence when believing Jews; believing Christians; and Atheists, all look at the same passage and see something different.  It would seem that God is "the author of confusion".  Or it's crap evidence for being false.  Which do you prefer?

 

Enough evidence for many?  The truth is not a popularity contest.  Important truth should have solid evidence.  Perhaps the Human scribe, did a poor job taking dictation?  

 

Happy Easter.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It's a miserable bit of evidence when believing Jews; believing Christians; and Atheists, all look at the same passage and see something different.  It would seem that God is "the author of confusion".  Or it's crap evidence for being false.  Which do you prefer?

 

Enough evidence for many?  The truth is not a popularity contest.  Important truth should have solid evidence.

 

Well, there's no compromise or resolution to how people exegete scripture, they will interpolate what they choose to believe. But I think Isaiah 53 is pretty plain, nothing confusing about it, and since the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, its solid evidence for being true.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Well, there's no compromise or resolution to how people exegete scripture, they will interpolate what they choose to believe. But I think Isaiah 53 is pretty plain, nothing confusing about it, and since the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, its solid evidence for being true.

 

 

That was Jewish Scripture, long before it was Christian.  No rabbi, would agree with your interpretation.  So no.  It's not solid evidence.  Either God is authoring confusion; or God had nothing to do with it.  There is another possibility.  The Jewish interpretation is correct and you are confused.  

 

Did God mean it to be confusing?  Then it's not reliable.  Certainly, the perfect mind could have authored something, that was not confusing.

 

Did God have nothing to do with it?  Then even less is it evidence.

 

Is the Jewish interpretation correct?  Then you are seriously mistaken, about a great many things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

Yes,  I'm aware that Judaism doesn't interpret anything to be about Christ, which is why they don't recognize Christ as Messiah or Savior. That's what differentiates the faiths. But Christ fulfilling this prophecy with 100% accuracy and sublime consistency is not happenstance. The fact that others assign a prophecy to mean something else is confusing, but I don't attribute that confusion to God.. It was written to mean one thing, but different interpretations is what sows confusion. Its all pretty straightforward to me, if a prophecy didn't fit, you must acquit, but its a clear reference to the person of God's Anointed, who would suffer on behalf of God's people, and that to me is solid evidence.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

It seems it all come down to proof, one mans evidence is another man's trash, so where one believes another doesn't.

But what's missed by Atheist is that the spiritual realm cannot be undisputedly proven by scientific evidence or physical observation.

"God has revealed it to us by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10). So while Christians may believe in part by what can be physically observed,

it's generally not what solely convinces them that God exist.

 

Evidence such as Isaiah 53 is dismissed by nonbelievers, but they have no explanation of who its written about.

Written around 700BC, the prophecy foreshadowed the life and mission of Jesus, describing how Messiah would be rejected and despised.

That's evidence to a Christian, but just a lucky guess to an Atheist. So the divergence between believers and naysayers boils down to

what constitutes acceptable evidence. It might also be divided by philosophical arguments, a persons perception of what's

logical, natural, and likely to be true, differs from person to person. What's sensible to one may seem like a crazy notion to another. And finally, its

a difference in attitude, i.e; prove to me its right verses prove to me its wrong. Bottom line is that belief is not based on tangible evidence, proving that

something is factually true by conventional means establishes it as a fact, which invalidates the necessity of belief.

 

Belief is a choice, but its not blind faith. While it may not be factually substantiated to a degree that satisfies those who reject it, there's enough evidence

for many to embrace it. ..Just my cents

Does it name christ specifically, or is it not specific enough to be legitimate prophecy?  That's open to interpretation and as such proves itself to be not specific enough.

 

Additionaly, if you cannot produce a copy that predates an event, IT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE EVENT and isn't really prophecy.

 

It's not missed by us at all that the spirit realm is unprovable...that's the point.  Acceptance of something as a fact because it's not been disproven is not an acceptable practice of mine...or yours really, so the argument doesn't hold up.  if you really took life like that, you'd believe all sorts of nonsense, and you know it.  

 

I disagree that it's attitude about belief...as stated above.  Unless you are willing to acknowledge the allfather, zeus, cernunnos, marduk kurios and literally thousands of deities that haven't been disproven?  Didn't think so.

 

I appreciate your acknowledgment that it doesn't meet the minimal requirements for us to believe.  On the same note, it's also an admission that god could have made it meet those requirements of reason and chose to let us be damned instead...not a loving being, to me.  Even as a fictional deity.

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

Yes,  I'm aware that Judaism doesn't interpret anything to be about Christ, which is why they don't recognize Christ as Messiah or Savior. That's what differentiates the faiths. But Christ fulfilling this prophecy with 100% accuracy and sublime consistency is not happenstance. The fact that others assign a prophecy to mean something else is confusing, but I don't attribute that confusion to God.. It was written to mean one thing, but different interpretations is what sows confusion. Its all pretty straightforward to me, if a prophecy didn't fit, you must acquit, but its a clear reference to the person of God's Anointed, who would suffer on behalf of God's people, and that to me is solid evidence.

 

I prophecy that tommorow a woman driving a car in the state of georgia will be involved in a fatal car wreck.  I must be a prophet of loki...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Yes,  I'm aware that Judaism doesn't interpret anything to be about Christ, which is why they don't recognize Christ as Messiah or Savior. That's what differentiates the faiths. But Christ fulfilling this prophecy with 100% accuracy and sublime consistency is not happenstance. The fact that others assign a prophecy to mean something else is confusing, but I don't attribute that confusion to God.. It was written to mean one thing, but different interpretations is what sows confusion. Its all pretty straightforward to me, if a prophecy didn't fit, you must acquit, but its a clear reference to the person of God's Anointed, who would suffer on behalf of God's people, and that to me is solid evidence.

 

 

 

 

Yet again, we have a Christian, declaring what the Jewish Scriptures really mean.  Well, I'm bored.

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I prophecy that tommorow a woman driving a car in the state of georgia will be involved in a fatal car wreck.  I must be a prophet of loki...

 

 

Just so.  "Wars and rumors of war" with fires and floods.     

 

 

[Dan56]

10 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Does it name christ specifically, or is it not specific enough to be legitimate prophecy? 

 

Additionaly, if you cannot produce a copy that predates an event, IT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE EVENT and isn't really prophecy.

 

I disagree that it's attitude about belief...as stated above.  Unless you are willing to acknowledge the allfather, zeus, cernunnos, marduk kurios and literally thousands of deities that haven't been disproven?  Didn't think so.

 

 

It doesn't need to name him, who else on earth did what he did? Sometimes the reader needs to put 2 +2 together

 

Actually, there was a complete Isaiah scroll recovered from the Dead Sea find, and it predated Christ by 200 years. 

 

Attitude in how one approaches scripture makes a difference. "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble." (James 4:6). Demanding God prove himself is not how one receives a revelation. Jesus told many that he healed, "Thy faith has made the whole", and not 'your knowledge has made you whole'. Its been my experience that you can't read the bible like a story book or comic book and expect to digest its divine truth. "Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25). In other words, when the Word is accepted by faith, its a quickening spirit that opens its Truth, but when every verse is questioned, its only challenged and not absorbed. "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" (Mark 8:18).

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yet again, we have a Christian, declaring what the Jewish Scriptures really mean.  Well, I'm bored.

 

The bible is also Christian scripture, remember that the new testament was written by Jews and a Benjamite. We also follow a Jewish/Levitical  leader who declared himself the living fulfillment of those Jewish scriptures. So in effect, Christians were taught by a Jewish teacher (Rabbi) who was quite familiar with all scripture. That's why Christians never get bored in discovering what the scriptures mean.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

There is the flaw.  Christians argue the authenticity of the Bible.  I don't believe your argument.  It's not up to me to convince you, it's up to you to convince me...if you want me to believe.  And your Bible commands you to convince non-believers.  I don't have any such command.  And I don't believe your prophecy is real.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

It doesn't need to name him, who else on earth did what he did? Sometimes the reader needs to put 2 +2 together

 

Actually, there was a complete Isaiah scroll recovered from the Dead Sea find, and it predated Christ by 200 years. 

 

Attitude in how one approaches scripture makes a difference. "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble." (James 4:6). Demanding God prove himself is not how one receives a revelation. Jesus told many that he healed, "Thy faith has made the whole", and not 'your knowledge has made you whole'. Its been my experience that you can't read the bible like a story book or comic book and expect to digest its divine truth. "Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25). In other words, when the Word is accepted by faith, its a quickening spirit that opens its Truth, but when every verse is questioned, its only challenged and not absorbed. "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" (Mark 8:18).

 

 

The bible is also Christian scripture, remember that the new testament was written by Jews and a Benjamite. We also follow a Jewish/Levitical  leader who declared himself the living fulfillment of those Jewish scriptures. So in effect, Christians were taught by a Jewish teacher (Rabbi) who was quite familiar with all scripture. That's why Christians never get bored in discovering what the scriptures mean.

 

I will speak more plainly.  I'm bored with Fundamentalist BS propaganda.  These smug, condescending claims, to be the sole arbiters of truth and fact, are irritating.

 

 

This is usually where you tell me that I hate God.  Or Christianity.  Or Scripture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

59 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

There is the flaw.  Christians argue the authenticity of the Bible.  I don't believe your argument.  It's not up to me to convince you, it's up to you to convince me...if you want me to believe.  And your Bible commands you to convince non-believers.  I don't have any such command.  And I don't believe your prophecy is real.

 

The bible encourages believers to spread the Word (gospel), but not to convince non-believers. There's no flaw, just a difference in how a person thinks God is perceived, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God" (2 Corinthians 2:10). So putting God on trial to prove Himself is not how people find the Truth. Searching for physical evidence can never establish a spiritual truth, its like trying to prove water is wet without having ever seen water. A prophecy simply tells a future occurrence, and when its fulfilled as written, its a true prophecy. A nonbeliever can't accept a fulfilled prophecy about Christ because they don't believe Christ was real either. So there's no debate to be had when the premise is denied, all the evidence in the world would not suffice. Belief is an individual choice based on a need, desire, and quest to know, but without those inherent attributes, there's no convincing anyone of anything.

 

38 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I will speak more plainly.  I'm bored with Fundamentalist BS propaganda.  These smug, condescending claims, to be the sole arbiters of truth and fact, are irritating.

 

This is usually where you tell me that I hate God.  Or Christianity.  Or Scripture.

 

Sorry, but Fundamentalist Christians believe there is one Truth, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Its scripture not propaganda, and the sole arbiter of truth is Christ. I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I waivered from that belief. I understand this may be irritating to nonbelievers, but its the faith. I don't believe you can hate what you don't believe, but you can evidently get bored hearing about it. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

The bible encourages believers to spread the Word (gospel), but not to convince non-believers. There's no flaw, just a difference in how a person thinks God is perceived, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God" (2 Corinthians 2:10). So putting God on trial to prove Himself is not how people find the Truth. Searching for physical evidence can never establish a spiritual truth, its like trying to prove water is wet without having ever seen water. A prophecy simply tells a future occurrence, and when its fulfilled as written, its a true prophecy. A nonbeliever can't accept a fulfilled prophecy about Christ because they don't believe Christ was real either. So there's no debate to be had when the premise is denied, all the evidence in the world would not suffice. Belief is an individual choice based on a need, desire, and quest to know, but without those inherent attributes, there's no convincing anyone of anything.

 

 

Sorry, but Fundamentalist Christians believe there is one Truth, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Its scripture not propaganda, and the sole arbiter of truth is Christ. I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I waivered from that belief. I understand this may be irritating to nonbelievers, but its the faith. I don't believe you can hate what you don't believe, but you can evidently get bored hearing about it. 

 

 

Uh-huh.     

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

I don't believe your Bible so scripture about how to discern spirit in an effort to prove scripture true is logically failed... and ultimately circular.  I respect your right to believe,  but I don't.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

I don't believe your Bible so scripture about how to discern spirit in an effort to prove scripture true is logically failed... and ultimately circular.  I respect your right to believe,  but I don't.

 

 

A thought experiment.  Consider Dan's perspective.  Suppose Dan's faith -- his seamless faith -- were to fail him.  What would happen next?  Dan would face the big B-B-Q along with us.  No more cotton candy Heaven.  Just -- dead.  Maybe even getting left behind in the Rapture.  Even worse.  Facing down all those lectures he gave about faith and trust.  What are facts or reason, next to that level of terror?

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't believe your Bible so scripture about how to discern spirit in an effort to prove scripture true is logically failed... and ultimately circular.  I respect your right to believe,  but I don't.

 

No problem, I understand your reluctance to believe anything that can't be proven. Its not easy to trust a 2000 year old book, especially when you don't like the message. But my point was that a spiritual truth can't be proven by physical or material evidence, so a black & white matter-of-fact mindset can't accept it. Its difficult to intellectually rationalize God, but we can't have faith in anything not seen until we first surrender to what we think we know, which is really nothing. We live in a world of lies, deception, and corruption, so its difficult for anyone to believe anything they hear or read. That's why Christians take solace in a Truth beyond the reality of what is evident.

 

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A thought experiment.  Consider Dan's perspective.  Suppose Dan's faith -- his seamless faith -- were to fail him.  What would happen next?   Facing down all those lectures he gave about faith and trust. 

 

If Dan is wrong, he's no worse off than you.. But consider if Dan is right? Nothing but up-side for the guy who for some reason is referring to himself in the third person.   There's no penalty for believing, just a promised reward.. The real question is; Where's the potential reward for having faith in nothing beyond the here & now? Where's the hope?

 

I simply believe that everyone has/is a spirit, possessing a self-aware consciousness that doesn't die with the body. And I believe everyone has an unction from the Holy Spirit which prompts a yearning to know and return to the Spirit that created us. Its why we search for answers, but there's just one "quickening spirit" that soothes the soul.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

No problem, I understand your reluctance to believe anything that can't be proven. Its not easy to trust a 2000 year old book, especially when you don't like the message. But my point was that a spiritual truth can't be proven by physical or material evidence, so a black & white matter-of-fact mindset can't accept it. Its difficult to intellectually rationalize God, but we can't have faith in anything not seen until we first surrender to what we think we know, which is really nothing. We live in a world of lies, deception, and corruption, so its difficult for anyone to believe anything they hear or read. That's why Christians take solace in a Truth beyond the reality of what is evident.

 

 

If Dan is wrong, he's no worse off than you.. But consider if Dan is right? Nothing but up-side for the guy who for some reason is referring to himself in the third person.   There's no penalty for believing, just a promised reward.. The real question is; Where's the potential reward for having faith in nothing beyond the here & now? Where's the hope?

 

I simply believe that everyone has/is a spirit, possessing a self-aware consciousness that doesn't die with the body. And I believe everyone has an unction from the Holy Spirit which prompts a yearning to know and return to the Spirit that created us. Its why we search for answers, but there's just one "quickening spirit" that soothes the soul.

 

 

 

Dan's religion is one of many.  What are the odds that Dan has the right religion -- and all the other religions are wrong?  They can't all be right.  They can all be wrong.  

 

Do I really want to waste the only life that I can be sure of?  On my knees, praying to an improbable God?  Studying ancient Scriptures, produced by people, who knew way less than I do?

 

We are indeed surrounded by lies, deception and corruption.  Including pious fraud and fantasy.  That is why evidence is so important.  Or we become ready victim, to every fraud, huckster, cheat, scam artist and humbug, to come along.  

 

When confronted by a wizard, it is good to look behind the curtain.       Sometimes, it's just a humbug.     

 

 

Or a sincere believer, who swallowed it all.  Hook, line and sinker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No problem, I understand your reluctance to believe anything that can't be proven. Its not easy to trust a 2000 year old book, especially when you don't like the message. But my point was that a spiritual truth can't be proven by physical or material evidence, so a black & white matter-of-fact mindset can't accept it. Its difficult to intellectually rationalize God, but we can't have faith in anything not seen until we first surrender to what we think we know, which is really nothing. We live in a world of lies, deception, and corruption, so its difficult for anyone to believe anything they hear or read. That's why Christians take solace in a Truth beyond the reality of what is evident.

 

 

If Dan is wrong, he's no worse off than you.. But consider if Dan is right? Nothing but up-side for the guy who for some reason is referring to himself in the third person.   There's no penalty for believing, just a promised reward.. The real question is; Where's the potential reward for having faith in nothing beyond the here & now? Where's the hope?

 

I simply believe that everyone has/is a spirit, possessing a self-aware consciousness that doesn't die with the body. And I believe everyone has an unction from the Holy Spirit which prompts a yearning to know and return to the Spirit that created us. Its why we search for answers, but there's just one "quickening spirit" that soothes the soul.

 

Its not that i like or dislike the message,part is good and part is bad.  Its simply that i dont believe it, much like you don't believe greek mythology.  I view it in the same light.  I thought zeus was a villain, much the same as i view the chrisrian god...but i view both as fictional villains.