Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2014, 05:15 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 05:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 04:13 PM)hbl Wrote:  All the books of the NT were written by eyewitness Apostles or very close associates such as Luke.

We have 45 sources for Jesus documenting 129 facts of His life within 150 years of Jesus' death. For no other person do we have sources within a 1000 years of their deaths. But for Jesus we have 15 parchments (still surviving papyri) within 150 years of His death. God holds a higher standard of historical record.

Of those 45 sources, 17 are non-Christian. Of those 17, 12 speak of His death and 12 of His resurrection. 7 even speak of His deity. Altogether of those 45 sources (both Christian and non-Christian), 24 speak of His resurrection. I get this information from Gary. R. Habermas 3 of 70 of his books: 1) The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 2) Historical Jesus, and 3) Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus. Some say Gary is the leading scholar on the planet today for the resurrection evidence using the Minimal Facts Approach. This simply says that almost all scholars agree Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 in which he said he spent 15 days with Peter, with John and James brother of Jesus, he received the gospel message from the eyewitness Apostles and it agreed with his own eyewitness testimony of Jesus. So he and they truly believed it, but there is no naturalistic explanation to account for it, so it must be true.

30 minutes in 6 short videos....



No they were not. No schoalr agrees with that nonsense. The original gospels, (actually there were hundreds of gospels which later were pared down to the 4 we know) were not labeled "matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John". Clearly you have no education in ancient languages and cultures, and specifically Biblical Studies. None at all.

Habermas is one of the leading fools in the field, and charlatans practicing in the field of lying for a living. He has no degree in the field. I been to a talk by Habermas. He's pathetic, and an embarrasment to himself. His nonsense has been debunked over and over, INCDLUDING by christian scholars. There are no references to Jesus that stand up to real scrutiny. None at all. The testimony of thgospels is not "evidence". Paul himself said he hallucinated his gospel, ("recieved FROM NO MAN"). Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott of the Tulsa Seminary ("The Trouble With Resurrection" has demonstrated what's wrong with the idea of a literal resurrection).

You say "almost all scholars this and that ". Let's see the poll of scholars. Refernece your garbage, or STFU. Whatever Paul said he did not mean Jesus literally rose from the dead, as Scott has demonstrated, AND which fits perfectly with Jewish Apocalypticism.

You can't even prove that Jesus even existed.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

I am an admirer of your work Yes Thumbsup

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
05-08-2014, 05:16 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Originality: 1/10
Conviction: 7/10
Insanity: 3/10

Overall 4/10. Would not troll again.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
05-08-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 05:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Originality: 1/10
Conviction: 7/10
Insanity: 3/10

Overall 4/10. Would not troll again.

I am almost beginning to think this guy is an atheist. Nobody else could find the most backwards, garbage, completely inaccurate and fabricated sources except for somebody that has face palmed to a lot of it.

Pretty certain this guy is trolling us. We are a particularly troll-able community I suppose Drinking Beverage .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 05:28 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 05:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Originality: 1/10
Conviction: 7/10
Insanity: 3/10

Overall 4/10. Would not troll again.

I am almost beginning to think this guy is an atheist. Nobody else could find the most backwards, garbage, completely inaccurate and fabricated sources except for somebody that has face palmed to a lot of it.

Pretty certain this guy is trolling us. We are a particularly troll-able community I suppose Drinking Beverage .

Consider you may have a point, the delusion is strong in this one Yes

ahhh I have just the thing!

[Image: s1kxms.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 06:38 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  The reason I don't believe in atheism is because something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. For example, a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Likewise, non-existence can't cause nature or the universe to come into being. Krauss would be wrong as well, because that which doesn't exist can't split into something. It doesn't exist.

And nature can't always have existed either, because if it did, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now in an infinite regression of cause and effects, so you should have already happened.

Moreover, infinite regress is inherently self-contradictory because if there was this past eternity of cause and effects as part of nature, the universe or universes, then a past eternity should continue to go on for eternity, never reaching this point in the here and now. Thus, past eternity is a man made construct, but doesn't exist in reality.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Knowing this, we know, therefore, that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. If you ask me what I mean by the term God, the first thing I would tell you is that this is the 'uncreated Creator'.

Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?
just to let you know your claim dose not support your conclusion... just because the universe needs a uncased cause doesn't mean you get to plug god there without evidence.

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 07:11 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 09:10 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 12:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 11:38 AM)Zippo Wrote:  To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?

You don't need to suppose since it makes sense. Apparently you didn't read the OP because it says: "Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?"

The One that would be true is the one that proves Himself. Start with God being righteous and accessible. Only 3 religions are accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

But Hinduism is false because its god Brahma is said to be 'amoral' but how can God have standards below our own? And it doesn't effectively address sin since you get endless chances to be reincarnated to try again, often times coming back as an animal. How can the burden of our free choice be relegated to becoming a chicken or a frog? That's too impersonal and degrading. Besides salvation is not by works or one's own strength because that could never meet God's infinitely great standards. God must intercede. Only He qualifies to do so.

Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming. Likewise, Islam is salvation by works; yet salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Cain gave an offering of works and perished, going to Hell. Abel gave a propering offering not of his own works and so was saved.

So we know Christianity is true, because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.

... yeah, this guy is definitely plagiarizing WLC without properly crediting him.

Enough of us have lambasted your OP to make it clear that we don't buy into it. Simply stating and restating that an argument proves something, doesn't prove it. Not when the argument is absurd. For reasons we have pointed out, and which you have not addressed.

[Image: shovedownmythroat.png]

But moving on to this present... thing. It's a strange sort of argumentation, where you arrive at a conclusion that disproves your support. You begin with the supporting claim (itself unsupported, but whatevs) that a God would of necessity be accessible and have revealed itself to the world at large. You conclude that Christianity is true. Yet if we take the Christian narrative as true, then that would mean that there was a time before Christ when God was NOT accessible, and a time before... well, it's hard to fix, but any time before Christ at the earliest where God had NOT revealed himself to the world in general. (Maybe to a handful of desert nomads, but that's not equal to the make-known impulse that you're describing.) Saying that God is of necessity accessible would mean that God was accessible even in, say, the time of King David, which would mean that the sacrifice to redeem humanity was totally unnecessary, which would make Christ's crucifixion and resurrection meaningless... pretty much the exact OPPOSITE statement of Christianity.

So IF Christianity were true, it would prove your argument in error, because Christianity contradicts you. And if Christianity is NOT true (that's where my bet goes), then it would prove your argument in error, because it's leading to a false conclusion.

Either way, it fails. IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID TO BE CORRECT.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
05-08-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 04:13 PM)hbl Wrote:  We have 45 sources for Jesus documenting 129 facts of His life within 150 years of Jesus' death. For no other person do we have sources within a 1000 years of their deaths. But for Jesus we have 15 parchments (still surviving papyri) within 150 years of His death. God holds a higher standard of historical record.

So, half of the 10 42 apologetic? That's been debunked by actual historians. You don't even have to watch a video.

Of course, we all know you'll ignore this, so I might as well cut to the chase...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
05-08-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 05:15 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 05:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No they were not. No schoalr agrees with that nonsense. The original gospels, (actually there were hundreds of gospels which later were pared down to the 4 we know) were not labeled "matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John". Clearly you have no education in ancient languages and cultures, and specifically Biblical Studies. None at all.

Habermas is one of the leading fools in the field, and charlatans practicing in the field of lying for a living. He has no degree in the field. I been to a talk by Habermas. He's pathetic, and an embarrasment to himself. His nonsense has been debunked over and over, INCDLUDING by christian scholars. There are no references to Jesus that stand up to real scrutiny. None at all. The testimony of thgospels is not "evidence". Paul himself said he hallucinated his gospel, ("recieved FROM NO MAN"). Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott of the Tulsa Seminary ("The Trouble With Resurrection" has demonstrated what's wrong with the idea of a literal resurrection).

You say "almost all scholars this and that ". Let's see the poll of scholars. Refernece your garbage, or STFU. Whatever Paul said he did not mean Jesus literally rose from the dead, as Scott has demonstrated, AND which fits perfectly with Jewish Apocalypticism.

You can't even prove that Jesus even existed.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

I am an admirer of your work Yes Thumbsup

Thanks. Likewise.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-08-2014, 08:47 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 08:51 PM by hbl.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 07:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  been debunked by actual historians.

Not at all. Most scholars who actually do peer review journal work agree there are these 45 sources, 17 of which are non-Christian.

In fact, there are more sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death than any ten figures from antiquity combined. As you can see God holds to the highest of standards in terms of number of sources, quality of those sources so well multiply corroborated and still surviving papyri closest to their events.

Take for example Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus. He had 9 sources. Jesus had 45.

Let me, therefore, propose the problem is with you, because you don't even need 45 sources. You would still kick against the goads if there were 100 or 200 sources.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 08:51 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 08:47 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 07:22 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  been debunked by actual historians.

Not at all. Most scholars who actually do peer review journal work agree there are these 45 sources, 17 of which are non-Christian.

In fact, there are more sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death than any ten figures from antiquity combined. As you can see God holds to the highest of standards in terms of number of sources, quality of those sources so well multiply corroborated and still surviving papyri closest to their events.

Take for example Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus. He had 9 sources. Jesus had 45.

Let me, therefore, propose the problem is with you, because you don't even need 45 sources. You would still kick against the goads if there were 100 or 200 sources.

Alright. Lets play. Produce your 45 sources, 17 of which are non christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: