The Atheist Test

[BCRE8TVE]

I do have some questions for the atheists on this forum but first I want to declare any scripture I quote is for the sake of the Christians reading as I am fully aware that scripture means nothing to an atheist. (1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.) That being said, I have some questions about science and its validity for those who read this.

Thanks for your honesty, I appreciate the sentiment.

If evolution is true, how does one that believes in it explain away the mounds of archaeological evidence that shows early man was much smarter than given credit plus all the evidence that points toward man and dinosaurs being on the earth at the same time? I am referring to all the structures that we can't duplicate with our modern technology, either stones are too big to move or cut too precisely to replicate, and all of the figurines, pictographs and carvings in stone of dinosaurs.

Are you saying ancient man was much smarter than we give him credit for, then in the same breath say they couldn't have made pyramids, statues on the Easter island, etc, without dinosaurs?
As for the pictures of dinosaurs, there were also a lot of representations of dragons in European medieval times and
in ancient China. This circumstantial evidence does not cut it against radiometric dating.

Lastly how does one ignore the mathematical impossibility it would take to even have evolution come about? The fact is only micro evolution is provable.

I think this webpage will answer any questions you might have: talkorigins . org /faqs/abioprob/abioprob . html

Next let's talk about heliocentricity vs geocentricity. This is a theory put forth by Copernicus that states the sun is the center of our solar system and that all planets rotate about it and that our earth rotates on its axis, with geocentricity being the dominant view prior to this because that is what the Bible teaches. The problem with this is that every experiment done to determine heliocentric validity, to date, has failed with some of those failed experiments proving that the earth is not rotating. The fact is that without being able to have a third person view of our solar system it is impossible to tell which is the correct theory, yet heliocentricity is taught to us as an absolute truth in schools.

I'm sorry, I don't even know where to start. Geocentrism is about as supported by evidence as flat earth theory is. I have one thing that can prove you wrong. You know gravity pulls objects towards earth, right? And you know that when something spins, centripetal forces pushes it outwards, right? That is how an orbit works. Planets are always falling, but they are falling at a certain speed and in a certain direction that they never fall straight down, they go in circles (at least in the heliocentric model). Now, satellites need to turn around the earth in order to remain in space. How is it then that satellites exist who are geostationary? These kinds of satellites revolve around the earth exactly once per day, and they remain exactly above a single point on earth. These satellites are 35 thousand kilometres away (0r 21 thousand miles away) and they orbit us at a rate of 11 thousand km/h (or 6877 mph). And yet they are always above a single spot. This alone disproves geocentrism. For more details, you can visit the geostationary orbit page on Wikipedia.

Let's look at this logically, if the earth is rotating at 1000mph, as they say, how is it that I can take a flight from east to west and then return west to east when the average commercial flight flies around 500mph? Why is it that we don't have 1000mph winds on the face of the earth?

This would undoubtedly happen if the earth were to suddenly stop rotating. The truth is that we are all rotating along with it at the same speed.

Some may say it is because the ozone layer and yet this has a huge hole in it that would only serve to pressurize those winds even further.

This has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Gravity is a mythical thing that cannot be proven, tested or measured in any way. I am not denying that I could drop 100 tennis balls from a one story building and get the same result every time but I am denying the THEORY of gravity which tells us that all objects have a pulling force that is determined by their amount of mass. Can anyone tell me how a fly can land on me and freely exit my gravitational pull when ratio wise my mass vs a fly's mass is probably greater than the earth's mass vs the moon's mass? How is it that the gravitational force is so great that it can hold billions and billions of pounds of water on the face of the earth at any given moment, even more astounding if the earth is rotating, and yet not crush a frail human body under that same force?

Yay for a short physics class! The formula to determine the force of gravity is
F = G (m1*m2)/(r)^2
Or gravity is proportional to the masses of both objects divided by the distance between them squares. G is the universal gravitation constant, which is 0.0000000000667384. As you can see, gravity is EXTREMELY weak. Gravity is the weakest of the four major forces, being gravity, electromagnetic, and weak and strong nuclear forces. Moving on.

The earth has a mass of 5673600000000000000000000 kilograms. You have a mass of approximately 80 kilograms. The earth is about 10000000000000000000000 times your weight. A fly weighs about 0.0000000 something kg. That means you are only about 10000000 times heavier than a fly. That means the force of gravity relative to you (and the fly) is about 1000000000000000 times stronger. And it gets worse if you start counting the fact that you are about 6371 km away from the centre of the earth, and the fly is right on your skin.
As for crushing the frail human body, your body is crushed if you dive too deep in the ocean. Your body starts depressurizing if you go above 10.000 metres high. The answer? We evolved to be at this particular altitude, nothing more, nothing less. There are fish at the bottom of the ocean that would die immediately were we to bring them to the surface. Why? They evolved to live at that depth and with that pressure.

The fact is that all three of these areas of science that I have discussed are nothing more than theories and yet they are almost always declared to be the truth. How is it that atheists can get upset at the Christians for openly declaring their beliefs when these theories are being falsely declared as truth and pushed in everybody's face on a daily basis through schools, the internet, entertainment and any other avenue possible?

Saying it's nothing more than a theory is like saying Obama is nothing more than the President of possibly the most powerful country on earth. In science, it literally doesn't go higher than that.
As for the theories themselves, they are presented as truth by the virtue that they work. While to a scientist, presenting anything as the ultimate truth is ridiculous, the great majority of the public misunderstands what a scientists says. The scientists says we are 95% sure, which to a scientist means beyond any reasonable doubt, and the public interprets it as 'What? You mean you're not sure?'.
And finally, for the beliefs, many religious beliefs do active harm to people. I have an online friend who passed within an inch of killing himself because his mormon friends, family, basically everyone he knew, was extremely repressive towards his being bisexual. There's also the fact many beliefs provided in the bible are factually wrong.

This proves that the reason this was presented is because men refuse to believe in God and I'm sure the same can be said for evolution. (Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Uum, no. It was heralded as a success because it works. Nothing more. Nothing more, nothing less. To the universe, God is no more the centre of it than the earth is. Not everything revolves around God, or is about god, and it's certainly the same of the earth. We simply live on the fourth planet in the solar system, in one solar system in the spiral arm of the milky way, one amongst 20 000 000 000 000's of stars, in one galaxy among 170 000 000 000 000 's of galaxies.

 

[BCRE8TVE]

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory
is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe,
in which its density and temperature were infinitely high,
is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity.

Given that the scientists must hold to:
3. All phenomena have natural causes.
This assumption is not negotiable.

Then the singularity has to come into existence from zero time,
zero space. Nothing ItinerantLurker.

What was the natural cause of the singularity?

Answer in 10 lines or less, thanks.

This is no problem. Singularities exist within black holes as well, so we know they do exist.
Also, at the singularity, all known laws of physics break down.
That means that it is impossible for us to know what happened to the black hole, what went into it, when it started, etc, before the black hole exploded (and yes they do explode)
So, there might have been something before the big bang, there might not, and we have absolutely no ways of looking even a fraction of a second before the big bang happened.
This doesn't mean there was nothing, it just means we can't know what happened before.
There is the theory of the big crunch, where a universe expands from a big bang and collapses into a big crunch, but I am not sure whether this theory has been discredited yet.

So that was in 5 lines. I hope it helps.

Also, virtual particles are created from 'nothing' if you want, from vacuum energy if you want to be specific. In short, there is nothing, no matter, and from that nothingness, one particle of matter and one particle of antimatter separate. They come apart for a fraction of a second, then are attracted back to each other and annihilate each other. You had nothing, then matter, then energy. Therefore, it MIGHT be possible that the big bang did indeed come from nothing.

 

[BCRE8TVE]

Oh and last quickie:
For those who would like to know about the scientific opinion on the theory of abiogenesis, the conditions of the primitive earth, etc,
talkorigins . org/faqs/wells/iconob . html

Every link you see along the lines of (Cohen, 1995) are links towards scientific papers supporting the author's conclusions.

Now a scientific paper might sound fancy, but in and of itself, it is nothing. A scientific paper is essentially a recipe, telling exactly which ingredients the scientists mixed in which manner to obtain what results. Scientists then analyze those results (writing down most of their calculations) so that other scientists can see if they made mistakes. In the end, they do a conclusion outlining what they found out in the course of such an experiment.

What this enables is that any scientist anywhere in the world with the right equipment can pick up a scientific paper, copy exactly what the original team did, and obtain the same results.

Also note that scientific papers are not all accepted. The peer-review process is very rigorous, and something like only 20 to 50% of papers are accepted for publication.

The peer-review process consists of the submitted paper being read by another scientist in the field, who tries to find errors in the methods, the way the results are presented, the calculations, anything is an excuse to have the paper revoked. Making a scientific paper is painstakingly long and frustrating, but the result is the advancement of science.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory
is that of the singularity.

Why is the origin/nature of the big bang singularity a problem for the Big Bang theory? Whether it's origin was trivial, temporary, or supernatural is irrelevant explaining the observations we do, in fact, observe.

Given that the scientists must hold to:
3. All phenomena have natural causes.
This assumption is not negotiable.

Well of course it is, science adheres to methodological naturalism not philosophical naturalism. Natural causes are the only ones science can reliably investigate, not the only causes science claims exist.

Then the singularity has to come into existence from zero time,
zero space. Nothing ItinerantLurker.

As we understand it, yes. All space (and therefore time) and energy (and therefore matter) started at the Big Bang.

What was the natural cause of the singularity?

Answer in 10 lines or less, thanks.

I can do it in one: we don't know.




Lurker

 

[Christ4Ever]

In this section of your response, you seemed to highlight and point out, several times and in several ways...how I focused way too much on the all-encompassing and unforgiving word, ALL.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote...but to clarify, no, I wasn't talking in absolutes here. Nor was Yancey, in my opinion (from what you quoted from him).

This focus on the all seemed to have come from you, and I'm not sure why. In any case, when I said "the church" (this, or that, etc)...I was talking in generalities. And yes, the Church (generally speaking) does not tolerate certain question, or if they do, not for long! Eventually (generally speaking!) they get kicked aside and run over.

I assumed in the below statement you were quoting Yancy if not and it’s yours or both, then what I stated still applies. Notice where it states “the church”; wouldn’t you say that’s a pretty inclusive statement meaning all? Also, “spiritual journey that we all are on” statement covers everyone regardless of belief? When dealing with certain issues, being specific is necessary, because scripture under the topic we are dealing with is specific.

This is but one problem I have with the Church: it has become a place where questions are not tolerated. Thoughts, challenged, personal hangups, or much that happens along the spiritual journey that we all are on, are simply not wanted. They are either vetted out and kicked to the sidewalk, or rejected outright. Regarded as heretical, or too dangerous to leave unaddressed.

I didn't read the transcript on Yancey that you seem to be able to recite...but in the quote above, it seems to me that Yancey has some outstanding questions on a few passages.

On the church issue (from the current post), one must take great care in what church one becomes a member of. It took me a little over 2 years of going and studying what the church and the ministry was about before I requested membership. Hundreds in that time period became members and many left as well. To go into a church blindly, is asking to be disappointed, and possibly get deceived as well. This is especially true within certain movements being heralded by certain segments of Christianity today. Is there a perfect church? Looking at the letters in the book of Revelation to the different churches one can see there are many issues at hand and warnings to boot. Perfect, no, one day, yes.

Do you see your big IF, C4E? If (this or that)..."then I could accept them".

And this is why I used a big generalization, when I talked about the Church, above. No, it's not ALL people in the Church...but similar to your conditional acceptance verbiage above, so it is with the Church.

And is this how Christ operates? Is this "conditional" acceptance what Jesus taught us? What Jesus showed us? Forget about whether it's right or wrong, for a second...and ask yourself how you respond/react/act to folks who may be (in this example that you reference) gay. Your answer is, no, you do not accept them.

But why? Is it because they are "sinning", or living a "wrong" lifestyle? I can't say I disagree with that...but what of the person behind it? What of them?

Why would you not accept this person? Why is this person "unacceptable" to you? Again, you are not their judge. You have that luxury...enjoy it!!! And look past the sin, towards the person.

Accept them. Love them. Yes, it's hard. Yes, you have to look past your "judgement call" on their life/lives...and get to the essence of the person!!

Jesus showed us this. Numerous examples, all throughout...Jesus approached, accepted, loved, taught, enjoyed, and spent time with "sinners".

It's not that God doesn't, or won't judge...but Jesus primarily operated with acceptance, love, and gentleness, with the marginalized. With those the Church cast out.

Yet I would conclude that to focus on just one part of Jesus without taking into account the other in either one of our cases would be doing an injustice of who Christ Jesus is. I can accept that Jesus was loving and forgave sin, because He is that, but He also is uncompromising when it came to sin, and condemning of many as well. How can He not bet? He is a King! A King must be both loving and uncompromising to His people.

I had already written a couple of paragraphs showing the other side of Jesus in Scripture to counter your points above, but realized that we were discussing different sides of the same coin, which changes the value of what is being said in no way or fashion. We need to remember He is both, and when the church focuses solely on one part, neglecting the other, the picture of who Christ Jesus is, becomes warped and out of balance and not a true picture to those who would know Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior and King.

Hmm...well, yes. And no. Yes, "tolerance" can certainly go to far, and it does this often. It turns into coddling, or even enabling, sure. But there's a fine line in that, is there not? Look at your last sentence (above) compared with the first, and ask yourself how easily you reconcile those two statements. It's not necessarily an easy task.

As for me (and you, I would imagine!), how thankful am I the fact that God tolerated, and still tolerates, me in my sinfulness? Had He zero tolerance, He would simply have sunk the Ark, yes?

God tolerates and suffers us. So much so that we have John 3:16, etc. No, it's no small thing.

But again, in your case, what have you to tolerate, since you are gleefully not in the seat of judgement in the first place? This is not your burden.

Shed it. And enter into that which matters. Your fellow man's sinfulness is simply not yours to bear.

Since you brought up the ark, it can also apply to the flip side of the same coin that I mentioned before. What about those who were not in the ark? Men, women, and children were out there. Why destroy all of them? God’s tolerance was not eternal. They would not turn away from their sin. Think about what Jesus said about those who would hurt children. I’m not asking you to choose between the positions being mentioned here, just leave room for both of them. You said you believe in the inerrancy of scripture, so if this is true, then you must also believe that yes He can be both, tolerant and intolerant depending on each situation. Is it easy for us to make these calls? No. Very much a fine balance, but if one loves one can also correct. One must be able to correct. The entire Bible reflects nations and individuals being corrected. The Epistles are full of corrections to the church and individuals. Yet all of it was done with love. Therein is how we as believers must be able to handle situations that require correction. Love brother. Only with Love.

Is this my concern?

What does Matthew 12:48 mean to you? Or how about Luke 9:60a? "Let the dead bury the dead".

Don't get me wrong - I love this nation - but history is indeed His Story, and He's got His reasons for things, and how they happen. Is it yours to stop? We know history leads us to the Book of Revelation, do we not?

I do not cry for this nation. It is happening just as your Lord would have planned it. And for a reason I cannot understand or know...but I can trust that is for His eventual glory.

Believe, and Trust -- this is what your thought causes me to have to do. Not fret. Not cry. Not worry. No.

I must apologize here. Since I don’t know the country you are from, how can I expect you to understand my land of birth or even understand why I cry for it?

I don't know. Not my question to answer. Ask God. Thankfully, and that's an understatement...it's not my burden to have to bear to give such an answer to this question. Free yourself from it, bro.

I am free brother, but it doesn’t mean that I’ve stopped feeling for those who are lost. I haven't forgotten where I came from. My hope is that none of us do.

You don’t have to continue on this thread, since I believe that what we both wanted to communicate we have. It has been a blessing to share with you as well as receive, a greater understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in all of us who believe.
YBIC eace: Couldn't resist. Had to add it!
C4E
Galatians 6:2

 

[s.i.e.]

Christ4Ever -- instead of going point by point in answering you...I'm going to go free-flow, since that's kind of how I think. Sorry in advance if that seems discombobulated for you. Ok...

First, on the Church: you seem to be wanting me to drill down to specifics, and seem frustrated that I talk of "The Church" in generalities. To try to clear up your confusion, one last time, yes...I was referencing "The Church" as a general body, not a specific parish, denomination, or ideology. I was talking of what we know as "Christendom" in general...here in the West. I'm not entirely sure why you have a problem with that. Anyways...yes, in general, Church-life does not tolerate (for example) even the conversation of homosexuality (since that's the subject you've focused on thus far...I'll stick with that). Instead, they pretty much (to repeat myself here) kick those who may want to sort through such struggles or questions, to the curb, never to be seem again, and be done with them.

Regardless of what you think about the issue, or think you know about the issue, that is simply not Christlike, or reflective of the Christ as we read about in The Bible. Again, this is generally speaking, but more-of-less widespread throughout Church life today.

As for your idea of Church Membership...this is more personal opinion than anything else, but I went to one Church for 10 years, and have now been going to my present Church for 4.5yrs, and I have actively avoided going through membership, even though I have been asked to become a Member. I personally don't really understand the need or virtue in doing this, and I never saw Christ give us examples of it. I know it's good for The Church, and the business that surrounds The Church...but I can't see why/how it helps, or is necessary, for the attendee. How's that for getting off-topic!!


As for Jesus being "uncompromising" with sin and "condeming of many as well"....I don't see it how you see it. The thing Jesus was condemning of was pious'ness. I don't see instances where Jesus was condemning of the sinner, except for those who denied their sins, and acted self-righteous about things. Yes, Jesus can be both "tolerant and intollerant" in various given situations. I don't see (to continue to use your homosexuality example) how or where Jesus would have been condemning, or would have condemned, a homosexual person. That said, had any person (homo, or hedro) have shown a pompous/pious/self-righteous/unforgiving/law-ridden/higher-than-though attitude towards the broken or hurting or needy...yes, he was unrelentless in his verbiage to them.

As for Country: I'm from, and live in, America. I don't cry for it, as you say you do. And I love my Country. I just don't have remorse over her course. It was designed in His great Story...and I have to believe He has some great plan in mind here, for it. Even in spite of my disappointment in how I see the story unfold from time to time.

Peace-out to you too C4E

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear S.I.E.
Sorry I couldn’t leave it be which I’m sure you were hoping I would. The spirit within me just won’t let me be until I sent this. Just as there were a lot of people outside the ark when the door closed, so will there be many outside the Kingdom of God. I pray that you will be able to recognize the ones who are outside looking in and offer the Gospel to them.

Just like the parable of the Rich Man and the Beggar. Some will just refuse to repent. Continue on into Luke 17:3 and you’ll see that we are told by Jesus to rebuke the brother who sins. Meaning you must first know what sin is. Bible is good for showing you what that might be. Also, if I were to sin, I would expect you to let me know. So that I could repent, because without repentance, there can be no forgiveness.

In this day and age, we refuse to call it like it is. We don’t put the responsibility on the sinner to repent; we just forgive them without them repenting at all, and say, “Not my job” or who am I to judge another, which provides us the excuse to be non-confrontational or politically correct. If you use some of these excuses it just means that you’re confusing loving someone enough to let them know according to scripture that they’re sinning and not, and I repeat, not condemning them for their behavior. Big difference my brother. However, if I were not to do this, wouldn’t I be going against what Christ Jesus asked me to do? If you don’t believe me and haven’t read Luke 17:3-4 yet please do so.

As for me I will try to continue to do what the Lord has asked of us to do; love them unconditionally, rebuke them when they sin, and help my brother carry whatever that burden they have is, until they can do it for themselves. You can continue to love them unconditionally, and when they sin, and do nothing. If I sound a little angry in my words with you, I am, but it’s not really you, but what this world has convinced loving believers like you into accepting as truth. Nothing in what you’ve written says you would ever rebuke the brother who sins, thereby helping them. Sorry, I don’t operate that way, and neither did Jesus at least not the Jesus in the Bible; maybe a Jesus in some other book, but not the Bible. Peace to you as well brother, but not peace as the world knows it. That type of peace is worthless.
John 14:27
YBIC
C4E

 

[micolr]

Ahh, the joys of trying to enter a man's heart and soul through his head. Fellow believers, do not try to open what God has not yet opened.

You have knocked, and been resisted, even told to go, now shake the dust off your feet and let a perishing man continue to perish.

 

[David777]

Hello all.

Was there ever grounds for a debate in the first place?

There is a solution to this never ending debate.
It is a very simple solution.

Where do we have to look, Philosophy.

Within Philosophy is Epistemology.
Within Epistemology are two definitions.
Determinism and Causality.

These two groups have debated for thousands of years.
All that occurred was lots of hot air and a greater complexity,
as the debate progressed over time.

Science is Causality (based on the assumption of natural causes).

Christianity is Determinism (appeal to higher force, God).

This is the debate you have witnessed on this thread.

Is there ever a winner?

There was ever only one winner, He that determined all.
Jesus Christ is the predetermined, He that Determined all.

Science, since it stands on the initial assumption of natural
causes, must be asked to justify the assumption.

Which Science is not able to do, because absolute knowledge
is necessary to make the assumption in the first place. Otherwise,
Science will eventually end up only with theory, then finally at hypothesis.
It is going nowhere because it never started.

A snake chewing on its tail.
Now that was easy.

I might just add that knowledge of Jesus is a result of REVELATION.
No assumptions are necessary.
Which is Determinism, the Grand Winner.
With Jesus Christ access is granted.
What debate???

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Was there ever grounds for a debate in the first place?

Again, I see no one debating Christianity in this thread - merely people asking questions and correcting glaring errors of fact. Might I suggest replying to people's actual posts rather than writing these confusingly off-topic replies.



Lurker