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
09-08-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 07:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Presuppositionalist assumptions

There are no presuppositions. We have the documents from the eyewitnesses and their testimony. But no naturalistic explanation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, Simon Greenleaf, was considered to be the greatest expert of evidence the world had ever known. The Supreme Justice of the Supreme Court said that Greenleaf's testimony is the most basic and compelling testimony that can be accepted in any English speaking court in the world. When Greenleaf spoke, that settled the matter. He was far and away the most knowledgeable person on evidence the world had ever known. The London Times said that more light on jurisprudence had come from Greenleaf than all the jurists of Europe combined.

Greenleaf had one inviolable principle in his classrooms at Harvard, and that was, you never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence. Greenleaf was not a Christian. When challenged by one of his students with this principle, he admitted that he had not considered the evidence. When he did, he became a Christian: believed in the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus.

After examining every thread of information he could find he said in his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence, that if any unbiased jury in the world considered the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, they would have to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead.

And so he became a believer that Jesus was God and was converted. He wrote, "In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind, and those who would investigate the truth of our religion..." He sees that Christianity is, in fact, the only evidential historical religion in the world, and the whole thing rests upon evidence which he finds so compelling and so overwhelming that any honest person with an open mind examining the evidence would be like himself inescapably drawn to accept it. And so he sets forth his first rule of legal evidence and for any other ancient document.

"Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)

"It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29.)

http://biblocality.com/forums/list.php?c...-Greenleaf
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
sigh...

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the question are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.


One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.


Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This question could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

I ask this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.

You will find that the trip from A-Z via the gospels will lead you in 4 different paths.

educating you is becoming a job

"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
09-08-2014, 07:57 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 04:54 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  This thread is a testament to just how bored we can get.

I am not bored. Happy to lead you to Christ. Nothing is better.

I am able to do two things at once as I lead you to Christ.


"once I lead you to christ." Laughat Laugh out load

LOL. ^^^^ Pfffft! Hahahahahahahahahaha!

I actually laughed out loud.

You're a nutso-crazy person........

[Image: funny_daffy_duck_quotes-3.jpg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
09-08-2014, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2014 08:03 PM by hbl.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 07:56 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  sigh...

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the question are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.


One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.


Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away. Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This question could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

I ask this question in all seriousness, because it astounds me how people can believe in something so important and with such passion, yet not have actually looked at what it is they are celebrating/believing in.

You will find that the trip from A-Z via the gospels will lead you in 4 different paths.

educating you is becoming a job

If I was in a room and I mentioned Paul and James were there, but Pauline said she was there also these two reports are not contradictory. I just chose to emphasize Paul and James because I was trying to make some point about them.

The mistake you make is being overassuming making mistaken assumptions. That is not the characteristic of humility. As the saying goes the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 03:04 PM)hbl Wrote:  God does not lie like man does so even if Jesus took a trillion^trillion years I would remain patient for in the backdrop of eternity that's not that long at all.
But I would not really have to wait that long because I only live about 90 years or so, so when I go to rest when I wake up 1000 years later it will be to me as if not time passed because I was asleep during that time, then I am resurrected together with those who are alive and left, my brothers and sisters in Christ (1 Thess. 4.14-18).
But realistically there were 4000 years in the OT, 2000 years in the dispensation of grace the mystery age of the church, leaving 1000 years for the millennial kingdom when Jesus returns to reign over the nations with a rod of iron with His overcomers such as myself and other believers who overcometh. This 1000 year kingdom is a transitionary period before the New City and New Earth commence and then no longer need of the Temple because at the center of the New City and New Earth will be God and the Lamb that will be the center therefore. Praise the Lord!
Jesus could not return before Israel was a nation again May 1948. See Matt. 24.32,33.
Jesus could not return before Jerusalem belongs to Israel. 7th Tetrad since Christ.
Jesus could not return before the 3rd Temple is rebuilt. See 2 Thess. 2.4, Rev. 11.2.
Jesus could not return before the 8th feast Tetrad as per Rev. 6.12.
Jesus could not return before the pervasiveness of the implant under our skin to buy and sell.
It wouldn't matter how long for if none of these things happened Jesus could not return yet. This is His promise.
Jesus could not return until the end of the 7 year Tribulation but the Tribulation has not started yet. There has been no peace treaty of 7 years.
The first rapture according to readiness (Matt. 24.40-42, Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10) "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) before the 1st trumpet (8.7) of the Tribulation must commence.
The Antichrist must be revealed and break his promise according to Revelation and according to Daniel's prophecy in Dan. 9.24-27.
The Antichrist must erect himself in the 3rd Temple claiming to be God (2 Thess. 2.4). Has that happened yet? Nope.
In the first half of the Tribulation the Great Harlot typified by the Vatican must be hit by a nuclear bomb as predicted in Rev. 17.16. Incidentally, this agrees with the Malachy Prophecy in which this current Pope is the last one commensurate with the destruction of religious Rome in the 1st half of the Tribulation. Political Rome, EU, will be destroyed in the 2nd half, the Great Trib.
In the 2nd half of the Tribulation the Great Trib there must occur the nuclear holocaust. Never before has this been possible until the technology today.
The 120 Jubilees must be completed which are completed 2015.
Comet Shoemaker broke into 21 pieces 1994 pointing to 3 Shmita years every 7 years in which the markets dropped 7% after 911 on Elul 29; dropped 7% in 2008 on Elul 29; and will drop 7% again on Elul 29 Sept. 13, 2015. This is God's judgment because there has been no debt forgiveness only bailouts and bail-ins.
There are some other matters, but this should keep you busy for awhile to realize the teaching of imminency is false. Certain things must happen first.
The Sign of the Son of Man (Matt. 24.30) must take place first before Jesus steps down on the mount of olives (Zech. 14.4, Acts 1.11, Rev. 1.7), which would be Apophis April 13, 2029. Then Jesus returns later that year.
Wow, you can regurgitate Bible nonsense. Goody for you. Now how about doing some thinking for yourself. Consider

(09-08-2014 03:04 PM)hbl Wrote:  Chew on that for awhile. Always remember, your stupid reading of the Scriptures doesn't form a valid argument.
Stupid reading? I have read the scriptures... all of them, not just the parts cherry-picked for me. And then I didn't stop there. I have read some things about the scriptures - historical, archeological, etc. And I'm still reading and learning about them. What's stupid, is listening to your clergy's hand-picked verses and believing everything you hear without considering whether they have any clue what they're talking about.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
09-08-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 06:57 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 06:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Hearsay.

The Apostles are not hearsay, they are the ones who spent 3 years with Jesus. The NT is their testimony. There were no Apostles that said anything to the contrary.

No early church was formed without the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the Apostles did not write the Gospels.
There is no eyewitness testimony.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-08-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 08:08 PM)hbl Wrote:  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

You lie. You know how many translations the bible has had? You know how many fuck ups? Every read the apocrypha? You know those books that where in the bible and then taken out. I can prove it wrong with the science it gets wrong. Try to make a biological claim you think the bible got right, it will either be something anybody could get or something false.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:11 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 08:08 PM)hbl Wrote:  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."
Shouting doesn't make something true.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: