Why I Am an Atheist

Dan From Smithville · Jun 4, 2019

KenS said:
Why would aquatic animals not survive? And why wouldn't aquatic animals gravitate to the best environment to prosper?

For one, the Bible says that everything on the Earth was a goner. I know. You will find reason to consider that to mean the dry land only, but that does not make much sense and is not a literal view of the Bible. It also does not explain distributions or how these organisms could have survived adverse conditions that were the same the world over according to creationists.

Terrestrial aquatic animals that exist in shallow lotic environments wouldn't stand a chance and those from lotic environments might live only marginally longer before succumbing to sediment loads, changes in salinity, pressure, temperature, depth, sunlight penetration, loss of plants for food, substrate or breeding, changes in dissolved oxygen, heavy metal toxins and on an on. You are suggesting that this flood created mountains, continents and canyons, but was somehow as gentle as a mother's caress on aquatic organisms.

I have seen the aftermath of a fairly well-known regional flood where sand and other sediment was piled 10-15 deep over hundreds of acres after the waters ebbed. That would be nothing compared to what any reasonable person would expect if the globe had been flooded.

It was pretty cool to drive through after heavy equipment had cut back down to where the old roads were buried.

As far as going where they will prosper you will have to tell me, I did not mention anything about that. Unless you think that endemic species somehow congregated in deep, darkened flood waters over areas of the world that they guessed would be good for them when the flood retreated? You will have to explain it.

KenS said:
Why are the aborigines of Australia very like the Indians in South America and the natives of Hawaii? and how did they get there?Based on the evidence, Australia was first colonized 65,000 years ago. What do you mean very like these other groups? Do you mean they share an origin or that they happen to look alike for unspecified reasons and you want that to be because of a flood, but really you have no idea?

I have no idea. Are the similarities based on anything real or are they just superficial? The natives of North and South America share an origin and that can be traced back 15,000 years or more to tribes that crossed the Bering Strait land bridge. There is no indication that the Australians share that genetic heritage and they are more closely related to people of New Guinea and the Philippines.

If you find anything that links these peoples in heritage, origin and time, bring it here explain why you brought it up and how that might support a global flood. As it stands, it appears to be superficial similarities.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 4, 2019

KenS said:
Like people do with Jesus?

Whataboutism. Always a definitive response to evidence that cannot be fathomed or waved away.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 4, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Welcome to the imperfections of being human, Ken. Just about everything we do is flawed...but that doesn't mean utterly useless, and that thought should find its way somehow into your thinking. It was Winston Churchill who said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" (House of Commons, 11 November 1947). And so what, because it isn't perfect, you are willing to throw it out and accept an Emperor, or something just as hideous?

It is the same thing: yes, peer review is not perfect, but what's your suggestion...don't review anything, just accept as fact everything that anybody cares to write down? Do you see a bright future in such a world? Do you truly think that the incredible discoveries that have been made in this age of real science would be ever-so-much better if it was all just ad hoc?

My point is, we can't get to perfect, but some process, some attempt at review of whatever it is we foolish humans dream up next, is better than none. And by the way, that's just the point of democracy, too. We elect a government, then we have to put up with the choice we made...but not forever! We get another chance to voice our opinion again in a few years.

It saddens me to see you searching for every possible way to say "science isn't any more right than religion," when in fact, the results (the fruits, if you will) are available for all to see. And so are the fruits of religion. You find them to be "good," but I point out 9/11, the Inquisition, the murders in mosques, in synagogues, in churches and temples all around the world. The wars of religion which blatantly state "our belief is right, all others wrong," in a world where there are so many conflicting beliefs.

As someone pointed out on the forum earlier (I apologize to the poster for forgetting who), we don't have multiple theories of gravity. Nor do we have multiple theories of electronics, or mechanics, or thermodynamics, or hydraulics --- because we can clearly demonstrate that all those theories work, and work extraordinarily well. In religion, however, there are also theories, thousands of them. And they never agree, and often fight each other to death for supremacy. It doesn't impress me in the least.

My apologies. I had not intended to help turn your thread into a debate over the global flood and other issues. I really found the story of your personal journey quite touching and had hoped to avoid distracting from it. Unfortunately, I am easily distracted at times.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 4, 2019

KenS said:
My position is, "look at the information, check it and let the chips fall as they may" whether Christian or Secular.

What is your view?

I point to what you yourself underlined: and then I ask you to consider the word "information." And there are many ways to interpret that. Is "information" the same thing as "data," or the same thing as "evidence?" Is what somebody wrote, whenever, and for whatever reason, "information?" Yes, of course, but is it evidence of anything other than what the writer thought? Maybe, maybe not. You take what was written, by many people, in the Bible to be evidence of some truths or other, but you do not accord the same privilege to what other folks wrote in the Qur'an, or the Vedas, or the Granth Guru Sahib. Why not? Why was what Paul wrote more convincing to you than what Baha'u'llah wrote? Or, for that matter, Homer or JRR Tolkien? Or even Charles Darwin, who produced boatloads more actual data than any of those other writers ever did?

You do not look at all that "information." You can tell me you've read it, but I know from what you have written so often that you have not read it with comprehension. To comprehend anything, you must look at "IT," not at what your prejudices are telling you "ABOUT IT."

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 4, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
My apologies. I had not intended to help turn your thread into a debate over the global flood and other issues. I really found the story of your personal journey quite touching and had hoped to avoid distracting from it. Unfortunately, I am easily distracted at times.

No probs! It all works to help me (and others, now) really grasp why I am and must remain an atheist.

Kenny · Jun 4, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
You do not look at all that "information." You can tell me you've read it, but I know from what you have written so often that you have not read it with comprehension. To comprehend anything, you must look at "IT," not at what your prejudices are telling you "ABOUT IT."

If you mean, "Have you read all the information possible on every subject we have talked about"... no. I believe you haven't either.

Have I read everything with comprehension? Of course not, and judging by how you interpret the bible, you haven't either.

But does that mean we cannot have viewpoints? We both have demonstrated that though neither of us has read everything, and neither of us have perfect comprehension, we both seem to have viewpoints.

On a tangent that is applicable. I used to receive monies from Salespeople in Venezuela. I could detect fake 100 bolivar bill. Not by studying all the fakes but by studying the real thing.

I don't have to read everything to know something that is false when I know the truth.

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I point to what you yourself underlined: and then I ask you to consider the word "information." And there are many ways to interpret that. Is "information" the same thing as "data," or the same thing as "evidence?" Is what somebody wrote, whenever, and for whatever reason, "information?" Yes, of course, but is it evidence of anything other than what the writer thought? Maybe, maybe not. You take what was written, by many people, in the Bible to be evidence of some truths or other, but you do not accord the same privilege to what other folks wrote in the Qur'an, or the Vedas, or the Granth Guru Sahib. Why not? Why was what Paul wrote more convincing to you than what Baha'u'llah wrote? Or, for that matter, Homer or JRR Tolkien? Or even Charles Darwin, who produced boatloads more actual data than any of those other writers ever did?

A lot of viewpoints above.

True that information or what we see can be interpreted differently. I have said that often.

As far as the Qur'an et al, all of them have truths. It isn't the truths that is a problem but rather that part which isn't. I have yet to find untruths in what is written in the Bible.

Looking at the differences between all of the faiths, I still hold to what Paul said as true.

Is there a specific one you want to address?

Dan From Smithville · Jun 4, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
No probs! It all works to help me (and others, now) really grasp why I am and must remain an atheist.

It comes down to faith and I suppose a person either has it or does not. That is all I have for the most part. I am not a literalist and by way of that, I am only marginally less of a target than an atheist for some of my fellow Christians.

I am in no position to judge a person, especially a moral person, regarding their belief or lack of belief. That power belongs to God in my understanding. All I can note is that we have different views now and maybe always, but I have never considered that a barrier preventing profitable and interesting discussions with others.

Kenny · Jun 4, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
No probs! It all works to help me (and others, now) really grasp why I am and must remain an atheist.

Which, as I have said, it is your free will prerogative. I even support your right to do so.

I just have a problem when you say Christianity and its beliefs are wrong and that somehow you are right.

Again... I support your decision but simply don't agree with your logic and methodology.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jun 4, 2019

KenS said:
Which, as I have said, it is your free will prerogative. I even support your right to do so.

I just have a problem when you say Christianity and its beliefs are wrong and that somehow you are right.

Again... I support your decision but simply don't agree with your logic and methodology.

I never said "Christianity and its beliefs are wrong." I have, however, very often said that Christianity and its beliefs do not stand up at all to my critical analysis. And therefore, of course, I cannot believe it.

I have also said, and this also very often, that there are tenets of Christian belief that I find utterly offensive. The very first and foremost of these is the idea of "original sin," and that (the very fictional) Adam's descendants share any guilt for anything said fictional Adam might have done. This is a direct affront to my most fundamental understandings of what it means to be human, of justice, of fairness.

Worse, were it proven to me that this vile notion of original sin is actually true and ordained in your God's world, then I would despise the god that ordained it.

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

KenS said:
Actually, no.

Actually, yes.

LOL!!!!!

These are all people raised as muslims.
Are you saying muslims aren't aware of christianity, the bible and jesus? Are you aware that jesus (and christians) are actually mentioned in the Quran????

But a great statement as I am sure that others wouldn't have know that, it isn't just about someone telling them about Jesus, it's about seeking.

It's also about understanding what I am saying.

I repeat: nobody "concludes" a certain specific religion WITHOUT knowing about said religion first.

ie: when Columbus arrived in south america, the amazonian tribes had no clue about jesus or the bible.

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

KenS said:
The Case for Christ book would say otherwise.

All apologists from all religions would say otherwise.

People say a lot of things. Especially when it concerns their religious beliefs.

Objectively, there is no reason at all to believe in any religion.

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

KenS said:
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Of course, there would be counters to their position and then there would be counter-counter postion and the argument goes on.

If there is SCIENTIFIC evidence of such a flood, then surely you can link us directly to the SCIENTIFIC publications in appropriate scientific journals, instead of a creationist propaganda site that looks like it escaped from the 90s.

So please do.

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

paarsurrey said:
Doesn't one declare to be an Atheist?

No.

As I said: atheism is what you default to if you don't do what you need to do to be a theist.

It's theism that requires you to believe in / declare / subscribe to things.
Atheism is the default when you don't do those things.

Consider symmetry vs asymmetry.
You need to actually make an effort to create a symmetrical shape.
When you do not do the things you need to do to make a shape symmetrical, it is asymmetrical by default.

That is what I meant by subscribing to Atheism, please.

I know. You were wrong.

One maintains that "Atheism is a default position".

Because it is.

Is it from science?[/quote

No. From logic and reason. And the meaning of words.

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

KenS said:
Standard reply. Certainly understand your position. If someone doesn't agree with your position, then you aren't honest, educated or intellectual. Got it! Regardless of what they say.

Depends on the position off course.

The fact of the matter is that being a believer of the biblical flood, is the equivalent of favouring stork theory over embryology.

btw: did you know that geology as a field was kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence of noah's flood? They failed and the field of geology was born in the process.

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

KenS said:
Personally, I believe science and religion enhance each other.

But when the bible says X and the science says Y instead, you're going with X.
Amirite?

TagliatelliMonster · Jun 5, 2019

KenS said:
Like people do with Jesus?

No, he was talking about claims that actually have evidence.

atanu · Jun 5, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
...
Still, I wonder sometimes if it isn't true that most people don't really spend a lot of time and effort really thinking about the things that they take for granted, and if they actually did stop and examine more closely, they might arrive at different conclusions. ......

Do you ever wonder that it could be you?

Kenny · Jun 5, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I never said "Christianity and its beliefs are wrong." I have, however, very often said that Christianity and its beliefs do not stand up at all to my critical analysis. And therefore, of course, I cannot believe it.

However, I respect your position to not believe

I have also said, and this also very often, that there are tenets of Christian belief that I find utterly offensive.

Please note that if you say "It is offensive", it's a fine line between that and "it is wrong".

The very first and foremost of these is the idea of "original sin," and that (the very fictional) Adam's descendants share any guilt for anything said fictional Adam might have done. This is a direct affront to my most fundamental understandings of what it means to be human, of justice, of fairness.

That, again, depends on the interpretation.

If we are born with "original sin" as you define it, then even babies that die don't go to heaven which King David disagrees with.

Was it Adam who committed the first"original" sin, that would be obvious to

If we are born with the capacity to sin, that is also obvious.

So, what is the point?

Worse, were it proven to me that this vile notion of original sin is actually true and ordained in your God's world, then I would despise the god that ordained it.

But He didn't ordain it.

Kenny · Jun 5, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
But when the bible says X and the science says Y instead, you're going with X.
Amirite?

Can you give me an example?

Hawkins · Jun 5, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
No theist has ever actually answered my objections, although I answer all of theirs. Instead, when I raise what I consider to be a killer argument against god, they simply move on to another statement, usually unrelated. I’ve observed this many, many times in debates, for example between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Dawkins gives direct answers to Collins’s points, while Collins frequently rebuts with discourses on “god’s purpose,” and similar arguments which are irrefutable.

It only shows your preference of relying on human and your own intelligence. You need to first accept that humans are not omnipotent. If you choose to reject science simply because you have a scientific question which no one can answers, then well it only shows that your approach has an issue.

That said. The following holds the answer to one of your questions. At the same time, the answer proves that you are not intelligent enough. Your approach of choosing to rely heavily on human/your own intelligence may become a stumbling block in your searching of what Christianity could mean.

Free will cannot exist at the same time as an omniscient, omnipotent being

Why I Am an Atheist

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

"Truth" isn't a thing...

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Face to face with my Father

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Face to face with my Father

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member