Athiest: What's The Deal With You People!?

[ShinjiUrahara]

I want to hear your answer to this question, "Why don't you believe in God?"

I have been in countless debates about religion and I think people get the wrong idea about Atheists. Atheists are not immoral or "satanic" people, they are no from different from everyone else. They are simply human beings with their own thoughts and beliefs and we have to respect that. Atheists are rather interesting individuals to me, they attempt to disprove religion using religious texts and science based facts OR theories. Amusing is it not? Perfect example:

Carbon-14 Dating


Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

1. Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
2. Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?
3. Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?
4. Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?

All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?

^ I know it said several questions and only listed 4 -_- moving on.............................

But yeah blah blah blah make a fuckaton of sense and sounds completely logical but for those of you who doesn't get it allow me to explain why this doesn't prove anything, it's quite simple actually. I love this example because who ever wrote this is not only arguing in an atheist POV but also a religious person's POV hence, "When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word."

That is true because from a religious standpoint the Bible is not open to interpretation. The quote, "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that. However, there some scriptures like this, Psalm 16:8 "I have set the LORD continually before me; Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken." or (a favorite and famous quote) "Psalm 23:4 "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."

It doesn't specifically say it but all that means is, you have no reason to fear, for jesus is with you." Although, someone may read this and not get it, thus go tell someone else and there ya have it! A game of "Telephone" or whatever that childhood game was when a kid first whispers something to one kid and that kid passes it to the next kid and its suppose to get back to the who delt the first whisper but the truth almost never gets back to the original person.

Why doesn't this prove anything Shinji? Because Carbon-14 dating is only claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. Since it is but a claim or maintained as a fact does not make it and actual fact. But those 4 questions are up for educated guesses so feel free.

Now, I myself am not an Atheist I actually believe in some parts of the bible and some things I just don't agree with, but it gets a lot deeper than that. With that said I'm all open for whatever no sides here, but better make sure shit is concrete or I will tear it to shreds.

Have fun! ^_^

 

[page]

People don't believe in the biblical god because there is no compelling evidence. That's the simplest and most straightforward answer to your first question.

After that your post just goes in circles and ends up making little sense, so it's hard to respond to.

However, I have a question for your type. Why do you believe in some parts of the bible and not others, and which parts do you believe in? You're aware that the bible is supposed to be taken as a whole. You can't just pick and choose the parts you like, you don't get to "agree" with what you want to. The bible is the word of god. The whole thing. Each part is as valid as the rest. If you're only trying to take away basic moral lessons then there are other places to get them, or you can just take the stories and not believe in the bible at all, at least not in a religious sense.

New Age bullshit bothers me a lot more than straight religion or atheism ever could.

 

[ShinjiUrahara]

People don't believe in the biblical god because there is no compelling evidence. That's the simplest and most straightforward answer to your first question.

After that your post just goes in circles and ends up making little sense, so it's hard to respond to.

However, I have a question for your type. Why do you believe in some parts of the bible and not others, and which parts do you believe in? You're aware that the bible is supposed to be taken as a whole. You can't just pick and choose the parts you like, you don't get to "agree" with what you want to. The bible is the word of god. The whole thing. Each part is as valid as the rest. If you're only trying to take away basic moral lessons then there are other places to get them, or you can just take the stories and not believe in the bible at all, at least not in a religious sense.

New Age bullshit bothers me a lot more than straight religion or atheism ever could.

That's a simple answer but it's not that simple. You cannot be a true atheist until you first read the bible, practice it and try to understand it, you cannot oppose something that you do not fully understand to begin with. "People" do not try to have a connection with God, this "evidence" you speak of is nothing short of some kind of miracle or a witness to some kind of power. Why? Because the "evidence" the Bible already provides is not enough, the "evidence" in reality is not enough. People are selfish, lazy, and close-minded, the Path to knowing God is a Path to wisdom and only those who seek will prosper that wisdom and with that wisdom they will know God.

Circles? I beg your pardon?... Please don't call what you do not get circles. The purpose of the quote was to illustrate the point stated in the introduction paragraph. "Atheist attempt to disprove religion using scientific and religious texts", provided with a great example and explanation. But what have Atheist disproved to give them a solid, concrete, 100% assurance of a reason to disbelieve? You can ask this same question to a religious person and they will probably tell you to read the Bible, what you do not immediately understand or believe search for the answer and study that is a Path to wisdom, to understanding what you don't understand.

Do you think we as humans can fully comprehend God? The perfect being or spirit? Are our minds capable of that if there is such a God/perfect being or spirit? I think not. That is why you must obtain a spiritual connection and it's only one way to do that but most people are to lazy to do it, to lazy to even try so how can you possibly even begin to know? Over several Biblical artifacts have been found including Naoh's Ark.

Most people don't even consider it but if the Earth was further away from the Sun, we would all freeze and die the temperatures of the Earth would be too cold for the human body to withstand. The reverse effects applies if the Earth was closer to the Sun. Why does the moon orbit the Earth on a perfect axis and whats keeping it on that axis? Science does not have an answer.

The bible is comprised of over 60 different books, 66 to be exact 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The difference between the Old and New testament is The Old Testament records God's dealings with His chosen people, the Israelites, and the promise He made to them to bless the world through them. The New Testament records what Christians believe is the fulfilment of that promise, the birth of Christ, His life and the building of His church. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The Bible is a progressive revelation. If you skip the first half of any good book and try to finish it, you will have a hard time understanding the characters, the plot, and the ending. In the same way, the New Testament is only completely understood when it is seen as a fulfillment of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament. As stated, "I agree with some parts of the bible and some things I don't agree with." Hence, I cannot fully understand what I have not read completely. The bible is not "God's words" or "The words of God" since he did not speak the Bible into existence or briefly guide each author in their writings, the Bible is the inspired word of God. God spoke to every single author of the Bible in flesh or in spirit, thus they were inspired by Him to write their book which would later me made up as apart of the Bible.

 

[lobo]

if i die and saint peter shows up in front of huge white gates and asks me why i never believed in god...i will answer, because he made me as a person who was incapable of doing so.

then i'd scratch his abs. angels have good ones.

 

[Egg]

This thread is pointless since the original question is skewed. This is all a matter of perspective. And my perspective is that this is going to be a huge flame war since no one will be able to agree with wach other.

 

[Xeph]

Um, follow God because he threatens to banish me to hell if I don't?

 

[lobo]

religion is fun.

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Psalm 137:9

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it."
Malachi 2:3

[youtube=Bibles Gone Wild]eOTki7CywIk[/youtube]

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
Hosea 13:16

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
1 Timothy 2:12-15

 

[page]

snip

You're doing a great job with the straw men there.

Anyhow, regarding your OP, you ask questions and then answer them, then ask them again. It's a circle. Why don't atheists believe in god? Because there's no scientific evidence. Why do they use scientific evidence instead of the bible? Because that's what they believe. If you're going to dispute carbon 14 dating then go ahead. There's overwhelming evidence that it's a valid method for dating things, and there are other methods that prove the world is older than 6000 years anyway. But you don't even do that. You toss out some rhetorical questions, then a few pointless bible quotes, then act like you've proved some point.

Regarding atheist specifically, well I don't know what you think you're arguing about there, either. Atheism is a non-belief in gods and supernatural beings. IT IS NOT A BELIEF IN ANYTHING. It is a NON-BELIEF. You cannot prove a negative, which is why nobody tries to. However, there is no good evidence for god, and plenty of good evidence that says god isn't needed, so not believing in a biblical god is a valid position. It is not amusing, as you put it. It's sensible and reasonable, and not that far removed from simple agnosticism.

Additionally, you do not have to read and then live the bible to disbelieve in it. It would help to read it in order to understand why it's such a flawed document, but there's no reason you have to become a Christian just so that you can later not be one. Again, atheism is a non-belief, and it applies to every other god and religion just as much as it does to the bible. Do you believe in Poseidon or Thor? If not then you're an atheist when it comes to those religions, and you didn't have to become an ancient Greek or a Viking just to learn that they're made up. How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You can never prove that He doesn't exist, so why don't you just convert and have done with it.

tll;dr: Your position is pointless at best, and you're not arguing anything new or interesting. Best to just drop it and move on.

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg"]bar3GOzDNzg[/youtube]

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPg3kjKBRc"]jHPg3kjKBRc[/youtube]

 

[iKotomi]

You're going to have to try harder to convince people that radiocarbon dating is not strong evidence for an old earth. Why should one believe that carbon-14 isotopes in mass numbers across the world behaved differently at the time said god created the earth than they do now? Given that matter behaved the same millions of years ago as they do today (and we have no reason to believe it didn't, they are, after all, the same atoms), the probability of the earth being created at such an early time is extremely low. Sure, there is a chance that it happened, but that is hardly a convincing argument. The age of the universe isn't even affected by any invalidity in radiocarbon dating, and is just further evidence that the universe was not created 6000 years ago.

Honestly, arguments by fundamentalist christians are tiring and pointless. They exhibit minimal understanding of the scientific process involved, and ask many shallow questions that emphasize this lack of understanding.

Most christian denominations reject a pure fundamentalist interpretation of the bible anyways, as trying to prove that the earth is only 6000 years is futile. You claim that Noah's Ark was discovered. Was said Ark capable of holding 2 of every dinosaur in existence? How did the plants survive being flooded for 40 days? Your only answer to this would be, we can not understand how god works, and if god exists, sure that would be a true statement. But all things being considered, it is just highly improbable, and you shouldn't be surprised when people refuse to believe in highly improbable things. Your same arguments can be applied to other highly improbable things that are mostly rejected by your bible, so maybe you should reconsider whether or not your arguments are worth considering.

The rest or your points are just a headache that I really don't know how to start responding to. But having had this conversation with fundamentalists before, i know first hand they they think if any single one of their points slip by unaddressed, they think they have won. Honestly, I could care less if they believe so or not. But what it comes down to, is the existence in God is not an observable phenomenon. Belief in god's existence comes down entirely to faith, and no amount of argument can possibly prove it unless everyone agrees on the same axioms, in this case god's existence itself. Good luck on convincing people to believe that if they didn't believe otherwise.

As for the Goldilocks observation? Completely useless. The earth is in the right place at the right time because of gravity and Newton's laws of motion. It started in the right orbit, and will continue to orbit in the same way until acted on by an external force. Why did it start in the right orbit? Random chance. You may feel indignant about this because you would like to believe the existence of humans to be consequential and designed, but there are an uncounted number of stars in the universe with rocks orbiting them, probably somewhere on the order of 10^20 iirc. I wouldn't be astonished that one of them had some rock orbiting in the position that the earth is in. As for the moon, same issue...basic mechanics.

What irritates me the most, is that you claim that an atheist is not truly atheist unless you read and behave accordingly to the Bible. Which is irritating, first, because that assumes the Bible is the one true religion. Forget science, I want to know how you would approach a Buddhist on his non belief in Christianity or a Muslim. Second, you clearly don't understand the science of anything you talk about, and just claim that science can't explain things, when it does. This isn't advanced stuff, just things you learn in introductory high school courses.

This is getting horribly disorganized, but brings me to what I consider the biggest annoyance about these discussions. A scientist observes phenomena, does experiments, and based on what he knows of natural phenomena creates a hypothesis that explains what is going on. The speaker for religion, almost always, has a single set agenda: to prove his belief to be true by any sort of means, but mostly through fallacious rhetoric. The two styles of coming to conclusions are fundamentally incompatible with each other, and I find the latter to be an extremely disgusting practice.

 

[Egg]

 

[lobo]

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

2 Kings 2:23-24

 

[Marginal]

Here you go Shinji, like-minded folks.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org

 

[lobo]

"Psalm 23:4 "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."

It doesn't specifically say it but all that means is, you have no reason to fear, for jesus is with you." Although, someone may read this and not get it, thus go tell someone else and there ya have it! A game of "Telephone" or whatever that childhood game was when a kid first whispers something to one kid and that kid passes it to the next kid and its suppose to get back to the who delt the first whisper but the truth almost never gets back to the original person.

ok shinji...let me actually address this LOL joke nonsense of a thread as i am closing it before it offends even more people.

first of all, if angels look anything like this:

then they can comfort me with their rods and staffs all they want.

second...ROFL at dismissing carbon dating. hahahahahaha. i knew ATL schools were bad but DAYUM.

third...you make reference to the childhood game of telephone, as a way to assert that the bible should not be interpreted as people see fit. you need to understand that the vast majority of the bible was passed along for centuries before it was actually written down by someone. think of this; you tell a simple sentence to someone and have them whisper it to the person next to them, they do the same etc. etc. this goes on for 12 people. as you know, at the end, the sentence is almost always quite different than it was as it began.

now imagine, that instead of a sentence, it was a whole story with specific quotes. also, instead of whispering it to the person next to you, you had to wait 30 years and then pass it on. then imagine that you had to play this extraordinarily difficult and complex and drawn out version of the 'telephone game' over the course of two to four HUNDRED YEARS. then, someone decides to write the story down. how vastly different would it be? would it even resemble the original story in any way? probably not.

that is how the bible was written. god did not speak to every author. most authors were poop or crazy or both...scribes...writing down the old stories because they had to in order to eat.

fourth...science does have an answer to why the moon orbits the earth. it is called gravity, inertia, calculus. maybe one day you will move out of the south and learn of these strange concepts.

fifth...where exactly is this noah's ark? LOL. i know where the school bella swan went to before she moved to washington is. it is in phoenix. i have seen it with my own eyes. i'm so happy now that i know for a fact that twilight is real.

and finally...do you actually see atheism as a choice? belief in a deity is something that many people want but simply do not have. you cannot "choose" to have faith in any deity. that said, we are not here to point out, ostracize, or mock involuntary human conditions. you can belittle people for being atheists all day and we/they will only mock you back. this discussion cannot possibly produce anything positive or fruitful, unfortunately.

please take your religious dilemmas to your parents, your pastor, your teachers, family, friends, or even a mod here...but not to the forums.

/thread.

edit: *poor or crazy or both. rofl typo.