THE ATHIEST AGENDA

[Jimbone]

The bad thing about it is that it kills people, and humans suffer for it. Not just the patient.

We both know that. Why even ask?

Because my point here is that outside of God "bad", is no more than an opinion. And saying bad is bad because it's bad is not very intellectually rigorous. In the Atheistic framework there is no "good" or "bad", only "what is". If there is no higher standard that is above human reasoning that is "the" standard of right and wrong, then it obviously follows that right and wrong is no more than a construct of the human mind, so depending on what mind you're talking to right and wrong is subjective, as in it can change. Even if you blow it up larger, to society as a whole, that the group comes together, see's what works and doesn't then says whats right and wrong....., but then right and wrong depends on what society you talk to. Right?

So in the grand scheme of things, in a universe with no God, where in reality we are insignificant collections of atoms, barely detectable life on a speck of dust flying through a chaotic and accidental universe, with no purpose at all, and no judgement ahead of us, now, please tell me why you think cancer is bad? It happens, yes, it causes people to suffer greatly, but I'm talking ultimately why is cancer "bad", to the atheist? Are things we just don't like or hurt "bad". What if a person or society thinks and says cancer is a good thing because they welcome and love death? Is it just good then? Just good "to them" right? "Like live and let live man", right? This is why I ask, I want to think a little bigger and deeper than, "The bad thing about it is that it kills people, and humans suffer for it. Not just the patient." Would you seriously accept that kind of answer for anything else? "It's bad because it's bad", is not a "reason", it's a reaction to the bad, what is "bad" they are reacting to?

 

[Jimbone]

You gave a link to a source that wasnt peer reviewed or scientifically published. I gave a link to one that was both.

I understand how evolutionary progression works. I am certain that you do not.

So what? How on earth can studying how the creation works ever at all tell you if there is a God or not? That doesn't even make logical sense at all. The problem here isn't "evidence" for you. You don't reject God because He hasn't "shown you" enough. You reject God way before you even look at the problem, because you were born fallen with a dead spirit like everyone else. You are unplugged from God and spiritually dead, and were not created to be this way. We can not even fathom the concept of the spirit because we have no frame of reference for it. All we are born with is the flesh, and this is all we have to answer these question, and is also why God had to give us direct revelation to save us, this is why the good news is 100% necessary and so good. It is also why you strive to answer everything by the flesh, just like all of us at some point, but look you're here. God has you here and for a purpose. I pray it's to soften your heart, get out of all this striving to disprove an entity that you don't believe in. There is such a bigger picture that we can't even see until we've been born again, but I applaud and plea with you to keep seeking truth, but don't get stuck in one realm keep digging. Honestly that's all we can do. I appreciate this discussion and hope you have a great day.

 

[Magenta]

The oldest fossils are at least 3.5 billion years old, not 540 million as you say.

I did not say the oldest fossil was 540 million years old as you falsely claim. We are talking about the development of the eye, and EYE fossils, not any old fossil. The oldest EYE fossil is from the Cambrian period which is widely accepted to have been 540 million years ago, not 3.5 billion years ago. Another thing this trilobite eye fossil reveals is that the structure and function of compound eyes has barely changed in half a billion years.

 

[oldethennew]

if someone expresses that they accept no authority, then they are saying that they
only accept themselves - oh dear, we've got lots of proof of where this ends...

personally, we believe that God is a lot smarter than ALL of US combined!!!

 

[MarkEFK]

May I ask, to which verse or passage you are referring, by the bold ^ ? (I tried looking up that phrase but couldn't find it, I apologize).

Might you be referring to Numbers 31, by chance? (particularly, Numbers 31:18)... I could be wrong in my guess of the passage to which you are referring. Could you clarify? Thanks.

Actually I think I made a mistake here, this is from the Ishut, got my OT mixed up with another Jewish text. My bad!

 

[MarkEFK]

I know I'm just kind of jumping in here, but lets turn it around on you if we can. Lets say there is no God, we all came about via the big bang + life + evolution and that whole religion, now what makes bone cancer "bad"? Why would you, and accidental collection of cells, however complex, have any concern at all for another collection of cells with a defect? What is the bad thing about it? What is bad? Can you even define it from your perspective? I also mean these questions seriously, not at all in a "gotcha" type way. I know I never even considered these kinds of questions before He opened my eyes, but I'd really like to know your answer to these. Also it's awesome to have you here, welcome.

Bone cancer in that sense is neither 'good' nor 'bad', it just is. But of course from our perspective it is 'bad' since we're the victims either by having cancer of the bones kill us, or our loved ones. But this really isn't a question or morality, unless we believe in an omnipotent creator who chose to create it. Also, thanks! Nice to be here!

 

[MarkEFK]

if someone expresses that they accept no authority, then they are saying that they
only accept themselves - oh dear, we've got lots of proof of where this ends...

personally, we believe that God is a lot smarter than ALL of US combined!!!

I'm not sure I follow, accepting no authority doesn't mean only accepting myself, for example; I don't know how my phone works, you could leave me alone in a room with all the component parts for a century and I wouldn't able to put one together and make it work, but I know there are people who do know how to do things so when my phone breaks I seek their assistance, I'm not prostrating myself to them, I just acknowledge that they know more than me in this regard. My accepting no authority I mean I consider myself a sovereign being, and as such I would never kneel to anyone; above none, none above me.

 

[Jimbone]

I'm not sure I follow, accepting no authority doesn't mean only accepting myself, for example; I don't know how my phone works, you could leave me alone in a room with all the component parts for a century and I wouldn't able to put one together and make it work, but I know there are people who do know how to do things so when my phone breaks I seek their assistance, I'm not prostrating myself to them, I just acknowledge that they know more than me in this regard. My accepting no authority I mean I consider myself a sovereign being, and as such I would never kneel to anyone; above none, none above me.

Wow, you nailed down the exact problem exactly. That is what the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil", was. That was man usurping Gods sovereignty for ourselves. "I now say what is right and wrong", "I now hold the knowledge of whats good and evil".
The problem comes when I say the same thing, there is no one higher than me. If this is true and lets say I like to hurt kids, to me it makes me feel powerful, I can show them how I'm "sovereign", and there is no one higher. I like that I can make a child recognize my supremacy by hurting them. Do you think this is wrong? Would you tell me I shouldn't do that? Can you even tell anyone they "shouldn't" at all?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said: May I ask, to which verse or passage you are referring, by the bold ^ ? (I tried looking up that phrase but couldn't find it, I apologize).
Might you be referring to Numbers 31, by chance? (particularly, Numbers 31:18)... I could be wrong in my guess of the passage to which you are referring. Could you clarify? Thanks.

Actually I think I made a mistake here, this is from the Ishut, got my OT mixed up with another Jewish text. My bad!

Okay.

I just thought it might be Numbers 31:18 you had been referring to in your other post. It is a common Atheist talking point, and many are influenced toward viewing it the way they present. [MarkEFK: "was totally cool in the OT, as was marrying a girl 'not fit to bear a child'."]

I was going to offer a different perspective. I guess I'll go ahead and supply the link to this article, in the event that anyone reading this thread might desire to read it (pertaining to Numbers 31:18 and context) [it's kinda long ]:

http://www.christianthinktank.com/midian.html - "Good question…What about God’s cruelty against the Midianites?"


Have a nice day.

 

[Poinsetta]

the Bible is true and people also need to have childlike faith for Jesus

 

[oldethennew]

I'm not sure I follow, accepting no authority doesn't mean only accepting myself, for example; I don't know how my phone works, you could leave me alone in a room with all the component parts for a century and I wouldn't able to put one together and make it work, but I know there are people who do know how to do things so when my phone breaks I seek their assistance, I'm not prostrating myself to them, I just acknowledge that they know more than me in this regard. My accepting no authority I mean I consider myself a sovereign being, and as such I would never kneel to anyone; above none, none above me.

===============================================
Wisdom says; 'that we should all kneel before God'...
God is 'Sovereign' - not any man, whether King or Prince'...

 

[Ohm]

You keep saying that, and every time you repeat it, the statement is still false.

I disagree.

The fossil record is an imperfect reference point because evolutionists artificially age the earth to millions of years

They age the Earth using radioactivity measurements.

and they refuse to examine the fossil record,

This is just a ludicrous comment.

 

[Ohm]

Because my point here is that outside of God "bad", is no more than an opinion. And saying bad is bad because it's bad is not very intellectually rigorous. In the Atheistic framework there is no "good" or "bad", only "what is".

My three year old nephew understands that a painful, lethal medical condition causes suffering, anxiety, stress, worry, pain, fear, anger, heartache and loss. He understands "bad", because he has the empathy necessary to do so.

If there is no higher standard that is above human reasoning that is "the" standard of right and wrong, then it obviously follows that right and wrong is no more than a construct of the human mind,

So, without your religion, you are a psychopath?

so depending on what mind you're talking to right and wrong is subjective, as in it can change. Even if you blow it up larger, to society as a whole, that the group comes together, see's what works and doesn't then says whats right and wrong....., but then right and wrong depends on what society you talk to. Right?

Right and wrong have always meant different things to different people. Even in religious people, what is "right" and what is "wrong" can vary wildly. I've seen Christians who support the death penalty and those who vehemently oppose it. I've see atheists who also have diametrically opposite views on it.

So in the grand scheme of things, in a universe with no God, where in reality we are insignificant collections of atoms, barely detectable life on a speck of dust flying through a chaotic and accidental universe, with no purpose at all, and no judgement ahead of us, now, please tell me why you think cancer is bad?

For mostly the same reasons that anybody does. Not once have I called us "insignificant", or "mere collections of atoms". Yes, I might not be a Christian, but that is far from me being a nihilist. I have a choice to believe whatever I wish, just like you. And, actually, to me, the fact that we are alive and able to witness our universe, on a spinning rock in the middle of the deadly vacuum of space, is wondrous, and makes life unimaginably precious.

I do not need to justify my existence to you.

It happens, yes, it causes people to suffer greatly, but I'm talking ultimately why is cancer "bad", to the atheist?

Are things we just don't like or hurt "bad". What if a person or society thinks and says cancer is a good thing because they welcome and love death?

Is it just good then? Just good "to them" right? "Like live and let live man", right? This is why I ask, I want to think a little bigger and deeper than, "The bad thing about it is that it kills people, and humans suffer for it. Not just the patient." Would you seriously accept that kind of answer for anything else? "It's bad because it's bad", is not a "reason", it's a reaction to the bad, what is "bad" they are reacting to?

This is just ludicrous. Is human suffering and death not a reason sufficient for you to consider something "bad"? What more does a healthy, rational, empathetic human being need?

It's bad for all of the above.


What a stupid conversation.

 

[Ohm]

So what? How on earth can studying how the creation works ever at all tell you if there is a God or not?

I never claimed that it could.

 

[Ohm]

I did not say the oldest fossil was 540 million years old as you falsely claim. We are talking about the development of the eye, and EYE fossils, not any old fossil. The oldest EYE fossil is from the Cambrian period which is widely accepted to have been 540 million years ago, not 3.5 billion years ago. Another thing this trilobite eye fossil reveals is that the structure and function of compound eyes has barely changed in half a billion years.

I am trying to get you to think about what an eye actually is. At what point in evolutionary history does an eye stop being an eye? For example, must it have a lens? Must it have pigment cones? Must it have a formed, complex optic nerve? Or is a structure that senses light sufficient to be considered a form or type of "eye"?

This is important because it is what your argument hinges upon, that the definition of an eye means that the oldest eye only arose 540 million years ago. But actually, before that point, there are an innumerable number of organisms with some mechanism or other for detecting light and/or colour. And this is the point about evolution: Nothing comes from nothing. Everything comes from a structure that existed before it, right the way down to proto-organisms that use electron gradients for energy, and complex proteins, and simple proteins, and inorganic chemistry.

Evolution is not when one organism magically and momentarily transforms into another, it is a cumulation of mutation and change. This is why the oldest, deepest fossils are simple life, and the youngest, and shallowest fossils are complex life. One leads ultimately to the other.

As for the "eye": it is, at its most basic, a light detector. Bacteria and single celled organisms have this. They sense light as opposed to dark. This allows them to gravitate towards light. Plants also have this ability. And every other eye in the animal kingdom, uses this mechanism, some obviously vastly more sophisticated than others. The same way that every single living cell uses mitochondria to utilize electron gradients for energy, just like the earliest and simplest life.

 

[Gregoryp]

From this sad conversation, I can see Hell being a very very busy place. I hope the lake of fire is big enough to hold all these people. To say there is no God, that we all somehow evolved, then reject him , is very strange considering your debating this in a christian forum is somewhat weird.

 

[oldethennew]

perhaps God has drawn him here where so many who
love and serve Him come to fellowship and share...

 

[Gregoryp]

perhaps God has drawn him here where so many who
love and serve Him come to fellowship and share...

sharing and being open the lord is one thing, spreading the enemies propaganda is something else. As a Christian and filled with the Holy Spirit cannot sit by and tolerate such lies

 

[Ohm]

sharing and being open the lord is one thing, spreading the enemies propaganda is something else. As a Christian and filled with the Holy Spirit cannot sit by and tolerate such lies

There are millions of Christians who accept evolutionary theory. And there are some who do not. That doesn't make it "lies".

 

[calibob]

sharing and being open the lord is one thing, spreading the enemies propaganda is something else. As a Christian and filled with the Holy Spirit cannot sit by and tolerate such lies

This is a piggy back. not a rebuttal. Some people seem to get it twisted.

Some that have come to believe in Christ get a spiritual experience of an educational variety and proclaim faith through study or salvation through sacraments or works and deny the true spiritual experience which is the Holy Spirit. It's circumcision of the heart. Let nothing that God has made clean be called unclean.

If someone really has no faith or belief in the spiritual realm and think love is some kind of chemical reaction within the brain please explain how in the world do you still care about what we dismiss? Do you care if you are so cock sure of science or don't give a rats rump about what others think or say about what you believe?

We have testified to you what happened to us. What would be our motive if not for Christ's sake?

We don't get a commission. I'd have more fun watching Netflix.