The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

Freak

New member
I came upon recently a very interesting article entitled: Theism vs Atheism. Read for yourself: http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Research_Center/Debates/debate7.htm

As you can see the problems the atheist faces is present and clear.

This part was so true:

Atheism also fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging Mind. Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance. Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Re: The Ever Present Problem of Atheism

Re: The Ever Present Problem of Atheism

Originally posted by Freak
I came upon recently a very interesting article entitled: Theism vs Atheism. Read for yourself: http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Research_Center/Debates/debate7.htm

As you can see the problems the atheist faces is present and clear.

This part was so true:

Atheism also fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging Mind. Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance. Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.
And this is bad how?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Re: Re: The Ever Present Problem of Atheism

Re: Re: The Ever Present Problem of Atheism

Originally posted by Gerald

And this is bad how?
Because it doesn't match what is self evident.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Perhaps the greatest single problem we atheists have is getting religionists to read more than a few lines at a time. :rolleyes:

The link you provide is not an "article", Jay. It is one of eight separate files that make up a debate between and atheist and a theist on that Web site.

I think that Dr. Martin's final statement sums up his points very adequately:
In his conclusion Dr. Fernandes boasts of the explanatory power of theism over atheism. However, theistic explanations of the problem of evil and of the existence of hundreds of millions of nonbelievers are problematic. Atheism has no such problems. Moreover, a theory such that is inconsistent and lacks rational support, such as theism, can hardly have great explanatory power. As I have shown, atheism is a consistent and a rationally supported position.

Unless you read the rest of the debate, the conclusions make little sense.

Perhaps you would like to tackle the "problem of evil" or the existence of hundres of millions of nonbelievers throughout human history?
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by Zakath
Perhaps the greatest single problem we atheists have is getting religionists to read more than a few lines at a time. :rolleyes:

The link you provide is not an "article", Jay. It is one of eight separate files that make up a debate between and atheist and a theist on that Web site.

I think that Dr. Martin's final statement sums up his points very adequately:


Unless you read the rest of the debate, the conclusions make little sense.

Perhaps you would like to tackle the "problem of evil" or the existence of hundres of millions of nonbelievers throughout human history?

So, Zakath:

Atheism also fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging Mind. Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance. Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.

Atheism fails miserably in providing any kind of eternal significance...Christianity provides hope after death. Zakath, a breath away you are....then what....you might simply dismiss death...but it is a reality that all humans must face...
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Freak
Atheism also fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging Mind.
Provide three examples of eternal, unchanging truths and explain how you can be absolutely certain they are eternal.

Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance.
It does not seek to do so. Most atheists of my acquaintance are humanists, they do not seek "eternal significance."

Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.
Au contrairè Jay, since, as nearly as anyone can prove, consciousness ceases to exist after death, the meaning we extract from our lives is as permanent as meaning can be. Once we're done, we're done. A thousand years from now, all your pontification on TOL (and mine as well) will be forgotten. What we do here, we do for entertainment, not for any eternal purpose...

Christianity provides hope after death. Zakath, a breath away you are....then what....you might simply dismiss death...but it is a reality that all humans must face...
Finally, we agree, even you will face and be overcome by death one day, Jay. One day you'll see that I'm right. But I can wait. Death comes for all humans, even religionists like you. Neither your deity or your faith will save you from "the long dirt nap"...

Death is a fact of existence here, Jay. You can fear it like a religionist or face it squarely like an atheist. But you cannot avoid it.
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
Re: Re: Re: The Ever Present Problem of Atheism

Re: Re: Re: The Ever Present Problem of Atheism

Originally posted by Knight
Because it doesn't match what is self evident.
And it is self-evident is that there exists an invisible, immaterial, volitional being who regularly interacts with the material world?

I'd like to see you demonstrate that. I really would.

Let me ask you what I asked Mustard Seed, to wit:

I get this very same sentiment from people who believe in psychic powers, ghosts, flying saucers, and all the other paranormal booshwah. Am I being closed-minded when I dismiss their claims? Yes or no?

And to repeat an earlier post, if I trip on the rug, is it because I wasn't watching my step, or is it because invisible, immaterial gremlins made me trip, wrinkled the rug just so I would stumble over it? Is it closed-minded for me to not give equal weight to both possibilities? Yes or no?

Evidence for gravity is ubiquitous and impossible to ignore. Do you dispute this? Yes or no? I don't need to go seeking evidence for gravity. All I need to do is...trip on the rug.

Now, if evidence for the supernatural is as ubiquitous as you appear to be claiming, why do I have to be looking to change how I live or what I am to discover it? Why must I jump through hoops for the supernatural but not for gravity?


He never answered. Care to give it a go?
 

Freak

New member
Time to wake up from your nap...

Time to wake up from your nap...

Zakath you asked: Provide three examples of eternal, unchanging truths and explain how you can be absolutely certain they are eternal.

Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.

How can we be absolutely sure they are eternal? The answer is because the Holy Scriptures declare it. I know you are a atheist that denies the inerrancy of Scripture. But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin. That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....
 

Freak

New member
As the debate clearly shows the atheist could not provide any information that debunks the belief in God.

In conclusion, Dr. Martin has presented no persuasive arguments as to why one should expect absolute moral values, eternal and unchanging truths, the beginning of the universe, the universe's continuing existence, the design and order in the universe, ultimate meaning in life, the sanctity of human life, the possibility of human knowledge, and the ultimate defeat of evil in a universe without God.

He goes on:

I have shown that these aspects of human experience are predicted by the theistic hypothesis. Martin's alternatives to my arguments are highly speculative, extremely improbable, and very unconvincing. It is apparent that he is willing to entertain absurdities (such as the universe evolving into existence from nothing, an infinite number of unverifiable universes, the rejection of eternal and unchanging prescriptive moral laws, etc.) in order to escape the conclusion that the theistic God does exist. In short, Martin fails to explain why atheism is a superior hypothesis to that of theism. He is willing to attack theism, but does not even attempt to show that atheism offers a better explanation for the nine aspects of human experience I discussed in my opening statement. Martin unsuccessfully attacks the explanatory power of theism while failing to show that atheism has any explanatory power.6 My thesis remains intact. It is more reasonable to be a theist than it is to be an atheist.
 

shilohproject

New member
Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Originally posted by Freak

Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.

How can we be absolutely sure they are eternal? The answer is because the Holy Scriptures declare it. I know you are a atheist that denies the inerrancy of Scripture. But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin. That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....

Freak,

One must be careful here to not confuse belief with proof.

I happen to agree with you on these three points (love, goodness & Jesus), but I am absolutely certain that it is a matter of faith and definition. There is no proof in these assertions, e.g. goodness and love exist outside the Christian world, too.
 

Freak

New member
Re: Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Re: Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Originally posted by shilohproject


Freak,

One must be careful here to not confuse belief with proof.

I happen to agree with you on these three points (love, goodness & Jesus), but I am absolutely certain that it is a matter of faith and definition. There is no proof in these assertions, e.g. goodness and love exist outside the Christian world, too.

I have reasonable faith though. Not a blind faith. Big difference that you should see I would think.
 

Flipper

New member
zakath wrote:

This should be interesting to watch... Not enlightening, but interesting.

Really? I just have a weary sense of resignation. How many times can the same things be said in not-very-different ways? How many times will, after a few months of injured silence, will exactly the same points be represented in a slightly different shade of mauve as if they were interesting new arguments? Do some Christians timeshare their memories with goldfish?

Is that what will prevent heaven from becoming boring over eternity? ("hello! Look at that! A rock! How interesting!".... (7 seconds pass)... "What's that? It looks like a rock! Wow!")
 

Neophyte

New member
[Do some Christians timeshare their memories with goldfish?

Is that what will prevent heaven from becoming boring over eternity? ("hello! Look at that! A rock! How interesting!".... (7 seconds pass)... "What's that? It looks like a rock! Wow!")

ROFL!!!!!
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Flipper
Is that what will prevent heaven from becoming boring over eternity? ("hello! Look at that! A rock! How interesting!".... (7 seconds pass)... "What's that? It looks like a rock! Wow!")
If you have ever taken LSD (20 years or so ago when LSD actually existed) you can only imagine how fascinating life will be with (not just a redeemed body) but also a redeemed mind. I can't wait.
 

Neophyte

New member
Originally posted by Jefferson
If you have ever taken LSD (20 years or so ago when LSD actually existed) you can only imagine how fascinating life will be with (not just a redeemed body) but also a redeemed mind. I can't wait.

What?! Heaven is like being on LSD????? Think bigger than drug-induced mania.
 

shima

New member
>>I have shown that these aspects of human experience are predicted by the theistic hypothesis.<<

Nope, you haven't shown anyhting.

>>Martin's alternatives to my arguments are highly speculative, extremely improbable, and very unconvincing.<<

Given that Martin looks at the arguements from an atheistic perspective, he finds the arguements much more convincing than yours.

>>It is apparent that he is willing to entertain absurdities (such as the universe evolving into existence from nothing, an infinite number of unverifiable universes, the rejection of eternal and unchanging prescriptive moral laws, etc.) in order to escape the conclusion that the theistic God does exist. <<

Actually, atheists find the probability that the Universe came from "nothing" (not that there is any proof that "nothing" exists outside our universe) much higher than the probability that it was done by God as described in the bible.

>>In short, Martin fails to explain why atheism is a superior hypothesis to that of theism. <<

Well, that depends on your definition of "superior". Most christians would agree with you, while most atheists disagree. After all, if they think that the theistic hypothesis is superior, they wouldn't BE atheist.

>>He is willing to attack theism, but does not even attempt to show that atheism offers a better explanation for the nine aspects of human experience I discussed in my opening statement. <<

Human experience is EXTREMELY subjective to the beliefs of the person involved. If a human believes in God, he will most likely see the existence confirmed in almost every aspect of life. An atheist will NEVER see the existence of a God confirmed in human experience, simply because he interprets the world DIFFERENTLY.

The problem is that the theist has the burden of proof, not the atheist. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, the theist must prove that the God hypothesis is more believable than the atheistic hypothesis. This requires proof that God exists, which in 2000 years no one has been able to do without at some point relying on the bible as "The Word of God" which leads to circular arguementation.

>>Martin unsuccessfully attacks the explanatory power of theism while failing to show that atheism has any explanatory power.<<

I think its the other way around. Atheism has great explanatory power, including why christians think God exists. Theism also has explanatory power, but only when it comes to Christians. The explanation of why there are atheists in the first place fails rather apallingly.

>>My thesis remains intact. It is more reasonable to be a theist than it is to be an atheist.<<

Depending on the definition of "reason".
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath you asked: Provide three examples of eternal, unchanging truths and explain how you can be absolutely certain they are eternal.

Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.

How can we be absolutely sure they are eternal? The answer is because the Holy Scriptures declare it. I know you are a atheist that denies the inerrancy of Scripture. But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin. That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, as you admit, it is useless to me since you cannot prove
  • - the existence of your deity
    - the goodness of your deity
    - the eternality of your diety
    - the inerrancy of the Bible
    - or the continued existence of and truthfulness of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, for once, you did actually respond with information.
 

Neophyte

New member
Re: Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Re: Re: Time to wake up from your nap...

Originally posted by Zakath


Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, as you admit, it is useless to me since you cannot prove
  • - the existence of your deity
    - the goodness of your deity
    - the eternality of your diety
    - the inerrancy of the Bible
    - or the continued existence of and truthfulness of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, for once, you did actually respond with information.

Zakath, neither can *you* prove the nonexistence of God, so what is the point of this banter? Matters of spiritual belief and faith cannot be 'proved' in a scientific sense anymore than your starting premise (there is no God) can be 'proved' in a scientific sense. I fail to see how your retort strengthens your position.
 

shima

New member
>>But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin.That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....<<

Ofcourse, what one person sees as "proof of God" someone else sees as "proof of evolution". The main problem is to prove the existence of God for someone who doesn't believe that the bible is the Word of God.

In essence, ALL "proofs" of the existence of God depend on believing that the bible is the Word of God. So, all arguements for God are circular arguements. There is no proof that does NOT depend on belief in God. After all, if there was proof all people (including those of other faiths) would already be Christians. The fact that they are NOT means that Christians cannot prove that God exists.

>>Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.<<

Ocourse, believing that these are eternal truths depends on belief in God. If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe these are eternal truths.

Belief is a way of coping with all the data pouring into the brain every second. Belief shapes the interpretation of those signals, and the signals shape your belief. Thus, it is a feedback-loop, much like all other signal processing-modelling activities. Ofcourse, some beliefs shape the interpretation more than others, and some beliefs shape the interpretation so strongly that contradictory information is "weeded" out of the signals such that only belief-confirming data remains. Thus, belief shapes (or rather: distords) your view of reality.

And this goes for all beliefs, even belief in Santa or the Tooth Faery. Some are just stronger than others, and some have so much "fail safe devices" that every contradictory signal can be explained in such a way that it seems to confirm that belief (ie: The Devil did it!) rather than contradict it.

However, to eliminate unwanted beliefs from shaping the interpretation, science has devised ways to do away with beliefs and biases which might distord data interpretation. This has been a very powerfull way to detect the working mechanisms of reality, although no matter what belief is still powerfull and cannot be dismissed that easily. Nevertheless, peer-review, double-blind experiments, discussion conferences and other mechanisms do well in exposing/eliminating beliefs/biases from data interpretation.

This is why religion fears science so much, since science is a way to interpret data without the influence of belief. And ALL religions rely on belief to shape the interpretation and safe-guard that belief from being destroyed by contradictory data. When you take away all those safe-guards, all those "collored glasses" and those "blindfolds", what is left is ususally less than nothing.

Ofcourse, some religions are far better at avoiding taking off those "blindfolds". These religions are the ones who survive longest because followers are very hard to convert from their chosen religion. Nevertheless, atheists and other non-religious groups are gaining numbers FAST. I just hope that those religious groups are NOT going to start a fight about it, because the LAST thing this world needs is another Holy War, resulting in the banning of science by those religions. We NEED science, because our world can no longer survive without it.

Face it, most of this world would be better off without religious influences determining peoples choises.
 
Top