Posted on 09/23/2017 8:21:17 AM PDT by Raymond Pamintuan
Atheism, the rejection of the possibility that “God” exists, has become the dominant thought amongst intellectuals in the past century and has been around longer than most people think. For over 2000 years, it was based on philosophical arguments that can roughly be summed up as the atheist saying, “I don’t know how ‘X’ came to be, but you can’t prove it came from God.” This mindset has been highly effective because it places the burden of proof on the theist to prove the positive of God’s existence, which, superficially, is impossible to do – because no evidence exists that provides “proof” that can be independently verified and repeated at a five-sigma (5σ) confidence level and above that God is real.
During the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, atheists were no longer content to use philosophical arguments and started using positive claims that basically said, “‘X’ proves God does not exist.”
Most recently, the highly influential New Atheism spearheaded by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens has modified the positive arguments, but reinforced and justified a dangerous trend that started in the late 20th century that roughly states, “Because you do not accept that “X” proves God does not exist, you are not credible and must not be allowed to be in a position of influence over others.”
The New Atheism mindset has had an enormous effect among atheists in positions of power in academia: For the “thought crime” of believing God exists, theist scientists have actually been blocked from jobs and tenure, they have been prevented from getting their works funded or published, and many have actually been terminated from their jobs. One now sees university campuses where openly theist professors are becoming rarer by the year,
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I would hardly model my intellectual development on an infant. We are all born ignorant of EVERYTHING, until we learn better. An infant has no more capacity to understand the nature of the universe than an ant has to comprehend nuclear physics.
I had to learn to believe in a Higher Being. I saw the infinite complexity around me and I knew it couldn't have happened by chance. And for me, with my pathetically limited knowledge, to pretend that I could deny or confirm the greatest "Why" of eternity was nothing more than hubris. So I fell back on Faith, and it is to Faith that I cling.
If you want to talk about "tales," let's talk about ridiculous assertions like the universe ex nihilo or abiogenetic life ... all the convolutions atheists have to embrace to avoid admitting that some Divine engine moves the stars.
I don’t think you’d’ve made a very good scientist, as one who might “believe” a certain hypothesis, and yet experiment with it again and again as necessary to determine whether it might be verifiable or not.
This seems to fall into the same category - IMHO - as a believer in God.
Thank you for posting your comment. I have been saying for years that everyone has religious beliefs. There is no neutrality. Everyone has beliefs about religious topics, such as: god’s existence; man’s nature, start and end of the universe, existence of objective Truth and objective morality; and meaning/purpose in life. These are topics with religious implications, so they then are religious topics. Everyone has a belief about them, even though often vague or ill-defined. That means that they have “religious” viewpoints, which together comprise a “religion”, in the functional sense.
I have a short temper myself so I don’t even go near video of people defending their ideas, just like I NEVER watched zero or hildabeast. couldn’t even watch the debates (not that trump could debate....INCOMING!). LOL
I’m a visual person so I just read.
No, I'm not into science. I mean, I have nothing against it, but it's not my thing.
You missed my point, though. My point is, atheism isn’t a belief system.
Well going from that lack of ability to understand a Highest Being, I would conclude that any belief I form, or “learn” is likely to be wrong - so why bother?
A reading from the book Degenerate
In the beginning, there was a huge ball of nothing, and one day that nothing for no reason blew up ending particle scattering throughout the universe. The for no reason at all, some of these nothing particles grouped together and formed planets, for no reason at all. Then for no reason at all, they just started orbiting around stars. For no reason at all one planet called earth started to create life in the water. The for no reason at all this life formed into fish. And one day for no reason at all decided to hope on to dry land, grow lungs and breath toxic oxygen. Then they decided to grow into 5 a 10 ton lizards...for no reason at all. Then some of them decid d that plants weren't as tasty as each other, grew shape teeth, and for no reason at all started eating each other, and rearranged how there internal organs processed the meat...for no reason at all.
Then one day it all got wiped out for no reason, creating an ice age and putting the planet under miles of ice, wiping all life out. Then for no reason at all, the ice melted, and for no reason at all, mammals just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Then for no reason at all, primates appeared, and for no reason at all, some started to think logically and not like an animal, but still dumb as hell....and for no reason at all, liberals were created
Well, militant atheists have not, and do not, and their screeds and sophistry abounding today provoke a response, but above all so does love for God and man, As a purported atheist penned:
You are really convinced that you've got all the answers. You've tricked yourself into believing that you're 100% right. Well let me tell you just one thing. Do you consider yourself to be compassionate of other human beings? If you're right about GOD, as you say you are, and you believe that, then how can you sleep at night? When you speak with me, you are speaking with someone who you believe is walking directly into eternal damnation, into an endless onslaught of horrendous pain which your ‘loving’ GOD created, yet you stand by and do nothing.
If you believed one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unchangeable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes by you walk blindly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You're just twiddling your thumbs, happy with the knowledge that one day that “Walk” signal will shine your way across the road.
Think about it. Imagine the horrors hell must have in store if the Bible is true. You're just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you're right, then you're an uncaring, unemotional, and purely selfish (expletive deleted) that has no right to talk about subjects as love and caring.
(An actual letter as reprinted by Ray Comfort in “The Evidence Bible, Pub. by Living Waters publications, 1-800- 437-1893, or on-line at http://www.livingwaters.com) _____________________________________________
Very Wrong. Scripturally Christians are commanded to preach the gospel, and contend for the Truth, and God's honor, as Paul did.
And in so doing Christians are to be instruments of conviction of sin,, righteousness and judgment, but which one may welcome the Truth. Mercy and grace are appreciated in the light of judgment.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (Acts 17:16-17)
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (John 16:7-8)
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:37-38)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. (Acts 24:25)
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (2 Thessalonians 1:8)
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)
Well, atheist "brites" do tend to see themselves as being intellectual inferior (which many are) but wiser and essentially omniscient also, judging God with their railing screeds for the suffering in the world and for not stopping such (as well as for His actions when He decisively judged those who caused evil) as if they knew the effect such suffering would have in the long term and God did not, and could not and would not make it all work together for the good of the those who love God and thus the Good.
However, intellectually speaking, what you are doing is presenting respect for others with different beliefs and their right to hold them as being contrary to debating the merits for such, so that the latter must exclude the former, which either-or stance is a false dichotomy.
Respecting others with different beliefs and their right to hold them is not necessarily opposed to debating the merits for them, from their choice of fonts to the origin of energy.
But if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then they can be called upon to provide reasons for their position. person must prove so. But holding to the position that there i
And I don't agree with PJ's summary of the atheist world view. It's better summed up as "I see no reason to assume there might be a God, so I don't."
Which is a substantial denial, having at the least to account for the origin of matter (and in a universe consisting mostly of mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy), absolutely excluding even as a hypothesis a Creator-God while speculating about space-seed theories.The aversion to an Ultimate omniscient and omnipotent Judge is what seems to be the reason for this.
God could have,
Not argue and not preach are two different things.
When I was in high school, I screwed up a fundamental astronomy fact. I then went into a science fair and won, after convincing every judge that they were wrong and I was right. When I realized what I had done, I was devastated, though it was a simple intellectual issue. And I swore that day that I would never argue with someone on religion, as I had frequently done in high school, because I care far too deeply about the people I meet to damage them, as I believed I could potentially do. That’s my side of it.
On the other, I am often amazed at the arrogance of people who have only one right and that is theirs. I am horrified by Muslims who take that to unbelievable extremes, and I am not that impressed with Christians who do something similar intellectually, if not physically. I am not anti-Christian. I’m socially Catholic, if intellectually atheist, and spend hours defending Christians to my friend, who has had bad experiences with greedy ministers going after her dying, well-to-do parent. But I defend the rights of Christians to have their own beliefs. I don’t defend their beliefs.
Dontcha love how atheists love to tell Christians how they should be behaving if they really believed what they said they did?
Like atheists know how Christians should be acting?
How about pointing them to Jesus’ behavior. *HE* knew everyone who rejected Him was going to an eternity of hell and HE did not run around mad with rage not sleeping at night over it.
Atheists preach to live and let live and leave others to their own beliefs and yet expect Christians to not do the same.
Hypocrites, beginning to end.
Why bother? Because it’s not the destination, it’s the journey.
But it is. How does an atheist answer all the “why” questions? Even if it’s by saying “There is no answer,” that constitutes a belief system.
Nihilism imposes its own order on disorder. It’s the fatal flaw in Post-modernism.
I don’t have to “account for dark matter” and positing a big brain in the sky doesn’t do anything but move the question line back one step.
The assumption that “someone must have created this” comes from the idea that nothing can exist without having been created. This leads to the question “Then who or what created God?” If the answer is “no one,” then life can exist without having been created, which undercuts the idea that the universe must have been created if it is based only on the assumption that nothing can exist unless it was created. Positing a creator god only leads to a cul-de-sac where the answers become “because God wants it (apparently)” and that answer is not really an answer, just an evasion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.