Re: The Problems With Atheists and Atheism
Still waiting for a response.
Our Message: You Can Solve Your Problems & Change Your Life by Escaping America for a Better Life & Love Overseas! Discover Friendlier Foreign Women, Authentic People, Saner Cultures, Lower Cost Living, Healthier Food, Greater Freedoms and More!
You're not being realistic. If an explanation takes a long time to write or explain, it's better to just post a link or video. It's more time efficient. If I had to spend hours replying to every question on a complex subject like this, I wouldn't even have time to sleep or shower. Come on get real. You obviously don't know anything about efficiency or time management. When you go to a company's FAQ page it tries to answer your question so you don't need to write it and have someone write the answer back. The FAQ cuts down on time wasted answering the same questions over and over again. When you call customer service, the machine or automated system tries to take care of your needs, so a person doesn't have to, to save time and money. It's more efficient that way. Even customer service reps will often email a link to you to answer your question, if the link contains the answer.flowerthief00 wrote: ↑August 25th, 2018, 4:56 amIf a teacher asked you to critique an article or presentation and your critique was simply "Watch this rebuttal video. You'll be convinced for sure"....you'd fail the assignment.
I challenge you guys not to link to anyone or anything whose arguments you could have, should have made in your own words. If you have to link to hard evidence, tho, that's fine.
Lol. You think I'm that guy? No definitely not. Also you are not understanding something important, he is a materialist atheist and i have disagreed with this idea in many threads. His idea of Evolution is also the standard Neo-Darwinian version which ignores a lot of important mechanisms to evolution and assumes it is entirely unconscious in its mechanics. AKA, that it is just the accumulation of random mutations. But radiation experiments on fruit flies have proven for over 50 years that random mutations are almost NEVER beneficial and the best exposing animals to radiation like that does is make them resistant to radiation. Which actually shows a surprising capability of DNA called Transposition, organisms can do more than just turn genes on and off via Epigenetics to activate traits, they can even re-arrange the codons in the DNA to code for entirely new traits they didn't have before at all. Which is great evidence that Evolution is possible as otherwise the argument that evolution cannot create new information might seem valid. Random mutations do not, but many other evolutionary mechanisms can and do.Winston wrote: ↑September 4th, 2018, 6:17 am@Aron is this your YouTube channel?
What are the odds that another guy named Aron on YouTube is making videos defending evolution, and that an Aron is here in this forum defending evolution too? lol. What are the odds? lol
Atheists try to answer the origin of the universe, it is not like they are dishonest when they say they believe it is all random passive interactions of matter with no meaning behind it, if you ask atheists they will usually tell you they don't want their version of events to be true but it is what honestly seems true to them.Winston wrote: 1. Atheism provides NO ANSWERS to any big questions about the mysteries of the universe or the creation of it, or our place in it. All it offers is DENIAL. Hence it has no value and is the WEAKEST of all the paradigms.
2. Atheists tend to be DISHONEST. If you ask an atheist why he believes there's no God, he will say "Because there's no proof." But then when you show him proof from the intelligent design argument, complex organized structure of life and cells and DNA, the anthropic principle and fine tuning of the universe argument, the watchmaker argument, etc. he will deny them using whatever excuse he can find. Then when you dig deeper and push them to find out their true motivations, you find that the Atheist will ADMIT that he: a) hates and despises God and finds the concept of one to be repugnant, 2) does not want to be accountable to any higher power or have any deity watching him all the time, 3) blames God for something bad that happened in his life and holds a grudge against him for it, etc
You're equating some different things as the same. Admitting you have an emotional bias against the idea of a celestial dictator God who lets people starve to death for no reason is only human, everyone has emotions, that does not mean they don't have reasons to not believe in God. They can have both. A lot of times they will fit hand in hand. I admit atheists often try to argue with only logic and mention emotion later which makes it seem like emotion is the real reason. A more accurate analysis would be that some atheists are mentally handicapped by their beliefs which tell them that emotion and intuition have no basis in truth and are therefore 100% invalid in making arguments. Otherwise they would mention these issues right away and it wouldn't seem dishonest.Winston wrote: So when you put their back against the wall and confront them with the question "Do you want there to be a God?" they will admit that they do not and find the concept repugnant. They will admit their BIASES and HATRED for God and religion as their real motivation. Thus they have strong EMOTIONAL reasons and biases for being an Atheist, that are not grounded in some form of neutral objective Spockian logic after all. In short, they are heavily biased and emotional, not neutral or objective at all, and will admit it if you dig deeper into their motives. However, they will not admit that at first, and instead pretend that it's all about the evidence and proof and logic, which is a LIE and DECEPTION, because those aren't the real reasons. Hence in that sense, they are DECEPTIVE about their motives and try to hide them.
It does have an explanation of how evolution is supposed to have happened, it just doesn't fit all of the data. The big issue with consciousness is that their experiences of being conscious and making decisions are direct contradictory evidence that disproves their idea that it is an illusion created by passive forces in the brain. If you think God intervened in evolution to make humans become intelligent quickly, what's your answer for the method God used for doing so? Everything done in existence has a method and mechanism through which it's done. Atheists are honest about trying to find a mechanism but the trouble is they ignore the many mechanisms of evolution that can't be explained well as only Natural Selection+Time. I don't have an obvious answer for how humans got intelligence at the rate they did but that doesn't mean that yours is automatically true just because it is an idea of how it could happen.Winston wrote:3. The Atheist paradigm does NOT ACCOUNT for many things in reality and a wide variety of evidence and phenomena. Their model of reality - of a Godless universe with no spiritual or metaphysical dimension - does not take into account a wide plethora of data and phenomena that do not fit into it. Some examples:
- It cannot explain how consciousness came about or evolved, nor how the sudden onset of human intelligence is possible, without some type of creator or intervention in our evolution. That is a big mystery that has always baffled science and neurologists. They want to find an atheistic naturalistic explanation that doesn't involve God or a Creator of course, but they can never find one.
Yes the error correcting codes show it's not just random mutations being passed on via natural selection that cause evolution, random mutations are usually removed when they occur. But why do you go from there to assuming it must be God? Just because DNA has structure and its mechanics are adapted to the survival of the organism, and behavior of cells shows clear ordered activity directed at the purpose of survival, not 'random chemicals reacting', that does not mean it was designed by an omniscient God. If it was it would have been created perfectly at the beginning and we all know Evolution doesn't work that way. Error correcting codes could have just developed naturally as more primitive organisms needed to develop them in order to survive. Nobody knows right now how the first cells and first DNA came about but that does not mean you should just assume it's God. Maybe consciousness was required for life to emerge, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily complicated or intelligent. It could have developed a much simpler form of molecule compared to DNA earlier on.Winston wrote:It cannot explain the complex, organized, elaborate and highly structured DESIGN inherent in all biological life - organisms, cells, bacteria, DNA, etc. The level of sophistication of which is far beyond anything that humans can create or design. In fact, Bill Gates said that the code in human DNA is far beyond anything that Microsoft can produce. And Francis Cricke, one of the discoverers of DNA, said that there's no way DNA could have evolved naturally on Earth, so it must have come from elsewhere, beyond our world. Also, our DNA and cells, contain ERROR CORRECTING CODES, which only exist in computer programs written by programmers, as we all know. Thus they can only be explained by intelligent design. Not by evolution or Darwinian mechanisms. Atheism also cannot explain where the first living cell capable of reproducing came from, aka abiogenesis.
The thing is what will happen here is most Atheists will not look at the evidence so they will assume it's all the same as bad evidence they've seen for ESP and other paranormal phenomenon out there. Of which there is plenty of. Also, many Atheists are former Christians so they don't want to be hoodwinked yet another time, and assume it is false automatically. Meanwhile, the longer an atheist asserts his/her position as true and is known for his/her beliefs, the more social pressure builds up and the more awkward it would be to admit to no longer being an Atheist anymore, the famous atheists in academia like Michael Shermer would also find it possibly dangerous to them keeping their job. Making it literally impossible for them to have their mind changed since it is their job to not believe in you or to debunk you. So lying is mandatory for them to keep their credibility and maintain their income, even if they became fully convinced they were incorrect and knew it 100%.Winston wrote: It cannot explain a whole host of paranormal phenomena, such as ghosts, hauntings, poltergeists, ESP, telepathy, psychics, etc, all of which are well documented and proven by science in controlled double blind studies and experiments, as well as firsthand accounts from countless people and testimonies from credible sources.
It cannot explain how psychics, mediums and astrologers can score hits that are way above chance, or get specific hits that cannot be obtained from cold reading or guessing. Hits that are highly specific and personal, not general or that can apply to anyone (as pseudoskeptics James Randi and Michael Shermer FALSELY and WRONGLY claimed). Nor can they explain other phenomena that chance and probability statistics cannot account for.
- It cannot explain the many compelling cases of reincarnation and past lives - which both Christians and Atheists cannot explain away and are a thorn in their side. Such as the documented cases studied and published by Dr. Ian Stevenson and others, of past lives which cannot be explained by any other hypothesis other than reincarnation. There are many documented cases, including recent ones that went viral, such as the case of James Linberg and Jenny Cockell, which were featured on the mainstream news as well and astounded the public. No skeptic, Atheist or dogmatic Christian, has ever been able to explain such cases away. So they have been a thorn in their side since they do not fit into their narrow paradigm.
- It cannot explain why those who have a Near Death Experience (NDE) are able to have full blown experiences during an EEG flatline of their brain, such as in the case of Pam Reynolds, which should be neurologically impossible. Or how NDErs are able to view things while out of body that they could not possibly see, and later verify to be accurate. In fact, many elements of the NDE cannot be explained by the Atheistic model of a brain being deprived by oxygen.
You have come to this realization before but a supernatural event=/God did it. Even the ones that would seem to have religious implications like an answered prayer.Winston wrote:It cannot explain the countless cases of miracles and answered prayers, which there are so many authentic stories of and cannot be explained by coincidence or luck. Sure atheists can deny them, but that doesn't make them untrue. The stories are very uplifting, inspiring and yes true and well documented. Just because they don't fit into your model of reality, or you cannot explain them, doesn't mean they are untrue. Even I have examples of miracles and answered prayers in my life that are meaningful and significant and cannot be attributed to chance or coincidence.
OK, no. Just no. There is a HUGE problem with this idea you have been told. This has been addressed by philosophy for a long time, it's Euthyphro's Dilemma. Basically if something is right or wrong just because God says so, that means it is actually subjective since he wasn't referring to any truth when he said what is right and wrong, he just made it up. Now if it is objectively right or wrong, and God then tells you it is, the most God can be is a messenger telling you about a truth that already exists independently of him. An omniscient God could be a perfect messenger, but that doesn't mean that God could decide what is right and wrong and make that objective. Truth doesn't depend on power, if something is true you don't need to be all powerful to realize that. For example if some psycho suddenly was all powerful that would not make him right. In history there are plenty example where people who are obviously evil simply win, but that doesn't mean power made them right. Power is independent from truth and at best can just be used to achieve whatever is objectively right/wrong in a perfect way.Winston wrote:he Atheist paradigm is self-defeating and contradictory. Atheists claim for example that the God of the Old Testament committed a lot of atrocities and killed a lot of people, which is immoral and evil. But in order to claim some sort of objective morality they need to have a God or all powerful authority to create such standards. Otherwise there is no true evil or immorality and everything is relative and a matter of one opinion vs another. There would be no good or bad. Hitler and Mother Theresa would be on the same moral footing. So would a saint and a mass murderer. Etc. The Christian Evangelist author Dr. Frank Turek makes this point and others in his book "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case".
I personally just have no reason to believe the Christian God idea exists. The explanation that Judaism was made up as a tool of social control makes a lot of sense to me. As you have said before Judaism also stole the idea of God from Zoroastrianism. Christianity then took its ideas from Judaism and so did Islam. Historically Monotheism has served the function of getting people to submit to their rulers and this seems like a viable explanation for why it was created, to convince people they must obey you and be rewarded after death for eternity or be punished after death for eternity. Rewards and punishments are powerful tools for manipulating people.Winston wrote:Also its presumptuous for Atheists to admit that they dont know how the universe and life began, but somehow they just KNOW that it cant be God, they just know that God is never an option because they've already decided that God is unnecessary and doesn't exist. So they've already ruled him out a priori. This reflects their bias and prejudice of course. Not objectivity. They've already made up their mind and are not open to information that contradicts it, no matter how valid. That's not the hallmark of an honest truth seeker.
I can't see how religious faith would be relevant to your children's safety.
This is the most stupid argument I ever heard from a religious bigot.
I do not think, atheism is the weakest of all paradigms. It is at least equal - no religion can prove in any way that a God and afterlife exist.Winston wrote: ↑September 4th, 2018, 5:48 amThe big problems with the Atheist paradigm and model of reality and why you can't adopt it:
1. Atheism provides NO ANSWERS to any big questions about the mysteries of the universe or the creation of it, or our place in it. All it offers is DENIAL. Hence it has no value and is the WEAKEST of all the paradigms.
You need only to read aboutfschmidt wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 6:38 pmCongratulations Yohan, you managed to get everything wrong in your post, an achievement even in this crazy forum.
All scientific advances in history came out of religious cultures or recently religious cultures. Once a culture becomes secular, it stops caring about anything except base human desires, so science dies. Isaac Newton was very religious. Science in the West died sometime towards the end of the last century because of the loss of religion. We can see this in the lack of any significant advances in basic science in the last few decades.
Not all religions support an afterlife. I follow the Old Testament which explicitly denies afterlife in Ecclesiastes 3:19-22. The Old Testament promises societal and evolutionary success for moral people.
Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic.