Atheist Arguments

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

35 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its true that the bible is its own best evidence. I've studied it in-depth and found no untruths, so its truth becomes self-evident in the absence of any falsehoods. And its fair to say that every book inspired by God corresponds with every other book compiled into the bible, so there is collaborating material written by multiple authors. i.e; Isaiah doesn't contradict Ezekiel, Matthew doesn't contradict Mark. Using the assumption that the bible is the Word of God, what other possible source could establish confirmation of that fact? Consider the prophesies of Christ that predated his birth by 10 centuries, when realized, did in fact establish a truth to be self-evident, whether one accepts it or not, facts are facts. "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 8:18).

 

 

Assumption.  Such a sad word.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

10 hours ago, Key said:

Playing Devil's advocate here again, Dan, just to offer another perspective of what you're saying. A bit lengthy, so bear with me, please.

 

1)   Prior to Disney buying the Star Wars franchise and rights, every Star Wars book, comic, or even movie had to be inline with the others so as not to contradict timelines and events for various recurring characters. This process is called "canon". After the change in ownership, Disney was no longer following previous established canon (except loosely the films of the original trilogy and prequels).

With this in mind, what if the regions from which the Bible books came from, also established a sort of canon in order for them to be more believable or relatable and easier for memory? And forgers were rampant as well, so they would have followed many similarities and styles of the originals. Then something happened, a council was convened to establish a new canon from the books, to remove many that were popular in different areas and sects. Some books no longer were seen as part of the canon, while others remained. In effect, a new ownership was established.

Of course, the older books may not contradict, in many faithful minds, but that may be greatly in part of how they were intently written, as part of a mental canon.

 

2)   Scientologist absolutely believe their books on Dianetics to be thoroughly true, and even cite various entries from it as proof, and those entries do not contradict each other, whatsoever. Would you then think to yourself, "well, they are quoting from a book they believe in, with only their faith as real evidence, so they must be the true religion?"

 

It makes sense for movie sequels to stick with the original story line i.e; you can't have Superman being from Krypton in one film and from Xenu in another. I'm not familiar with all the Scientologist books, but I thought the same person (L. Ron Hubbard) wrote all of the Dianetics books? Most of the books omitted from the NT canon were written +200 years after the fact, and none of the authors could be authenticated (unknown). The OT does follow the Hebrew/Israelites people, so in that sense the story line is historically compatible between authors. But your correct, faith is the evidence, and of course its based on what is considered an infallible book, the written Word is the substance of what we've understood and accepted to be the inspired and divine truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).

 

Consider the fact that the bible is comprised of 66 books written over a period of 1,500 years by 40 authors. Written in 3 languages & on 3 continents, and yet it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme. The historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency mesh together in complete harmony with no deviations from the fundamental message & truth. This to me lends much more credibility to divine authorship than any new pop-up religion. But no doubt, faith is key in understanding and accepting the bible.

[Key]

On 4/27/2019 at 9:34 PM, Dan56 said:

 

It makes sense for movie sequels to stick with the original story line i.e; you can't have Superman being from Krypton in one film and from Xenu in another. I'm not familiar with all the Scientologist books, but I thought the same person (L. Ron Hubbard) wrote all of the Dianetics books? Most of the books omitted from the NT canon were written +200 years after the fact, and none of the authors could be authenticated (unknown). The OT does follow the Hebrew/Israelites people, so in that sense the story line is historically compatible between authors. But your correct, faith is the evidence, and of course its based on what is considered an infallible book, the written Word is the substance of what we've understood and accepted to be the inspired and divine truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).

 

Consider the fact that the bible is comprised of 66 books written over a period of 1,500 years by 40 authors. Written in 3 languages & on 3 continents, and yet it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme. The historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency mesh together in complete harmony with no deviations from the fundamental message & truth. This to me lends much more credibility to divine authorship than any new pop-up religion. But no doubt, faith is key in understanding and accepting the bible.

You missed the point.

I'm bowing out here. Not enough energy right now. (Working long hours currently.)

[cuchulain]

The bible isn't cohesive because the main character, existing separate from time, changes halfway through.  As does the message.  The theme?  In the beginning books, god is all about killing if you dont follow the law, lots of stonings.  Bears maul 42 kids because one made fun of his prophet, but 41 did nothing and still bit it...and the bible doesnt specify the perp being one of the dead.  From that to a theme of forgivness, the opposite of revenge or justice?  No...not a consistent character at all.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

The bible isn't cohesive because the main character, existing separate from time, changes halfway through.  As does the message.  The theme?  In the beginning books, god is all about killing if you dont follow the law, lots of stonings.  Bears maul 42 kids because one made fun of his prophet, but 41 did nothing and still bit it...and the bible doesnt specify the perp being one of the dead.  From that to a theme of forgivness, the opposite of revenge or justice?  No...not a consistent character at all.

 

 

All true.  Then again, we are speaking of a fictional character, in a poorly written series of books.  Worse, various unknown authors, have added their own fan fiction to the mess.  Does any of it actually matter?  I mean, it's fiction.  Not even good fiction.  IMO

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

Various unknown writers and some of the books were left out...they like to gloss over that.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Various unknown writers and some of the books were left out...they like to gloss over that.

 

 

Don't forget the translation errors.  The question remains.  Does any of it actually matter?     

 

Life is too short to worry about some bad reading.     

 

          

 

 

[Dan56]

16 hours ago, Key said:

You missed the point.

I'm bowing out here. Not enough energy right now. (Working long hours currently.)

 

Sorry I missed your point.. I just don't believe forgers successfully contaminated or altered the canonized books, nor do I believe unauthenticated works polluted the authorized canon. There are denominations that have altered things (Jehovah's Witnesses) and others have added books (Seventh-day Adventist & Latter-day Saints), but I'm convinced the original and inspired true Word was preserved. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Timothy 6:20&21). Still don't get the question, but I don't believe that the bible is a collection of convenient books that were selected because they coincided with other popular books. The books of the preserved canon gel because the same Spirit inspired them. As you mentioned though, other religions lay claim to the same thing & people find truth in their own sacred books. Glad your getting plenty of work, try some Red Bull  

 

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The bible isn't cohesive because the main character, existing separate from time, changes halfway through.  As does the message.  The theme?  In the beginning books, god is all about killing if you dont follow the law, lots of stonings.  Bears maul 42 kids because one made fun of his prophet, but 41 did nothing and still bit it...and the bible doesnt specify the perp being one of the dead.  From that to a theme of forgivness, the opposite of revenge or justice?  No...not a consistent character at all.

 

Nothing changed in God's character, its been the exact same God in the past, in the present, and in the future (Hebrews 13:8). The same God who forgives today also forgave in the OT. The only difference is that a Savior came to deliver us from the curse of the law. But we still have the same commandments, and Christ was not the opposite of justice,  judgement has just been suspended until his second coming when his wrath will be dispensed (Revelation 19:11-16). What has often changed is the Atheist pov;  https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/apologetics/5-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Sorry I missed your point.. I just don't believe forgers successfully contaminated or altered the canonized books, nor do I believe unauthenticated works polluted the authorized canon. There are denominations that have altered things (Jehovah's Witnesses) and others have added books (Seventh-day Adventist & Latter-day Saints), but I'm convinced the original and inspired true Word was preserved. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Timothy 6:20&21). Still don't get the question, but I don't believe that the bible is a collection of convenient books that were selected because they coincided with other popular books. The books of the preserved canon gel because the same Spirit inspired them. As you mentioned though, other religions lay claim to the same thing & people find truth in their own sacred books. Glad your getting plenty of work, try some Red Bull  

 

 

Nothing changed in God's character, its been the exact same God in the past, in the present, and in the future (Hebrews 13:8). The same God who forgives today also forgave in the OT. The only difference is that a Savior came to deliver us from the curse of the law. But we still have the same commandments, and Christ was not the opposite of justice,  judgement has just been suspended until his second coming when his wrath will be dispensed (Revelation 19:11-16). What has often changed is the Atheist pov;  https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/apologetics/5-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/

 

I read the article.

 

First, Anthony Flew did not become a Christian.  He became a Deist.  Deism has nothing to do with Jesus.  Deism does not accept Scripture or any other form of revelation, as true.  Neither do Deists  pray.  Deism accepts that a God started things going; then left Creation to continue on it's own.  It's not Atheism, but it's very close.

 

Second, the article misrepresents Atheism.

 

"This evidence, or proofs, for the existence of God invites those atheists to consider it – especially for those who claim that there is none. At the very least it should be reasonably concluded that atheism (the absolute claim that there is no God after considering all possible knowledge) is a highly irrational position."

 

As to the Five Proofs -- the usual.  Yet again.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

My view does change.  I consider it wisdom to change when shown to be wrong.  Your quote is in error, for example.  It speaks for all atheists as if we all believe that.  But your view doesnt seem to allow for change when shown to be in error.  Just my observations.

[Dan56]

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

Second, the article misrepresents Atheism

 

I don't see much of an error, except for the distinction that Atheist don't believe because of a lack of evidence. But I've known some A's who do claim there is no God.

 

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

But your view doesnt seem to allow for change when shown to be in error.

 

I'm quick to adjust my view when its been shown to be based in error, but in regards to my belief and the bible, that just hasn't happened yet

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't see much of an error, except for the distinction that Atheist don't believe because of a lack of evidence. But I've known some A's who do claim there is no God.

 

 

I'm quick to adjust my view when its been shown to be based in error, but in regards to my belief and the bible, that just hasn't happened yet

 

 

My point, exactly.  Except for the distinction?  That's an important distinction and a big error.

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I don't see much of an error, except for the distinction that Atheist don't believe because of a lack of evidence. But I've known some A's who do claim there is no God.

 

 

I'm quick to adjust my view when its been shown to be based in error, but in regards to my belief and the bible, that just hasn't happened yet

 

An addendum:

 

Over time, you have demonstrated to me, that when Atheists speak -- You have a profound ability to misunderstand.  I question your interpretation of "some Atheists claim".

 

Perhaps in time, you will be able to hear what Atheists actually say -- unfiltered through your belief system.  Based on your past statements, I have low expectation.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

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

 

An addendum:

 

Over time, you have demonstrated to me, that when Atheists speak -- You have a profound ability to misunderstand.  I question your interpretation of "some Atheists claim".

 

Perhaps in time, you will be able to hear what Atheists actually say -- unfiltered through your belief system.  Based on your past statements, I have low expectation.

 

 

My simple point was that not all Atheist have the exact same point of view (not unlike Christians).  While most Atheist don't belief there's evidence to support the existence of God, I do have a friend who bluntly claims that "God does not exist". She has formulated a point blank conclusion, evidence be damned. So it matters little to me whether its not being able to believe, a lack of evidence, hatred towards the idea of God, or any other reason. The bottom line is that Atheism is the disbelief or acceptance that any God/gods exist. The specific reasons are all semantics when they draw the same conclusion. People belief in God for different reasons and others reject God for a variety of different reasons. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

Disbelief:  The inability to accept something that is true.

 

This is the insult you repeatedly bait with, dan.  That we cant handle the truth.  Time to grow up, man.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

My simple point was that not all Atheist have the exact same point of view (not unlike Christians).  While most Atheist don't belief there's evidence to support the existence of God, I do have a friend who bluntly claims that "God does not exist". She has formulated a point blank conclusion, evidence be damned. So it matters little to me whether its not being able to believe, a lack of evidence, hatred towards the idea of God, or any other reason. The bottom line is that Atheism is the disbelief or acceptance that any God/gods exist. The specific reasons are all semantics when they draw the same conclusion. People belief in God for different reasons and others reject God for a variety of different reasons. 

 

 

Alright.  I think I see part of the problem.  You think this is semantics.

 

When I tell you that I don't believe in God -- this is a simple statement of fact.  I don't believe.  There is nothing to prove.

 

When I tell you that God does not exist -- This is a different statement.  When I assert that God does not exist -- I am making a claim.  That kind of claim comes with a burden of proof.  Now, I have the responsibility to demonstrate that God does not exist.  It would be foolish of me to do so.  It is not possible, to prove that something does not exist.

 

So, no.  It is not simple semantics.  One statement does not create a burden of proof.  One statement does create a burden of proof.

 

Are we clear on this one point?

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Disbelief:  The inability to accept something that is true.

 

This is the insult you repeatedly bait with, dan.  That we cant handle the truth.  Time to grow up, man.

 

 

It is only an insult, when the person has the ability, to understand words.

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

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

Are we clear on this one point?

 

I certainly understand the difference in a person who says, "I don't believe God exist" and a person who states, "God does not exist". But I just think the difference is negligible. One doesn't believe God is real and the other has determined God is not real. Just seems like an insignificant distinction since neither thinks God is real. I suppose you could say that the Atheist who claims "God does not exist" is a liar, since they have no evidence to support a definitive claim like that. And without proof, every Atheist must have some reservations about what they don't believe. But regardless, whether an Atheist thinks there's evidence that proves God is unreal or an Atheist doesn't believe God is real because there's no proof of Him, they are both in the same camp by not accepting the existence of God. Its like saying "I don't think the car will start" or "The car won't start", both statements demonstrate a lack of faith or no faith in the car starting.  Then there's that rare anomaly, a person like myself who believes in God and also claims that God exist, so its possible for someone to be convinced that what they believe is true (fact & proof). But simply stated, Atheist & Agnostics don't believe, while Theist & Polytheist do. 

 

 

[cuchulain]

😂

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

I certainly understand the difference in a person who says, "I don't believe God exist" and a person who states, "God does not exist". But I just think the difference is negligible. One doesn't believe God is real and the other has determined God is not real. Just seems like an insignificant distinction since neither thinks God is real. I suppose you could say that the Atheist who claims "God does not exist" is a liar, since they have no evidence to support a definitive claim like that. And without proof, every Atheist must have some reservations about what they don't believe. But regardless, whether an Atheist thinks there's evidence that proves God is unreal or an Atheist doesn't believe God is real because there's no proof of Him, they are both in the same camp by not accepting the existence of God. Its like saying "I don't think the car will start" or "The car won't start", both statements demonstrate a lack of faith or no faith in the car starting.  Then there's that rare anomaly, a person like myself who believes in God and also claims that God exist, so its possible for someone to be convinced that what they believe is true (fact & proof). But simply stated, Atheist & Agnostics don't believe, while Theist & Polytheist do. 

 

 

 

 

Uh-huh.