Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[IntoTheVoid]

Speaking of Magic, how does a snake speak without vocal chords anyway? Even if a spirit went into a snake, the vocal chords wouldn't be there to be able to produce human sounds. Different lips and tongue formation too would make it impossible.

Guess it was some kind of magic that temporarily gave the snake human vocal chords and a different mouth.

 

[JesusLives]

I can't think of any instance where atheists resort to magic as an explanation. We resort to science; but I have often heard of many on your end being accused by atheists of explaining things with magic. The talking snake, the talking donkey, Moses turning his staff into a snake, the parting of the Red Sea, and so on. Perhaps you are just trying to get even?

Note: I only raise these issues because you accused us of thinking magically.

I don't know why you guys keep saying that it is magic? Since we don't have angels to study and know how they work or what they are capable of it does not mean they don't exist. Satan was said to have gone into the serpent and my thoughts are that it was an angel/Satan talking through the snake.

We don't know God's thoughts or all of His capabilities either and if God wants to allow a donkey to talk since He is the creator it is His right to do so. Jesus said on His entry into Jerusalem that if the people had not been praising and saying accolades during that entry that the rocks could have cried out. That would be interesting to hear a rock cry out a praise.

Moses didn't turn anything into a snake, but God told him to throw down the rod and it was God who turned the rod into a snake. Since God can create something out of nothing by speaking and it was so - it is probably child's play for Him to part the Red Sea. God even turned back time when He gave Hezekiah a sign. God made time stand still during a battle. NOTHING is impossible with God. It's not magic we believe in it is GOD the creator and sustainer of life. Without God none of us would be here.

The only thing God won't do is force you to choose Him - that is what your free will has to do - make a choice - Yes or No.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

This snake thing is a massive hole for me. If Satan entered the snake, why did god punish the snake by cursing him to slither on his belly?

If satan didn't enter the snake, we are back to a taking snake problem. Either way it doesn't add up.

 

[nl]

Speaking of Magic, how does a snake speak without vocal chords anyway? Even if a spirit went into a snake, the vocal chords wouldn't be there to be able to produce human sounds. Different lips and tongue formation too would make it impossible.

Guess it was some kind of magic that temporarily gave the snake human vocal chords and a different mouth.

To my knowledge and to be fair, adherents to evolution here and elsewhere have never directly stated that they believe in the arrival of helpful life features via magic. They have mentioned genetic mutations. So, the stated cause for arrival of helpful features in evolution has been not magic but mutations.

Genetic mutations would generally be harmful not helpful since they happen by accident. A partially developed bird wing would be helpful and not harmful until it was good enough to help the bird to fly. If one mutation did manage did get the development of a bird wing started, then the next questions include:

• How does the helpful mutation get transferred between right and left?
• How does the helpful mutation get written into the genetic code so that it's passed to the next generation?
• If the first mutation is harmful, isn't it likely the next mutations would revert to being harmful again? It seems like a long trial and error process with many failures and extinction of successful starts along the way if success were even possible.

Rather than look to natural selection and inexplicable mutations, I really like this explanation better:

Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” (Genesis 1:20)

Fish and birds really do exist in abundance. Even large cities have a sizable population of wild birds. A rich harvest of sea food continues to be pulled from the oceans.

 

[Jda016]

You have presented the atheist statement as the opposite of the Christian response, but I propose that you have not worded the atheist reply correctly. You have not given the atheist a reason for rejecting belief in God. That is unfair as all atheists have reasons they do not believe. The exact opposite of your theist response should read: "The atheist can say, 'I know God does not exist because he has never revealed himself to me.' "

Here is a fact, I suspect I am an atheist because I have never had any revelation that God exists. It does not mean I know him not to exist (as in your reworded atheist response), but it does mean that I have been given no reason to think a deity exists.



This is a totally erroneous belief on your part. As an atheist I have many reasons for not believing in God.


In The God Delusion (I gave the quote above) Dawkins states his belief: "‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’ " Elsewhere Dawkins has stated that he 99.9% sure that God does not exist. How you get from that, that he is an agnostic, I can't understand. Your claim flies in the face of what he himself has written. If it is me you don't trust then check out page 51 of The God Delusion for yourself.


Absolutely false! Jda, have you read any books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, or some other atheist author I have not named?

Forgive me if I have not worded it correctly. There are many reasons athiests don't believe. My point however is in the statement, "I know for a fact that there is no God." THIS statement is baseless. Even as Dawkings said, he is 99.99999 % sure there is no God. The very fact that that statement is not 100% shows that he is admitting that he does not know for an ABSOLUTE certainty. Sure, he believes there is no God, based on evidence he has found, but no athiest can really say "I know for a fact that there is no God."

You said,
"The atheist can say, 'I know God does not exist because he has never revealed himself to me."

Isnt that like saying, "I know aliens don't exist, because they haven't revealed themselves to me?"
or " I know for a fact that Mr. Smith from Zimbabwe does not exist because he has not revealed himself to me?"

Just because we fail in our understanding or revelation doesn't mean we can say that we know for certain that someone or something doesn't exist.

Afterall, the entire history of science is discovering things yet unknown. Can you imagine what would have happened if all scientists simply said, "Nothing exists outside of what I know, because it hasn't been revealed to me yet?"

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Forgive me if I have not worded it correctly. There are many reasons athiests don't believe. My point however is in the statement, "I know for a fact that there is no God." THIS statement is baseless. Even as Dawkings said, he is 99.99999 % sure there is no God. The very fact that that statement is not 100% shows that he is admitting that he does not know for an ABSOLUTE certainty. Sure, he believes there is no God, based on evidence he has found, but no athiest can really say "I know for a fact that there is no God."

You said,
"The atheist can say, 'I know God does not exist because he has never revealed himself to me."

Isnt that like saying, "I know aliens don't exist, because they haven't revealed themselves to me?"
or " I know for a fact that Mr. Smith from Zimbabwe does not exist because he has not revealed himself to me?"

Just because we fail in our understanding or revelation doesn't mean we can say that we know for certain that someone or something doesn't exist.

Afterall, the entire history of science is discovering things yet unknown. Can you imagine what would have happened if all scientists simply said, "Nothing exists outside of what I know, because it hasn't been revealed to me yet?"

Difference is though, not believing in Mr Smith from Zimbabwe doesn't carry a threat of eternal punishment.

There isn't an agenda to push the belief in Mr Smith in schools,

People don't have any prejudice against others because they believe Mr Smith exists.

People don't knock my door and stop me in the street telling me about Mr Smith.

People don't think I'm some sort of spawn of a devil because I don't believe Mr Smith.

I could go on but by now you probably realise your comparison was absurd.

 

[Jda016]

Difference is though, not believing in Mr Smith from Zimbabwe doesn't carry a threat of eternal punishment.

There isn't an agenda to push the belief in Mr Smith in schools,

People don't have any prejudice against others because they believe Mr Smith exists.

People don't knock my door and stop me in the street telling me about Mr Smith.

People don't think I'm some sort of spawn of a devil because I don't believe Mr Smith.

I could go on but by now you probably realise your comparison was absurd.

Even despite the things you mentioned, I simply don't see how any athiest can say for ABSOLUTE certain that there is no God. I mean come on, Dawkings, the leading proponent of athiesm/agnosticism isn't even willing to say that.

Lets look at it another way. Someone can claim to have seen the Loch Ness monster. These eyewitness acounts hold merit even if they are not absolute proof. But the statement, "I know for a fact that there is no Loch Ness monster simply because I have not seen it" doesn't hold any merit. It is also incredibly arrogant to say that it is impossible for it to exist simply because I have not witnessed it. It assumes a type of omniscience on the part of the person saying it, which is absurd. No one is all knowing.

now if it is absurd to say with absolute certainty that there is no Loch Ness monster, how much more absurd is it to say there is no God when there are millions of testimonies, tens of thousands of eyewitness to miracles, archaeological evidence of supernatural events in the Bible, and Biblical prophecy being fulfilled written thousands of years before by many different people who were not in collaboration with each other?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Let's apply that to Santa, Goblins, tooth fairies, Easter bunnies and leprechauns shall we? Is it absurd to say they don't exist?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Plus. I'm saying more than 'I haven't seen it' I'm saying there is no evidence to show it exists.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Even despite the things you mentioned, I simply don't see how any athiest can say for ABSOLUTE certain that there is no God. I mean come on, Dawkings, the leading proponent of athiesm/agnosticism isn't even willing to say that.

Lets look at it another way. Someone can claim to have seen the Loch Ness monster. These eyewitness acounts hold merit even if they are not absolute proof. But the statement, "I know for a fact that there is no Loch Ness monster simply because I have not seen it" doesn't hold any merit. It is also incredibly arrogant to say that it is impossible for it to exist simply because I have not witnessed it. It assumes a type of omniscience on the part of the person saying it, which is absurd. No one is all knowing.

now if it is absurd to say with absolute certainty that there is no Loch Ness monster, how much more absurd is it to say there is no God when there are millions of testimonies, tens of thousands of eyewitness to miracles, archaeological evidence of supernatural events in the Bible, and Biblical prophecy being fulfilled written thousands of years before by many different people who were not in collaboration with each other?

If something in the bible confirms something written in an earlier book... All that means is the author read that book.

 

[Jda016]

My point is one of logic. That is all. We can all strongly disbelieve something. But can we prove that something doesn't exist?

you have evidence for evolution (not much for macro evolution though) but that evidence doesn't disprove God.

I have evidence for God, but that doesn't mean He doesn't allow micro evolution.

All theories are based on evidence, not lack of evidence.

Claims and assertions are made based on evidence, not lack of evidence.

how can someone say, "I know for certain that something doesn't exist." We can say I BELIEVE something doesn't exist, but to emphatically claim that it doesn't exist when there is evidence to the contrary,is a very strong statement.

Now we can emphatically assert the negative in cases like the doctor pronouncing over the patient, "I know for certain this person is dead, because there is no heartbeat and all the definitions of life are no longer present." (Of course even then people have been dead and come back to life on the operating table and doctors have pronounced this over people who took drugs to make them appear dead). But for argument sake we can let the doctor say that the person is dead, because all functions of life have ceased. That would not be an absurd statement. The reason is because the parameters of life are very specifically set out. When all of those parameters are no longer there then they can make an absolute statement.

However the parameters of the existence of God are not so easily set out. We can't just say, I know for a fact He doesn't exist. It is not like we can look at a video recording of someone being at one place when they said they were going to be at another. In that case we can emphatically say with an absolute that the person wasnt where they said they were going to be.

you make a good point with Santa, etc. however I would counter with the fact that we have more testimonies and evidences of parents admitting that they are lieing to their kids about Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, etc than we have of proof that they actually exist.

So I guess, in conclusion, you can not make an absolute statement without absolute evidence. There can be evidences upon which you can base your beliefs, but to say that God doesn't exist without absolute evidence, is absurd.

I might just be too philosophical about this, I admit, however I just dont see how any athiest can say with absolute certainty, "That there is no God." Again, Dawkings isnt even willing to say that.

 

[Jda016]

If something in the bible confirms something written in an earlier book... All that means is the author read that book.

If a scripture in Leviticus tied to a scripture in Ezekiel showed the exact year that Israel would become a nation again in 1948, what does that show? A big coincidence? Fulfilled prophecy is a strong evidence for the existence of God.

 

[JesusLives]

This snake thing is a massive hole for me. If Satan entered the snake, why did god punish the snake by cursing him to slither on his belly?

If satan didn't enter the snake, we are back to a taking snake problem. Either way it doesn't add up.

That's o.k. you choose no and that is your right so you don't have to believe in a talking snake - I choose yes I believe Satan talked through a snake - this is called free will/power of choice.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

That's o.k. you choose no and that is your right so you don't have to believe in a talking snake - I choose yes I believe Satan talked through a snake - this is called free will/power of choice.

But if satan talked through the snake, it's not the snakes fault. So why did god punish the snake?

 

[phil112]

Phil, Void is not trapped.......................

Cycel, here is what he said: "If everything traces back to something, where did god come from?"

He rationalized his unbelief in God by trying to trivialize our belief in God. Because we cannot explain where God came from, He must not exist. I respond by pointing out that he can't tell me where we came form, hence we must not exist. That is illogical. God is the only rational explanation for existence. An atheist cannot come up with any kind of explanation at all.

I could care less about turtles.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

No your completely missing the point. Christians say the universe couldn't come from nothing, it had to have a creator.

If that's the case then you have to apply the same logic to your own argument. Who created the creator? And so on.

 

[Kerry]

No your completely missing the point. Christians say the universe couldn't come from nothing, it had to have a creator.

If that's the case then you have to apply the same logic to your own argument. Who created the creator? And so on.

So, so, so, where did it come from? an atom that some for some reason exploded and denies physics. Unless that was one heck of a big atom.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I don't know Kerry. I really don't. But I won't subscribe to supernatural tales to fill my knowledge gap

 

[Jda016]

I'm still curious, and I might be beating a dead horse, but does lack of proof in something mean that it absolutely can not exist?

Which sentence does the athiest better subscribe to:

"I believe God does not exist based on the lack of evidence."
or
"I know with 100% certainty that God does not exist."

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I can totally understand your point about how can you claim for certain something doesn't exist.

But to me god is exactly the same as any other myth. To reserve a little doubt for gods non existence would separate it from all the other myths that I'm 100 percent certain don't exist. And I see no reason to separate him from the rest.

Does that make sense?