Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Dang, I guess those door to door college students selling magazine subscriptions were not telling the truth. No wonder I never got my issues of Atheist Monthly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why I Am an Atheist
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Actually, no.
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.
Last edited:
The Case for Christ book would say otherwise.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Of course, some of us go with the "good and sufficient"
reason as a standard. Not just any old reason.
Take the "flood" thing. A reason to believe in it is coz
a book talks about it.
Reasons not to? From physics, biology, chemistry,
geology comes a great array of data that disprove
any hypothesis that it actually happened.
But perhaps you know that.
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.
Do you have an explanation for why these things always seem to be in outrageous, neon Technicolor --- and never, ever in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, since it at least tries to look like it's discussing matters of science?
@TagliatelliMonster said: "The ONLY way someone can conclude "Jesus" for example, is if somebody else tells them about Jesus (and picking up a bible and reading it, is the equivalent of someone else telling you about Jesus)."
For me, when I seek "truth," the very last thing I'm going to posit is, "okay, let's suppose an incarnate God gets nailed to a tree, and that makes everything better." But if I did posit such a thing, how do you suppose I'd go about validating that, logically?
Okay Ken, can you tell us, is there an example anywhere in the world within the past 1,000 years of any person who, having never heard about "Jesus," went "seeking" as you put it, and intuited "Jesus," complete with crucifixion and all that stuff?
For me, when I seek "truth," the very last thing I'm going to posit is, "okay, let's suppose an incarnate God gets nailed to a tree, and that makes everything better." But if I did posit such a thing, how do you suppose I'd go about validating that, logically?
Yes, and understandably so.
Can you imagine a Christian reviewed organization recognizing one that was contrary to their belief system?
Not to mention some flaws:
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
and I quote:
"THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."
Why limit it to 1000 years? Abraham.
I guess, logically, I would follow atheists turned Christians.
Like: Lee Stobel or J. Warner Wallace
or others like Peter Hitchens, C.S. Lewis or Alister McGrath
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Doesn't one declare to be an Atheist? That is what I meant by subscribing to Atheism, please.
One maintains that "Atheism is a default position".
Is it from science?
Regards
Audie
Veteran Member
Is that really what you think?
Like, seriously?
I did say, "good and sufficient" not "bucket o' bs".
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Why on earth would one "declare"
(say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.)
that he is an atheist, or for that matter, is
not a football fan?
"Subscribe" is a bit odd, but at least not
inappropriate.
express or feel agreement with (an idea or proposal).
As for default, who needs "science" to be a
non believer in "dog ate my homework"?
The counter position would be that many of these things mentioned are fake, false, or where actual, have been explained by science a long time ago and do not support a global flood. That whale story is a complete fabrication based on a desire that it be true. The only substantial portion is the fact that a fossil whale was found. Everything else is just moo.
I cannot believe I keep seeing this same page pop up as evidence, year after year.
It could be digitalis poisoning. It is the strangest thing. For some reason, the more out of touch the site, the more color is used. On the other hand, it is a fairly accurate indicator that there is going to be little or no science reported on those pages.
Because there are issues with peer review, all science can be ignored, except good science, which is defined as any science, regardless of any qualifying features, that does not conflict or contradict belief. Since beliefs vary, this standard can be applied universally and almost any science can be eliminated as bad, depending on the beliefs of the believers judging the science. My favorite part is that no understanding of science is required to make these judgments. As an example, all science that contradicts the global flood of Genesis, is bad science. Here is the tricky part, some of that science is good in other context. Thermodynamics and hydrology that show that no flood could have occurred are bad science, except when they are not contradicting belief. Then they are good science. Fossils that are on mountains are good science when they could be evidence for a flood. They are bad science when it turns out that there are sound geological principles and evidence that explain how the tops of mountains were once part of ancient sea floors that were uplifted over time due to plate tectonics. Dating techniques are always bad science, but especially relating to mountain top fossils, since different places have different fossils of different ages.
It is a fairly complicated process of determination, but oddly, does not require even the most basic education in science to tell good science from bad science.
Science is not applicable to subjective belief that has no evidence.
Just picked one of many.
Great counter... the counter, of course, is "they continue to just reject scientific evidence" like flat earth's and then they go on stating evidence that support their position. to which there is a counter of how fake it is, and then the counter to the counter.
It's quite circular, if you think about it.
Audie
Veteran Member
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.