Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!
- _AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
That's cool, Asimov, I was just wondering if that was Steve's reason for his post. If not, it seems to be for nothing more than to try to belittle you. Either way, his reaction to your comments did not seem very becoming of a meek Christian man. I just want you to know that is not the type of reaction you should receive from a Christian man.
I am hopeful that Steve will either apologize of not respond to you again in this way.
I am hopeful that Steve will either apologize of not respond to you again in this way.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
AARONDISNEY, sometimes blunt talk is all that will get through to a guy, but I guess it didn't work anyway.
BTW, the atheist didn't take me up on how one can prove whether God exists or not. I wonder why?
BTW, the atheist didn't take me up on how one can prove whether God exists or not. I wonder why?
Last edited by _Rae on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I'm not at all offended by what Steve said. I'm not surprised either by it. I don't require apologies.Allyn wrote:AARONDISNEY, sometimes blunt talk is all that will get through to a guy, but I guess it didn't work anyway.
BTW, the atheist didn't take me up on how one can prove whether God exists or not. I wonder why?
Allyn, could you repost your full question? I'm sure the other poster was too busy. I would like to see it and respond if you would allow me to.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
i posted this on another thread to our original Atheist who seems to not be around any longer:
hello atheist-- you say you arent trying to "uncovert" anybody and your tone certainly suggests that no arguments a christian could make could possibly "convert" you, so whats the point of discussing anything? if we argue A, you'll rebut with argument B, which we will rebut with argument C, ad infinitem. it sounds as if you have considered the arguments for God's existence and found them lacking. i guess my question becomes what evidence, if any, would you be willing to consider? even if you received a "personal visitation" from God, an angel etc you likely would discount it as an unprovable event that could be explained by alternate means (a dream, a delusion, a piece of undone potato, etc). to be fair, however, i cannot think of any evidence that would convince me there is NOT a God, at least i cannot imagine such.
so i ask you, Asimov, what is the point? why are you here? you are welcome, but why are you here?
also, you stated in an earlier post that Steve's second sentence was "absolutely incoherent." here's the sentence again: "My argument pertained to the innate weight of arguments, not numbers of people who assert them. What numerous people claim to have experienced may not be sufficient to prove their veracity beyond a reasonable doubt, but innumerable statements of those whose whole argument is "I don't know," provide no evidential value whatever. "
there is nothing incoherent about the sentence. it is logically correct. you may not agree with it, but it is plain English. the frustrating thing when exchanging with you or Atheist previously is the seeming need to define every term that is used. are we on an endless treadmill in carrying on a discussion with you? if so, then "jane! stop this crazy thing!"
hello atheist-- you say you arent trying to "uncovert" anybody and your tone certainly suggests that no arguments a christian could make could possibly "convert" you, so whats the point of discussing anything? if we argue A, you'll rebut with argument B, which we will rebut with argument C, ad infinitem. it sounds as if you have considered the arguments for God's existence and found them lacking. i guess my question becomes what evidence, if any, would you be willing to consider? even if you received a "personal visitation" from God, an angel etc you likely would discount it as an unprovable event that could be explained by alternate means (a dream, a delusion, a piece of undone potato, etc). to be fair, however, i cannot think of any evidence that would convince me there is NOT a God, at least i cannot imagine such.
so i ask you, Asimov, what is the point? why are you here? you are welcome, but why are you here?
also, you stated in an earlier post that Steve's second sentence was "absolutely incoherent." here's the sentence again: "My argument pertained to the innate weight of arguments, not numbers of people who assert them. What numerous people claim to have experienced may not be sufficient to prove their veracity beyond a reasonable doubt, but innumerable statements of those whose whole argument is "I don't know," provide no evidential value whatever. "
there is nothing incoherent about the sentence. it is logically correct. you may not agree with it, but it is plain English. the frustrating thing when exchanging with you or Atheist previously is the seeming need to define every term that is used. are we on an endless treadmill in carrying on a discussion with you? if so, then "jane! stop this crazy thing!"
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
There, I reposted it, as asked and now here is the test.Allyn wrote:I can actually prove that God does exist. However the proof requires a drastic measure on the part of the atheist. Any takers?
Its very simple and works rather well. It would require you to
1. make a decision however and then follow through with it,
or
2. wait until it happens on its own.
Neither is a good option for an atheist because once done there is no turning back. It requires much courage though and few atheists are up to it and seldom ever really test it except for other reasons. Neither option would I reccomend but it is fool proof and the results are immediate. If there is an up side it is that you have the chioce and the method. That's the nice thing about being a creature of God - you do have a choice.
Now if this is just too much for the atheist there is another way and it is fool proof as well and is much easier and rather pleasant. Like the first choice it requires special effort by the atheist but it does result in a happy solution.
which do you choose?
Last edited by _Rae on Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Asimov,
You should go right after this. After all, no miracles, no Christianity.
So you assert that a miracle has never occurred. You have also insisted that the person making an assertion bears the burden of proving the assertion to be true. I await your proof.Awaiting your answer to the question, has a miracle ever occurred? Yes or no?
A miracle presupposes the divine. Since I do not believe in the divine, then no.
You should go right after this. After all, no miracles, no Christianity.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
- _CFChristian
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:49 am
Re: Ask an atheist
atheist wrote:Hi there,
I have been an atheist for 16 years (and Christian prior to that). I found your forum after Steve Greggs' interview with "the Infidel Guy". I don't think Reggie explains the atheistic position very well when he talks (his writing is a little better) so I will try and answer any question you may have about my own lack of belief. Of course I don't speak for Reggie or even for other atheists, but I speak for myself and I have reasons to think that my views are shared among most atheists.
If you are interested in asking me a question please do so and I'll answer to the best of my ability. I'm well read and understand both the pro-Christianity and pro-Atheism arguments. Obviously I made my choice to abandon Christianity. If you're curious why please ask me and I'll respond.
I believe we can keep this a civil debate without flamewars. I've looked at some comments in this forum and most debates here are civilized and I vow keep it this way.
I know that atheism seems incomprehensible to many of you. Therefore I will be glad to explain what makes me "tick" and why I'm neither an "evil heathen" nor an "apathetic fatalist"
FYI:
Who Created Evil?
Did God Create Evil?
The university professor challenged his students with this question:
"Did God create everything that exists? "
A student bravely replied "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" the professor asked.
"Yes sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil
since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who
we are, then God is evil."
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students
that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question
professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
The professor replied "Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"
The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the
laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.
Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy,
and heat is what makes a body, or matter, have or transmit energy. Absolute
zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat. Cold does not exist. We
have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.
The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir. Darkness does not exist
either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light, we can study,
but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light
into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot
measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness
and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You
measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term
used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present"
Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said.
We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.
It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does
not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like
darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of
God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name --- Albert Einstein
A little bit of 101 science for you.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Aaron,
I will not be apologizing. I am sorry, however, that you did not notice what I observed in all of asimov's postings. I have been following his posts at several threads, and he behaved the same way everywhere: He would not accept standard definitions of words without endlessly asking for more clarity, and when he found himself unable to answer a challenge, he either waved it aside as a "straw man," claimed that it was I who was not answering him (!), or said "I don't get it," or "huh?" or "That's unintelligible," or some other pretension of not understanding plain statements.
I suppose there is the possibility that he is dyslexic, or has some other reading disorder, but I doubt it. He is just here to absorb time, not to contribute to his side of the dialogue that several of us have invited him to engage in. I am actually being more gracious to him than I feel he deserves, in that I have not blocked him from posting, nor deleted any of his posts. I have eventually been forced to do so with a few people who actually agreed with me on more than he does, because of their dishonest or disdainful tactics. If you feel that I am unwilling to allow people to "try to get the best of me" me on this forum, your memory is very short. Many of your own posts of this type are still sitting right where you posted them.
I will not be apologizing. I am sorry, however, that you did not notice what I observed in all of asimov's postings. I have been following his posts at several threads, and he behaved the same way everywhere: He would not accept standard definitions of words without endlessly asking for more clarity, and when he found himself unable to answer a challenge, he either waved it aside as a "straw man," claimed that it was I who was not answering him (!), or said "I don't get it," or "huh?" or "That's unintelligible," or some other pretension of not understanding plain statements.
I suppose there is the possibility that he is dyslexic, or has some other reading disorder, but I doubt it. He is just here to absorb time, not to contribute to his side of the dialogue that several of us have invited him to engage in. I am actually being more gracious to him than I feel he deserves, in that I have not blocked him from posting, nor deleted any of his posts. I have eventually been forced to do so with a few people who actually agreed with me on more than he does, because of their dishonest or disdainful tactics. If you feel that I am unwilling to allow people to "try to get the best of me" me on this forum, your memory is very short. Many of your own posts of this type are still sitting right where you posted them.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
- _AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Hi Steve,
I just don't understand why you wouldn't just bow out of a conversation and leave this guy high and dry instead of insulting him. It seems you wish to insult people when they don't discuss things to your level. That is not in accordance with God's word.
1 Pet 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
(KJV)
I understand that you get tired of dealing with him not answering your questions, but as smart as you are and as well as you express your views, it seems you could be a little milder sometimes.
I remember well my posts aimed at you and they were awful. I did apologize for them, that post is also sitting around there somewhere.
I don't mean to be out of line, but I would like for our friends that are atheists to not see Christians as name callers, as I myself was once to you.
Anyhow.
God bless,
Aaron
I just don't understand why you wouldn't just bow out of a conversation and leave this guy high and dry instead of insulting him. It seems you wish to insult people when they don't discuss things to your level. That is not in accordance with God's word.
1 Pet 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
(KJV)
I understand that you get tired of dealing with him not answering your questions, but as smart as you are and as well as you express your views, it seems you could be a little milder sometimes.
I remember well my posts aimed at you and they were awful. I did apologize for them, that post is also sitting around there somewhere.
I don't mean to be out of line, but I would like for our friends that are atheists to not see Christians as name callers, as I myself was once to you.
Anyhow.
God bless,
Aaron
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aaron,
I appreciate both your concerns and your sentiments. I do not believe that I called asimov any names. I told him exactly what I saw him doing, and why I would not be interacting with him any longer. I didn't mean to make you or others cringe.
I appreciate both your concerns and your sentiments. I do not believe that I called asimov any names. I told him exactly what I saw him doing, and why I would not be interacting with him any longer. I didn't mean to make you or others cringe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve