I will now prove atheists are illogical!

I'm still waiting for the promised PROOF

 

The only proof offered so far, is how illogical the "believers" are.

It is logical to me, that if there is a supreme God, that he would create everything scientifically, after all science too, particle physics, molecular biology etc are his creations too. Oh Christians don't like things like molecular biology ..... until they need a doctor

 

I'm sorry... but what is it you're waiting for proof of?

 

I am confused as well. Proof of what?

 

The OP promised to prove to us that atheists are illogical. Now the wording does not say he is going to prove that atheism is illogical, nor does it say that not believing in Christ is illogical. It sates that atheists themselves are illogical. And he says I WILL NOW PROVE IT, well go on, where is this great proof?

The only thing that has been shown is that both are really illogical, not because of a lack of logic in the argument, but because we are after all mere human beings, and we are discussing things that are well beyond our abilities to comprehend them. Yes we arrogantly sit at our PCs and say "I know the truth", but we really don't, we are just another ant crawling across the surface of a huge rock, hurtling through space. But we are a pretty cool ant, with a great imagination.

Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't, so I just live as if there is one, and if there is one, then he will understand me, what is good about me and what is bad about me. If there is no God, then all this will become academic when I go, so for now I just try to be a good man. Quite simple really.

In the Bible there is a very poignant passage, it states that we will be judged by our measure. This means if you judge people harshly, so harshley shall you be judged, if we judge with benevolence and compassion, then we will be judged with benevolence and compassion.

Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

 

Oh I thought you were asking for proof of something from me specifically.

I agree with what you wrote here, but I don't know that Jedi has even replied much to this thread after he created it. Honestly, I think it was just the word play he did at the beginning, and then general atheism/anti-atheism conversation took over.

 

No one was expecting any proof to begin with.

I hear what you saying, but I think it's only the fanatic theist saying "I know the truth".

Refuting bad arguments for the existence of a higher power does not in any way equate to saying that one knows for a fact that a higher power does not exist.

Hell... I've seen theists refute bad arguments for the existence of God, so it obviously is not an atheist-only thing to do.

Good for you. I live my life as if there isn't one because I've seen no convincing evidence and the arguments offered thus far are disappointing at best, insulting at worst.

Maybe you could bring that up to the likes of Ken Hamm...

Like convincing evidence for the existence of a higher power? I'm very quickly becoming convinced that I will never get it.

 

As will the big bang theory never be truly proven. I don't live my life the way I do just in case the Bible is right, or because there may be a God. I live this way because it is the way I want to live my life, and because I am a caring human. BTW, most Christians would shudder if they knew what I do, a lot would try to have me arrested.

 

In one of my Histology lectures, a professor once said that we can never really see what things look like, for the act of looking at something, changes what it is.

 

Except it basically has. First, we have the Cosmological Microwave Background Radiation. Then, we have the fact that the universe is expanding.

That's really all one needs. Evidence of radiation and heat from a seriously intense inflation (CMBR), plus the logic that says that a universe that is expanding was, at one time in the past, a heck of a lot smaller, and the idea that our universe started from an incredibly small point in the past suddenly becomes common sense.

Of course, it's a lot more involved than that and there's quite a bit more evidence for it. Here's some links:
Talkorigins.org - Evidence for the Big Bang
Scientific American - Misconceptions about the Big Bang (this is a preview of the article. I tried to find the whole thing for free but couldn't. Sorry. I will keep looking, however, in the hopes that I can get it.)

That's... great. No one's condemning you for how you live (except maybe fanatic Christians). I was just responding to you.

It's not that he's wrong... it's just that he applying a fact about the quantum (subatomic) world to all of reality. In the subatomic world, he is absolutely correct. The world of the particles that make up an atom has to be studied by its effects on the atom and the space around it because, for some unknown reason, looking directly at it changes the whole make-up, making it appear normal. In other words, scientists have to look at the subatomic world out of the corners of their eyes.

However, for someone to assume this applies to whole of reality is... well... incorrect. Looking at a rock does not make it change. It will be the same thing when I look at it and when I don't look at it, or when I look at it indirectly (out of the corner of my eye).

 

Well, not quite.

Judgement in the Bible is a difficult subject, and this is one that I disagree with many of my Christian peers on. Standards are just that, and in some cases, they are pretty clear cut.

For example, adultry is a clear cut sin - its all or nothing, you either do or do not. An in egregious cases, one must judge and judge harshly. Such action, can, should, and DOES result in excommunication. It also results in the end of marriages, broken familes, and great deal of pain - which is why it is a commandment to NOT do it.

So, if you are a parish priest, a church elder, etc., and that crosses your desk - your duty is clear. If you are lay member of the church, and yoru church leadership is doing nothing about overt adultry in the ranks .... well, you should probably ask why?

When I see people cautioning against judgement, what I often see is rationalization, that it is wrong to hold others to task when they have clearly failed by any reasonable measure of a standard.

Judgement in and of itself is not a bad thing. The key to it is temperence and wisdom. For example, when you submit your paper to a professor, and it comes back looking like he has slit his wrist on it .... that is a rather harsh judgement of your paper. That judgement and candid feedback is neverthless necessary at the beginning of the process IF you wish to attain the same level of expertise as the professor. The same goes in my profession, as a novice Solider, I had Ranger Instructors tell me after a patrol, to be blunt, "That sucked. You failed. Try again." Yet that is a harsh judgement.

The same goes for morality. If you are caught lying - YOU SHOULD BE CHASTIZED. The same thing SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU if YOU are caught lying. If someone blantantly cheats on their spouse, they SHOULD face excommunication. So should I if I were to do something like that.

And yet, in the midst of that, there should be temperance in judgement. A man whose marriage is on the rocks and pending divorce who slips .... probably doesn't need excommunication, but he DOES need atonement. And with accountability comes something wonderful ... progress. If people hold you accountable, take you to task, you stop doing those bad things.

THink of a swear jar. Over time, as the 'pain' of giving money to a jar adds up, the swearing goes away. The threat of excommunication, of violating a STANDARD that you signed up for, offers a timely reminder of the consequences, immediate in a temporal sense - quite a bit more damaging in the divine sense - of giving into temptation and desire.

And yet we fail as humans. Judgement does not exist alone, it exists beside atonement. Excommunication is not permenant. If someone realizes genuinely that they erred, is genuinely repetent .... they can be forgiven. That too is a judgement - a standard met.

We should not fear judgement, espcially when dealing with OUR OWN ACTIONS, the trick is to use it judiciously and with wisdom, reminded that we all fail at times and being mindful for opportunities for redemption. After all, that is EXACTLY what God does for us.

 

The point is that what atheism is ... shifts.

It is BOTH standards, and not having standards and doctrine. How am I misrepresenting atheism when atheists right here on this forum are claiming to fundamentally opposit things?

The standards of my religion, the ten commandments, are very well known. Yours? In fact, the ten commandments are so well known, that certain non-Christians, upon seeing them in a court room will sue the pants off of anyone within a hundred miles of the picture.

You my friend, have a thesis statement to define before you start telling people how we cannot comprehend what atheism is. I was an atheist, I understand it just fine. There is a reason I can no longer be an atheist - its not because I suddenly saw how much sense atheism made that I left.

 

This country didn't have "common values" from the foundation; in fact, the values among the various peoples of the various colonies were quite diverse, hence the reason to maximize liberty rather than create political divisiveness between groups.

It was conservative progressives who fought for a government school system in order to indoctrinate children in a set of "common values" that would make them good government citizens and workers for industrialists. They got a system where they could enforce those values, but also a system ripe for a takeover by liberal progressivism.

 

Ah, huckled! Well, you may have been sarcastic there but there's plenty of people who say things like that and are quite serious... without a handy username letting people know that you're quite a sarcastic person how is a guy to know?

 

Just a follow up on why I said Atheism is a "a form of Hedonism:"


2 Timothy 3

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves,... blasphemers,... unholy,

4.... heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God;

That's what they are proclaimed as being by end-time scripture, from Paul inspired by the Spirit God. Sorry....but I'm sure that none here will lose any sleep over it.

 

Atheism is more a modern disbelief philosophy (last couple of hundred years..starting around the French 'enlightenment period prior to their bloody, butcherous Revolution by those enlightened folk) in God or gods, and points to the approaching end times as quoted B4 in 2 Tim 3 (a letter written by Paul as a mentor to Timothy who rose to rank after Paul's death, and this epistle was one of Paul's last letters)

In the same vein, applying to those who rejected God and exchanged the 'truth' for a lie:

Romans1:20/22:

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Atheism..... again, Good Luck with that.....

 

This is a good example of a "sin" that may or may not be wrong. While generally true that adultry is probably wrong it isn't always wrong. It is wrong if in involves deception by the person committing the adultry but there are cases where open "adultry" can benefit a marriage. If both of the individuals agree that it's a good thing for their marriage then why would it be wrong? Absolutes, which is what the religious position on adultry represents, does not allow for rare exceptions. This is where I would have a "generally true but not always true" position.

An example could be a rare case where one of the individuals becomes a quadriplegic perhaps because of an auto accident and they might want their partner to still enjoy sex but cannot participate in it. It should be a choice of the individuals and they should not be stuck with the religious stigmatism that it is always wrong. Exceptions may be rare but there are exceptions.

 

"Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies."... aka, 'just' knowledge can lead to arrogance, pride, and conceit..

and for those with the 'arrogance of education:'

"professing theselves to be wise, they became as fools"

All have heard of the 'educated fool'.....

Are Atheists really 'self-enlightened' or just egotistical fools?

 

Well I do not profess myself to be wise, quite the contrary actually, the more I enquire to gain knowledge, the more I realise just how little I really know. I am human and by nature arrogant, but I hope my arrogance is mellowing with age, not from wear but from the gaining of experience.

The first part is a very ambiguous passage, that goes something like the two rules.

Rule one. I am always right.
Rule two. In case you think you are right, refer to rule 1.

 

"Thoust smugness is apparent." Thx for validating my previous postings...

smug (smg)
adj.

smugness n.

Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent:

 

Not exactly true but instead athiesm basically reflects a "skeptical" belief philosophy. Athiests don't simply believe dogma but instead question it. As I've noted religious beliefs aren't based upon a "belief in god" but instead they are based upon a "belief in people" because every religious text and teaching has originated with people. All religions basically come down to "I believe in god because someone told me that god exists" and the athiest questions that.

The athest sees the connection between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament for example. The athiest sees the incorporation of the Greek god Hades in Revelation when Christianity expanded from a small Jewish religious sect to include the Romans which turned it into a universal religion as a brilliant marketing move by early Christians. The atheist sees the connections between different religions and their evolution from one religion to the next. We see religion as being promoted by men with an agenda as a political tool of control using the insecurities of the common man to gain power.

It is unfortunate that those with religious beliefs feel that this is an "attack" on their religion because it is not. It is a personal evaluation being made by the athiest related to their own personal beliefs. They find the the extraordinary claim of a "personal god" by Christianity does not meet the criteria of extraordinary proof that would support such a belief.

Ultimately people should believe that which they choose to believe and we should not condemn what others believe in. We can discuss our personal reasons for our beliefs and that should be an open discussion without condemnation.

The only issue that we should all agree on is that none of us should be trying to force our personal beliefs on others. This is true whether we're talking the issue of abortion or same-gender marriage or promoting "gay life-styles" in public school. We shouldn't be trying to force our personally beliefs on others in any of these situations. We should look for our common values and join together to suppor those and let our differences in personal opinions remain personal opinions that we don't attempt to force on others.

 

The interpretation of the words "forcing our beliefs' on others...militant Atheists?


But, I can see the scene on Judgement Day:

1st of all, Shiva says a big "Oooops!!"

Then he proceeds into the court room of the Great White Throne Judgement,

He presents his case to the Lord, expounding his usual 'eloquent bloviation with many words,'

And following his plea, God rolls His eyes, and replies with........... "NEXT."

 

Perhaps there are militant athiests but I don't know what they would actually do to be considered to be militant. I know that I present questions and issues related to religious beliefs that I've thought about and that religious believers should also think about. That is not being militant but instead it's being informative. We should all question our beliefs on a daily basis and not simply assume they are correct. In general political discussions I'm often faced with having to provide evidence to support my political opinion and that is a very good thing. It is a primary reason for being a member of Political Forum for me as it has forced me to investigate many of my political beliefs.

Once again this reflects a belief in what someone else has said. God didn't say there would be a "judgment day" but instead people 2000 years ago did. Do I believe them? No I don't because what they say makes no sense. Once agian I'll bring up the case of the "wife-beating, cheating, daughter raping, murderer" that Christianity says can go to heaven but that a person who lives their life respecting others and living a truly good life would be rejected because one "accepts Jesus and confesses his sins" while the other has nothing to confess and doesn't accept Jesus makes no sense whatsoever. It is completely illogical. When good men can be condemned to hell while wife-beaters, child rapists and murders can go to heaven it makes no sense.

 

Just one of several scriptures that show the futility of men's minds ('their' thinking and 'their' logic):

1 Corinthians 2:14

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

The natural man has no concept of Grace as in "not earned nor deserved"...and scripture also says that "God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways; for His thoughts & ways are 'higher' than ours.....to quote your words in response to one of my posts, "It is as simple as that."
.
.
.
.
BTW, as a follow up---Scripture talks about a 'cloud of witnesses' at the end times.

And so, better be nice to me, Shiva, as I might be sitting in the court room being asked to testify in your case, or even may be on the Jury...

 

All of the "scriptures" were written by men with an agenda and the athiest questions the statements of men with an agenda. It is very logical to question such statements especially when the statements make no sense.