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
08-08-2014, 01:03 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 09:36 PM)hbl Wrote:  Free will.

There isn't any free will.

Shoo fly!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
08-08-2014, 01:50 AM
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?

You were banned at AF so you came here to troll with the same crap!:

(30-07-2014 08:44 PM)MPCADF Wrote:  For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

This troll has been given too many pages.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 01:53 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 02:02 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism





Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 11:44 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 06:15 PM)hbl Wrote:  But the New City is only 1379 x 1379 miles which is about the size of India which can comfortably fit 1 billion.

hbl, of all the crazy you've been spouting in this thread this alone takes the cake!

Forget the universe or a galaxy or even a small planet...is the best your god can do is a 1379 x 1379 mile tract? Laughat
There is no possible way you can realize just how idiotic this sounds since everyone knows he's going to need a place at least 2784 x 1522! Yes

It is written.

It's not even HD. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 05:17 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 06:08 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 12:36 AM)hbl Wrote:  So where's your sources for multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings that has no naturalistic explanation? There is a medical condition of a human being having hair all over his body so that would be a fair naturalistic explanation or it could just be individual hallucinations or an illusion off in the distance like clouds in the shape of objects or bodily figures but not up close and personal of an actual person.

No. That is an observation, not an explanation. We see your problem. You cannot distinguish between observations and possible explanations. The medical condition of Hirsutism *explains* nothing. It is observed.

(08-08-2014 12:36 AM)hbl Wrote:  We have the 26 books of the NT written around 40 AD and Revelation 95 AD that defy any naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

Oh. So now you've changed your mind, and instead of being written in his lifetime, now you're saying they were written after his lifetime. OK. But still no scholarly references for your CLAIMS. Still no proof the CLAIMS were true, or proof they actually made the claims. Well, loser, you're just about done here, right ? You've got nothing. You've demonstarted you've got nothing. If your impotent ASSertions are all your god can come up with, it's a deity to be pitied. At least Thor has some lightning, 'an fun shit like that.

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2014, 07:12 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
- The universe can't be created out of nothing.
- So how was it created?
- God created the universe.
- But how did God create the universe?
- Out of nothing.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like zaybu's post
08-08-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 01:03 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(07-08-2014 09:36 PM)hbl Wrote:  Free will.

There isn't any free will.

Shoo fly!

Yay! The Shoo Fly has been summoned. Bowing

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
08-08-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 07:12 AM)zaybu Wrote:  - The universe can't be created out of nothing.
- So how was it created?
- God created the universe.
- But how did God create the universe?
- Out of nothing.

Actually, the last line would be "From himself". Not that I agree with it, but that would be the true theist viewpoint.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 11:43 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(07-08-2014 10:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yes. Once over and over again.

The you that you are now is the only you that you can be now.



Yup. I'm an atheist. That's me!

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 11:08 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
hbl wrote: It's true we have exhausted all naturalistic theories to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Therefore, logically, it is true, Jesus is God, raised Himself from the grave, and salvation is only possible through Him. There is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved. Consequently, since you reject your Creator's mercy, He rejects you by sending you to Hell

hell? sweet! You do know that hell isn't the fiery fantasy you Xians invented to sell fear to the non believers right? hell in accordance with original christian doctrine is a place devoid of god, sounds like heaven to me, a place devoid of a made up egocentric murderous immature diety, sign me up!

The hell you are talking about doesn't even exist in that capacity under Christian doctrine. hell is allegedly a place devoid of god, thus devoid of good, no fire, no pitchforks, no little demons running around, no eternity in pain...get some education you ignorant, misinformed delusional believer. Because I pity you, I will educate you on your own faith.

Source is Reason, Faith and Tradition by Martin C. Albl, Chapter 7 page 188 – describing hell.

"We begin with a reminder of limitations of our language. Since hell, according to Christian doctrine, is a supernatural reality, it can only be described in analogies. Holy Scripture teaches us the essence of hell in images. When it speaks of the fire of hell, it is not to be understood in a grossly realistic sense. The images of fire and pain were ways of expressing the essential Christian understanding of hell – that it is a separation from God. We may define heaven as simply being with God, and hell, in contrast, is simply being without God. It is thus an existence without goodness and without meaning."

So save your made up twisted image of hell for someone a bit less educated on theology than I. Funny how an Atheist knows more than you about your own faith isn't it? I know the abrahamic myth inside and out, and that is WHY I am an atheist.

Evil_monster

hbl also said: You know that old saying 'Good intentions pave the way to Hell.' A human being who thinks he can earn his way to salvation is self-righteous and arrogant since nobody can do so. That would never satisfy an infinitely great God.


who seeks to earn salvation? That is fool's gold. A made up fantasy, like god for example. Who is this infinitely great god? which god by the way?

Psalms 82.1 (kjv) God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

note plural..gods.

Lets look at atonement and incarnation Rolleyes

here is a paper I wrote on this very subject, enjoy..

Eric #######
Professor #############
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
April 12 2014

The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.


Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: