The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

R

RogerB

New member
Originally posted by Gerald
Interesting how in 20 centuries' time, no one else has...

As well, Jesus and other biblical personages are said to have performed miracles on a regular basis.

Interesting how in 20 centuries' time, no one else has...
Click to expand...

Interesting? Hardly. There's only one God capable of performing or causing these miracles.
 
Gerald

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by RogerB
Interesting? Hardly. There's only one God capable of performing or causing these miracles.
Click to expand...
Well, he's layin' down on the job, then.

There haven't been any miracles in a long, long time...if there ever were any...
 
LightSon

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by shima
The problem is the credibility of the eyewitnesses. Since Paul set out to establish Jezus as the Savior, he therefore had a vested interrest in manipulating eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

How many martyrs for Elvis have you seen?

You might honestly consider Paul and the other apostles and this vested interest. Paul was beaten, stoned and imprisoned. He was a perpetual itinerant. Paul was well educated and professionally established when He converted to Christianity. Why whould a man leave such comfort to incur torture?

That does not follow.

The other apostles likewise were faithful to Christ, maintaining the veracity of their witness up to and including death. Why?

A man may lie to achieve gain or special comfort, but those same men will tell the truth when pressed with loosing their life. These men, with one exception, surrendered their lives, accepting execution. Even given that they believed the story of Christ's resurrection, they could have easily ignored its implications so as to save their skins. Yet, there was some factor present which was compelling enough for them to choose death over comfort. This is uncommon.

Why would they do that?

This is the point where one will bring up suicide bombers etc.
There is a difference. In the case of suicide bombers, we have fanatics who have swallowed a bill of goods, based upon received dogma.

In the case of Jesus' disciples, we have men who were present when Christ was executed. They knew He died. If they hadn't seen Him revive, they would be stepping out to proclaim a lie that they KNEW was a lie. Therein lies the difference. It is one thing to be duped into believing. It is another thing to be an eyewitness to the truth and then dupe yourself, so that you can experience torture. That makes no sense.

Whence came the disciples confidence? Could it be they were telling the truth? Could it be they actually beheld the risen Christ and chose hard lives as a direct result?

If Christ is raised, Christianity is validated.
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Re: atheism religious?

Re: atheism religious?

Originally posted by LightSon
Is atheism "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"?

To the degree you can say"yes", then atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...
Atheism, per se, does not address the question of origins. It merely addresses the existence of deities. I think you are confusing atheism with naturalism.
 
R

RogerB

New member
Re: Re: atheism religious?

Re: Re: atheism religious?

Originally posted by Zakath
Atheism, per se, does not address the question of origins. It merely addresses the existence of deities. I think you are confusing atheism with naturalism.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing "telling everyone what they meant" with a "discussion".
 
LightSon

LightSon

New member
Re: Re: atheism religious?

Re: Re: atheism religious?

Originally posted by Zakath
Atheism, per se, does not address the question of origins. It merely addresses the existence of deities. I think you are confusing atheism with naturalism.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Zakath.

Given atheism, would there not be an impetus to proffer a model of existence excluding god? It seems that such a model would be an outstanding (needed) component of any worldview. If God is not, then creationism fails. I only know of one competing view and that is evolution. Is there another?

Regarding naturalism, my dictionary shows a philosophical usage and a theological usage.

4. Philos. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.
5. Theol. the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

I'll assume you meant the former.
Regarding atheism and naturalism, would not one suggest (or include as a subset) the other?
 
LightSon

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by claire
Because vision exceeds my understanding....
Because the form is indistinct and blurred
Because the premise is often challenged
Does not negate what is inferred.
Because the pieces don't fit together
Like a jigsaw puzzle still undone
Does not mean the picture is less awesome
It only means we've just begun.....
Click to expand...

I'm sure glad you happend onto TOL claire. I always enjoy reading your perspective.

I'm still waiting for you to challenge my fundamentalism though, after which we'll have to see how gracious I can afford to be.

Blessings.
 
Zakath

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Re: Re: Re: atheism religious?

Re: Re: Re: atheism religious?

Originally posted by LightSon
Fair enough Zakath.
Click to expand...
Glad you agree.

Given atheism, would there not be an impetus to proffer a model of existence excluding god? It seems that such a model would be an outstanding (needed) component of any worldview. If God is not, then creationism fails. I only know of one competing view and that is evolution. Is there another?
Click to expand...
I don't know, perhaps a steady state universe...

Regarding naturalism, my dictionary shows a philosophical usage and a theological usage...I'll assume you meant the former.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Regarding atheism and naturalism, would not one suggest (or include as a subset) the other?
Click to expand...
Not especially. Atheism's sum content is a disbelief in diety. To my knowledge, it does not address anything outside of that. All the rest of the baggage must go under another banner like humanism, rationalism, naturalism, etc.
 
Gerald

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Actually they have.
Click to expand...
Documentation, please?

Something that is a confirmed supernatural occurence, not just unexplained...

(and kindly refrain from referring me to the Bible; RogerB told that joke already...)
 
R

RogerB

New member
Originally posted by Gerald
Documentation, please?

Something that is a confirmed supernatural occurence, not just unexplained...

(and kindly refrain from referring me to the Bible; RogerB told that joke already...)
Click to expand...

Prove to me it's raining and kindly refrain from asking me to go or look outside. :doh:
 
Gerald

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by RogerB
Prove to me it's raining and kindly refrain from asking me to go or look outside. :doh:
Click to expand...
You will believe it's raining, or you will be subjected to horrible, unending torture, forever.

Cretin.
 
Gerald

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Originally posted by RogerB
You are silly.
Click to expand...
Oh, you've noticed, have you?

Considering that's the same threat you folks use ("Believe in God, genuinely, or rot in hell", or some variant), you have a lot of room to talk...:doh:
 
R

RogerB

New member
Originally posted by Gerald
Oh, you've noticed, have you?

Considering that's the same threat you folks use ("Believe in God, genuinely, or rot in hell", or some variant), you have a lot of room to talk...:doh:
Click to expand...

I admit that I am silly, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top