Atheist Arguments

[Dan56]

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

The Bible as evidence?  In particular, the Creation myth?  Alright.  Let us consider.

 

The Creation was a six day process.  Trees and plants show up on the third day.

 

On the fourth day, The Sun was created.

 

The Earth existed for three days without the Sun?     

 

Trees existed for one day, without the Sun?     

 

But it's worse.  On the fourth day, "He made the stars also."  "He made the stars also?"  An afterthought?  Billions of galaxies.  Billions of stars in each galaxy.  The entire Cosmos.  On the fourth day of a six day process.  The Earth was a six day process.  The rest of Creation?  "He made the stars also."  Little twinkly things -- that were stuck in the "Firmament" to "decorate" the night sky.  The "Firmament" is the glass dome over the Earth.  Like a snow globe.  The thing with windows that lets the rain through.     

 

Shall we jump ahead to the story of Noah's flood?     

 

The Tower of Babel?     

 

The Exodus?     

 

We can jump ahead to the Gospels.

 

Jesus has two genealogies with no overlap.  A pointless exercise, since Joseph was not his biological father.     

 

Jesus had many, many followers.  They had to pay Judas to point out Jesus, for an arrest.     

 

Remember the woman caught in adultery?  The Jewish establishment had no problem ordering an execution.  Until they got to Jesus.  Then they needed the Romans.     

 

At the time of the Crucifixion, the tombs opened and zombies walked among the living.  No historian thought it was worth mentioning.  Just a normal day in Jerusalem.     

 

Seriously?  The Bible as evidence?     

 

Oh, look!  Trees!  God must be real!          

 

 

I'm aware that you can't comprehend how God could create things in 6 days, and that you struggle to comprehend something that's beyond your own cognitive reasoning.

Its evident that you just surface read Genesis and have no depth of understanding. I also know that you "don't know and don't care", but most people don't share that

philosophy in life, they don't want to be ignorant and aren't content to remain that way. I noticed you were incapable of answering my simple question, so you diverted back to

biblical attacks instead, which was the response I expected. God is not perceived by those who demand He prove himself, but reveals Himself to those who humbly and diligently seek Him (Matthew 7:7-8).

 

Just to answer a couple of your observations, on day one "God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Genesis 1:3). So that pretty much blows a hole in your theory that God was working

in the dark or that trees had no light to grow for a whole day. The light in verse 3 emanated directly from the presence of God, his Shekhinah glory. The same type of light alluded to in these verses;
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." (Revelation 21:23)
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 22:5)
"God is Light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)

 

The flood, Tower of Babel, and the exodus seem pretty self-explanatory. Just one genealogy of Christ, Matthew gives Joseph's ancestry and Luke gives us Mary's lineage. Jesus had thousands

of followers, it was his popularity that caused the Jewish hierarchy to implore Pilate to execute Christ, they would risk rebellion in their own ranks if they had stoned him themselves.

The dead that were raised was a fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37:12). Matthew mentions that they appeared to people, not as zombies, but were further evidence and demonstration of the resurrective 

power of Christ. I doubt many 'historians' were on the streets of Jerusalem to witness or record the event, and they wouldn't know the resurrected people from Adam even if they were.

 

All of your   emoji's seem a tad juvenile, but also expected.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

I'm aware that you can't comprehend how God could create things in 6 days, and that you struggle to comprehend something that's beyond your own cognitive reasoning.

Its evident that you just surface read Genesis and have no depth of understanding. I also know that you "don't know and don't care", but most people don't share that

philosophy in life, they don't want to be ignorant and aren't content to remain that way. I noticed you were incapable of answering my simple question, so you diverted back to

biblical attacks instead, which was the response I expected. God is not perceived by those who demand He prove himself, but reveals Himself to those who humbly and diligently seek Him (Matthew 7:7-8).

 

Just to answer a couple of your observations, on day one "God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Genesis 1:3). So that pretty much blows a hole in your theory that God was working

in the dark or that trees had no light to grow for a whole day. The light in verse 3 emanated directly from the presence of God, his Shekhinah glory. The same type of light alluded to in these verses;
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." (Revelation 21:23)
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 22:5)
"God is Light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)

 

The flood, Tower of Babel, and the exodus seem pretty self-explanatory. Just one genealogy of Christ, Matthew gives Joseph's ancestry and Luke gives us Mary's lineage. Jesus had thousands

of followers, it was his popularity that caused the Jewish hierarchy to implore Pilate to execute Christ, they would risk rebellion in their own ranks if they had stoned him themselves.

The dead that were raised was a fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37:12). Matthew mentions that they appeared to people, not as zombies, but were further evidence and demonstration of the resurrective 

power of Christ. I doubt many 'historians' were on the streets of Jerusalem to witness or record the event, and they wouldn't know the resurrected people from Adam even if they were.

 

All of your   emoji's seem a tad juvenile, but also expected.

 

 

 

 

Apatheism, is not my "philosophy of life".  Apatheism is my attitude towards God.  You do not understand the meaning of Agnosticism.  You do not understand the meaning of Atheism.  It is small wonder that you are confused by Apatheism.  You really do have a problem, understanding words.

 

 

As to my understanding of Scripture -- I read what it says.  Unfiltered by faith.  Scripture is not what I want it to be.  Or what you want it to be.  I read Scripture with the best objectivity I can manage.  Much of it is silly.  Much of it is horrible.  What I don't find in Scripture, is a reason to believe -- or care.

 

Do you really want to assert that the Great Flood -- and the Tower of Babel -- are history?     

 

 

Back to your question.  Where does everything come from?

 

I find the answers provided by Cosmology and Evolution compelling.  They are evidence based.  These answers are also subject to revision, pending further information.  In my opinion, an honest -- I don't know -- is worth much more than a false certitude.

 

I would like to add -- even if the answer should turn out to be -- a god did it -- this takes us no further than Deism.  There is still no reason, to credit your God, with anything.

 

This is the answer that Anthony Flew decided upon.  The answer that you, falsely claimed to be Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RabbiO]

Jon & Dan,

 

The Talmud records that the longest lasting argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai lasted three years.

 

You guys long ago passed that record. Neither of you has budged from your positions and I dare say neither of you is going to budge. Maybe the time has come to stop pushing each other's buttons and just wave at one another as you stand up upon the opposite sides of the theological chasm you occupy.

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, RabbiO said:

Jon & Dan,

 

The Talmud records that the longest lasting argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai lasted three years.

 

You guys long ago passed that record. Neither of you has budged from your positions and I dare say neither of you is going to budge. Maybe the time has come to stop pushing each other's buttons and just wave at one another as you stand up upon the opposite sides of the theological chasm you occupy.

 

That's a 10-4....... My desire wasn't to change minds, but to just explain why I believe as I do, but then in the face of ridicule and accusations, I inevitably end up defending why I believe as I do.  But your correct, there's no resolution with people who are on opposite sides of the spectrum, people either believe or they don't.. Believe it or not, there are debates that go on forever on Christian discussion boards that make this forum seem tame. That said, I will continue with any bible discussions, but will desist in responding to hecklers who don't have any belief or genuine interest in biblical topics. I'll also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics. As you indicated, its a futile and endless endeavor to engage in arguments with members who have made-up their minds and who's positions are unshakable, that includes myself of course. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RabbiO said:

Jon & Dan,

 

The Talmud records that the longest lasting argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai lasted three years.

 

You guys long ago passed that record. Neither of you has budged from your positions and I dare say neither of you is going to budge. Maybe the time has come to stop pushing each other's buttons and just wave at one another as you stand up upon the opposite sides of the theological chasm you occupy.

 

 

Alright.     

 

 

[cuchulain]

Lets see how long that lasts...

[RevBogovac]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Lets see how long that lasts...

 

Probably not long, as Dan is posting some nice fallacies, as usual;

 

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[Dan] will desist in responding to hecklers who don't have any belief or genuine interest in biblical topics. I'll also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics. As you indicated, its a futile and endless endeavor to engage in arguments with members who have made-up their minds and who's positions are unshakable, that includes myself of course. 

 

1. "hecklers" somehow doesn't sound like any respect is shown;

 

2. for the N'th time: that someone doens't take the bible for 100% true, doesn't mean they "don't have any belief or genuine interest in biblical topics";

 

3. for the N'th time: it is the Agnostics and Atheists who are actually open to discussion and have NOT "made-up their minds". On the contrary, their "positions are [NOT] unshakable" (as those of religious fanatics ARE). They are actually open to real evidence and debate...

 

But hey, what else is new... 

 

 

[Key]

On 5/5/2019 at 5:24 AM, Dan56 said:

He already manifested himself in flesh & blood, and he demonstrated divine power. Your demand for an individual repeat performance is ridiculous, he was crucified once for everyone and that's enough. 

 

 

 

Just remember, even Thomas needed further proof when Christ first rose from the dead. So why, after being away for thousands of years, would He not expect many with the same inquisitive mind as Thomas?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:02 AM, RabbiO said:

Jon & Dan,

 

The Talmud records that the longest lasting argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai lasted three years.

 

You guys long ago passed that record. Neither of you has budged from your positions and I dare say neither of you is going to budge. Maybe the time has come to stop pushing each other's buttons and just wave at one another as you stand up upon the opposite sides of the theological chasm you occupy.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

21 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Probably not long, as Dan is posting some nice fallacies, as usual;

 

 

1. "hecklers" somehow doesn't sound like any respect is shown;

 

2. for the N'th time: that someone doens't take the bible for 100% true, doesn't mean they "don't have any belief or genuine interest in biblical topics";

 

3. for the N'th time: it is the Agnostics and Atheists who are actually open to discussion and have NOT "made-up their minds". On the contrary, their "positions are [NOT] unshakable" (as those of religious fanatics ARE). They are actually open to real evidence and debate...

 

But hey, what else is new... 

 

 

 

1.  I guess your reference to my belief as "nice fallacies" and "religious fanatics" just seems like heckling?

2.  I don't share that sentiment, most Atheist describe the bible as a collection of fictional fairy tales, and that to me suggest they have no belief in any of it.

3.  For the 10th time,  imo Atheist disbelieve and are open to nothing. And Agnostics lack belief in anything that can't be proven to their satisfaction, so in reality, they are open to zip.

 

But hey, nothings new...   

 

14 hours ago, Key said:

Just remember, even Thomas needed further proof when Christ first rose from the dead. So why, after being away for thousands of years, would He not expect many with the same inquisitive mind as Thomas?

 

True, in the moment, doubting Thomas lacked belief.. He had difficulty believing things that didn't match-up with his perception of reality. Belief is not following our perceptions of what's true, but rather what we know to be true by faith. As Paul wrote; "We walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Faith is not based on miracles, but learning to trust what you've come to understand and trust. This is the preferred way God wants inquisitive minds to turn and accept the Truth.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

1.  I guess your reference to my belief as "nice fallacies" and "religious fanatics" just seems like heckling?

2.  I don't share that sentiment, most Atheist describe the bible as a collection of fictional fairy tales, and that to me suggest they have no belief in any of it.

3.  For the 10th time,  imo Atheist disbelieve and are open to nothing. And Agnostics lack belief in anything that can't be proven to their satisfaction, so in reality, they are open to zip.

 

But hey, nothings new...   

 

 

True, in the moment, doubting Thomas lacked belief.. He had difficulty believing things that didn't match-up with his perception of reality. Belief is not following our perceptions of what's true, but rather what we know to be true by faith. As Paul wrote; "We walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Faith is not based on miracles, but learning to trust what you've come to understand and trust. This is the preferred way God wants inquisitive minds to turn and accept the Truth.

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

[RevBogovac]

Hey Dan!    

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

Hey Dan!    

 

 

 

 

 

Good.

[Dan56]

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

 

    

 

 

4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

Hey Dan!    

 

Thank you gentlemen, I'm still polite enough to respond to comments about what I write, but I'm relieved there were no more questions, just complete agreement on my last post .  Wisdom finally prevailed!!

The trick is; When you don't critique what I write, you don't need to read my stupid responses.. Just had to reply to your friendly waves, now its time to take a couple chill pills 💊💊

[cuchulain]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

1.  I guess your reference to my belief as "nice fallacies" and "religious fanatics" just seems like heckling?

2.  I don't share that sentiment, most Atheist describe the bible as a collection of fictional fairy tales, and that to me suggest they have no belief in any of it.

3.  For the 10th time,  imo Atheist disbelieve and are open to nothing. And Agnostics lack belief in anything that can't be proven to their satisfaction, so in reality, they are open to zip.

 

But hey, nothings new...   

 

 

True, in the moment, doubting Thomas lacked belief.. He had difficulty believing things that didn't match-up with his perception of reality. Belief is not following our perceptions of what's true, but rather what we know to be true by faith. As Paul wrote; "We walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Faith is not based on miracles, but learning to trust what you've come to understand and trust. This is the preferred way God wants inquisitive minds to turn and accept the Truth.

Left off the 'genuine interest'...guess you can't rightly claim atheists have no genuine interest and that equally defeats your point so its. best not to admit you were wrong, eh?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Thank you gentlemen, I'm still polite enough to respond to comments about what I write, but I'm relieved there were no more questions, just complete agreement on my last post .  Wisdom finally prevailed!!

The trick is; When you don't critique what I write, you don't need to read my stupid responses.. Just had to reply to your friendly waves, now its time to take a couple chill pills 💊💊

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

Hey Dan, you say you walk by faith and not sight.  Is that not what lemmings do.😀

Rhetorical question.  I am not interested in the answer. 

[Seeker]

Learn about lemmings... http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141122-the-truth-about-lemmings

[Pete]

On 7/11/2019 at 12:04 PM, Seeker said:

Learn about lemmings... http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141122-the-truth-about-lemmings

I know they do not jump over cliffs. Okay, perhaps I should say driving by faith without seeing on the highway ain't a good idea.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Pete