The Fool hath said in his heart 'there is no god.'

[IrrationalAtheist]

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier

You hear this argument from alot of theists. I find it interesting that they think atheists are the fools. They make claims based on lies and fallacious logic, then when you explain the facts clearly to them, what you say is automatically wrong in their understanding because the facts are contrary to their beliefs. They often claim to know the answer to things which are unknown(ie the origin of the universe) even though they have no evidence to support that what they claim is true is actually true. Have you ever wondered if theists(not all of them) are the fools?

As a general statement, only a fool would look at a watch and think there was no watchmaker. Likewise, only a fool would look at the universe and think there was no creator for it. Again...just a general statement, but such belief is kind of foolish.

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by IrrationalAtheist

As a general statement, only a fool would look at a watch and think there was no watchmaker. Likewise, only a fool would look at the universe and think there was no creator for it. Again...just a general statement, but such belief is kind of foolish.

There are several fallacies in your argument. For one, your watchmaker analogy is fairly flawed. It compares a natural phenomenon(the universe) to a manmade object(the watch). Another problem in the analogy is that it assumes that the universe had to have had a divine 'watchmaker.' The difference between believing the watch had a watchmaker and the universe had a divine creator is that you can go to the watchmaker's factory and observe how the watch was made. The divine creator belief is illogical because you can't go to god's universe 'factory.' Also, your argument assumes that everything has to have been designed, but god is conveniently exempt from having been designed. Another flaw in your argument is that it assumes that the universe had to have been created by a divine entity. The problem with this is that it excludes the probable explanation of a currently unknown natural source. This actually makes more sense than divine intervention. Throughout history humans have used supernatural explanations to explain what was currently unknown. The answer has always been a natural source which was previously unknown. An example of this is how people thought that thunder was caused by Thor. This is now considered to be an unsatisfactory explanation by most people because it has been proven to be the work of natural processes. Likewise, the fact that the origins of the universe is currently unknown doesn't mean the explanation is supernatural. The explanation is most likely a currently unknown natural source. While theists often think that 'god did it' is a satisfactory answer, it really isn't. It makes the assertion that one knows the answer, yet it isn't even substantiated by evidence.

[bert62]

Agnostic Soldier,
that was really well stated. I will share it with others. Even I believed the watchmaker theory all those many years ago. It seemed very logical, but it really is comparing apples to oranges.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bert62

Agnostic Soldier,
that was really well stated. I will share it with others. Even I believed the watchmaker theory all those many years ago. It seemed very logical, but it really is comparing apples to oranges.

I agree. AgnoSol's post is a good refutation of the Irrational one's dismally hackneyed argument, but I have to spred the cred.

[rifleman]

So OK; let's let our hair, done up in too tight a bun perhaps, down for a moment and "admit" to a possible devine designer person. I posted a thread a while ago to the point that, given what we now can only glimpse of the vastness and variability of the universe, it's improbable, yeah impossible, that a singular being could have not only conceived of it, but also then nose-wrinkled it all into physical existance.

What a creator could have done was perhaps created or infused the empty void with sub-atomic particles and elements and molecules that interact as we see that they do, somewhat automatically, when placed in proximity to each other. Hydrogen and carbon and other molecular and elemental bonds, various formations that sorta coast towards each other and then, "klink", join up and attach in predictable and defined ways. That part we can see and do utilize in the lab every day.

That's the only part that's open to speculation. The rest is simply the result of those interactions over a vast period of time. Even DNA as a building block is the result of the affinity of A,G,T & C, and they can only fit together in specific ways.

It's like tossing a new box of Legos® in front of a creative 5 year old. Eventually he/she's going to build something, and if we gave him/her, let's say, 500 years, or 10 million, and an endless supply of Legos, we'd eventually get a working watch, or...

Lego Aircraft Carrier on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fortrel/119792384/ - broken link)

or...

Downtown Detroit in Lego on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slambo_42/1153671808/ - broken link)

All quite logical, no supernatural occurrences required. Entropy is temporarily increased, but this is a closed system, after all...

The predictable, basic building block nature of the entire universe presents the logical idea that it's all based on the same rather simple and systematic interactions, but allowed to do so for a very long time. No special intelligence required. And none obvious.

[Rejoicer]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Ah! So it's another 'sometime in the future' prophecy.

Some have already been fulfilled, some are yet to come. I guess for you to believe, it would take all of them to have been fulfilled. It doesn't work that way. Jesus was prophesied years before he was born. I'm sure there might have been a Rafius that existed in between that time who said "why hasn't he been born? I guess it isn't true, this prophesy about a Messiah", but we know different, don't we?

....and that's the best you have is it....that 61 years isn't almost 70 years??

Well, if you are going to assert something, at least research it to make sure you are even close. However, I believe I gave you a link where the exact date was prophesied. I won't post it again, because I got an infraction, something about copyright laws, but I don't remember what they were,(copyright laws) and I couldn't find them again, so I'm not sure when I'm violating the forum's laws! I thought as long as you provided a link, but maybe not?

Sometime in the future again! So as every year passes and yet again, nothing happens, you can just keep on repeating 'but isn't time yet'.

Well yes, it isn't like my life depends on it. I go on living my life, I'll probably already be with Jesus by the time it happens, but what does it matter? God didn't provide us with an exact date because most people would then be so focused on that date, they'd do nothing more than to wait for the date.

Every religion on this planet claims 'fulfilled' prophecy' The Qur'an has them, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib....even the Book of Mormon. Why don't you believe them? Would it be because you are a Christian rather than a Muslim or a Hindu, so you believe Christian claims but not Hindu claims. Or perhaps you don't believe their claims because they are, most often than not, vague, ambiguous and can be 'forced' into any situation you want them to fit into. Well you know, that is the very reason I don't believe your prophecies.

I don't know about the other religions. I don't really care about the others because when you find the truth, you don't need to look any further. So, what are these prophesies that have been fulfilled for these other religions? And, are they backed by explorers, archeologists, ant the like, such as the Bible prophesies?

No he didn't. That why the Jews don't believe he was their Messiah.

Oh yes he did. He was prophesied to have been born in Bethlehem, that is where Jesus was born. He was prophesied to have been called a Nazarene, and Jesus was called that, etc., etc., The Jews didn't believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah because they were full of pride (much like many people today who do not want to believe in God). They felt they knew the scriptures and didn't want to accept the very fact before them.

The only place you can find 'fulfillment' of the OT Messiah prophecies is in the NT. So as I said, a book says something will happen and that same book confirms that it did. Hardly convincing is it?

I guess you didn't check out the links I gave you about the flood, Moses and the Egyptians crossing the Red Sea, and proof that Abraham existed? The flood has been verified as of late, it was mentioned in the NT, but it wasn't until much after the NT was written that evidence of such a flood have emerged.

But you have not shown it to be 'fact'. If you can show the Bible to be anything other than the work of ancient ordinary men with delusions of grandeur then fine....but you can't can you?

I have given you information that backs what the Bible says. That you won't accept it does not negate it. That such things as the Flood, the crossing of the Red Sea and Abraham's existence have been backed by reputable people doesn't mean anything to you, so I guess the only way you would believe is if you had seen Jesus in person yourself and seen his miracles? Oh, I forgot, there were many people that did see that and still didn't believe.

More scare tactics?

They are only scary to those who do not believe.

What absolutely ludicrous balderdash!! That's like saying that if a quiz contestant gets the first of 10 questions correct, it must follow that the other 9 questions will be correct. Laughable!

We will have to wait and see if it is what you say. But I would bet my life on it happening. God doesn't make false promises.

Well of course all parts must have happened before a claim of 'fulfilled' can be made.

If I prophesy that Univ of Texas will beat Texas Tech Sep 19, 2009 and they do, and if I also prophesy that they will beat Texas Tech for the next ten years, the first part of the prophesy will have been fulfilled. The other part of the prophesy will have to be proven only after 10 years have passed, or as soon as Univ of Texas loses to Texas Tech. You cannot say that my prophesy has failed until 2019 comes around or until Texas Tech beats UT any year after 2009. Plain and simple. That the other parts of any prophesy have not occurred does not nullify the prophesy until all the parts have had a chance to happen or something to the contrary happens.

Some prophesies, such as the coming Messiah have already been fulfilled. I gave you a link, they have already happened. You cannot lump all the prophesies together, because they will all happen at different times. I'm sorry that you are having a problem understanding that.

If there are 4 parts still to happen then it has not been fulfilled because any one or all of those 4 part could fail spectacularly at any moment and therefore 'fulfillment can't be claimed. C'mon man....it 'aint nuclear physics we're talking about here!

Like I gave you an example above (UT vs Tex Tech). That it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't. Only if you can prove that the contrary has happened, can you disclaim the prophesy.

Give it up ! I'm not frightened by your threats.

They are not my threats. If they were, you would have every reason to laugh them off. They are God's judgment. I wouldn't disregard it. Even the devil believes, and shutters.

So Jesus was wrong on two counts wasn't he?
1. He said that not one stone would be left standing on another and....
2. He appears to be unaware of this other prophecy that would show him to be wrong.

If that is what you want to believe, nothing will convince you otherwise. I already gave you an explanation. God had told His people (Jews) that he would never destroy them completely. There would always be a remnant to carry on. He did that in the OT before. Jesus was just giving them another sign that God keeps his promises.

Not interested in the Bible as evidence unless you can show that the Bible is true.

That it has survived thousand of years after many have tried to extinguish it is rather astonishing.

What I would say is that it is subjective and unverifiable and is only evidence to YOU.

True, but you cannot say I am lying.

No I don't have 'faith' that gods don't exist. It is my belief that they don't based on the fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for them. In the same way, I don't believe in leprechauns.

Oh, I wasn't aware that there was a Bible explaining leprechauns. I didn't realize that there were billions of Leprechaunians proclaiming to follow leprechauns. There is plenty of evidence that God exists and that Jesus was his Son, that you don't believe it does not negate it.

Because you are making a positive claim that gods exist. I'm making no positive claim that gods do not exist. I only say that I have no belief that they do. If you claim that I stole your wallet, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that what you claim is true. It is not for me to prove my innocence.

Aah, we finally get to the bottom. You do not say there is no God, you only say you don't believe there is. Big difference. Maybe if you were to do some research, read accounts given by other atheists turned Christians such as Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Antony Flew (Professor at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading Univ in Britain), check out "Has Science Discovered God".

If I claimed you stole my wallet and you are in a court of law - you most certainly are going to do your best to prove your innocence, that's what lawyers do all the time - prove someone's innocence. If my lawyer goes in there with all kinds of accusations, you are telling me that you will do nothing? Ha, you would be in jail in a minute.

Thanks...but save your sympathy for those that are frightened by mythology.

Mythology is known as mythology. That you lump Christianity with mythology only proves you know little about either.

Ah yes! It was a long time coming but there it is. That old 'atheists are irresponsible and have no morals' chestnut!! Please, spare me 'holier than thou crap'. You only have to look at the number of confessed Christians in prison to debunk that one.

You added the "have no morals" - I never said that. I also did not say irresponsible, I said not accountable. You exhibit symptoms of dyslexia, as you seem to twist what I say into what you think I said. I don't know about confessed Christians that are in prison, only God knows if they truly are, and if they are, they have an opportunity to repent. Their sin is far less than one who totally rejects Jesus.

I'll ask you again. What are you expecting to find? A fish-horse? A lizard-bird perhaps? Just what are you expecting to find?

I explained it, but apparently dyslexia and something else seems to be getting in the way. Did fish turn to horses? Did lizards become birds? If that is the case, then yes, there should be some evidence of a fish halfway between a fish and a horse. Surely some died in transition - or do you believe evolution/mutation happens instantly?

No, but that because humans didn't evolve from monkeys!!

You are perfectly content not knowing from whence you came? That figures.

There is none. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

Please enlighten me with your own theory.

With respect my friend, I strongly suggest that you keep well away from the subject of evolution. It is abundantly clear that you know absolutely zilch about it and are sure to be eaten alive by someone that does. Might I suggest that if you are going to dismiss something you at least make some effort to find out something about it from a reputable source rather than relying on places such as AiG or Creation Research. Otherwise, you'll only be made to look a fool.

I know enough to realize that I didn't evolve from a monkey or primordial ooze. If you want to believe that, that is definitely your choice.

Not blind, just based in reality.

Like I said before. Science has its own problems. It goes against science that the universe was created from nothing, which only leaves another explanation - that the universe has been around forever. That also goes against science, as they believe the sun would have already cooled down if it had been there forever. You can't have it both ways.

The same might be said of you.

I have, and I find no convincing evidence, yet the evidence of God is overwhelming.

[Rejoicer]

Originally Posted by rifleman

It's like tossing a new box of Legos® in front of a creative 5 year old. Eventually he/she's going to build something, and if we gave him/her, let's say, 500 years, or 10 million, and an endless supply of Legos, we'd eventually get a working watch, or...

LOL! I would love to see anybody create a wristband out of legos! What an imagination!

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Rejoicer

Some have already been fulfilled, some are yet to come. I guess for you to believe, it would take all of them to have been fulfilled. It doesn't work that way. Jesus was prophesied years before he was born. I'm sure there might have been a Rafius that existed in between that time who said "why hasn't he been born? I guess it isn't true, this prophesy about a Messiah", but we know different, don't we?

Please note: According to the OT:
The Messiah is to be a human being born naturally to husband and wife. He is not to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth, as the Christians claim. Nowhere does your Bible say that the Messiah would be a god or God-like. Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This idea is to be found only in pagan mythology.

2. The Prophets in the Bible foretold (Isaiah 45) that when the Messiah comes, all the nations of the world will unite to acknowledge and worship the one true God. “The knowledge of God will fill the earth. The world will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the seas” (Isaiah 11,9). Nothing of this nature took place following the death of Jesus. On the contrary, Islam developed and became the religion of the Arabs and many other nations, Christianity broke up into many conflicting sects which were constantly at war with each other, and a large part of the world continued to worship idols. Even today the world is far from the worship of one god.

3. The true Messiah is to reign as King of the Jews. Jesus’ career as described in the New Testament lasted all of three years, at the end of which he was crucified by the Romans as a common criminal. He never functioned as anything but a wandering preacher and “faith healer;” certainly, he held no official position or exercised any rule of any kind.

4. Nowhere does the OT say that the Messiah would come once, be killed, and return again in a “second coming.” The idea of a second coming is a pure rationalization of Jesus’ failure to function in any way as a messiah, or to fulfill any of the prophecies of the Torah or the Prophets. The idea is purely a Christian invention, with no foundation in the Bible.

So you can see, the Jesus character does NOT fulfill the OT messiah prophecy.

Well, if you are going to assert something, at least research it to make sure you are even close. However, I believe I gave you a link where the exact date was prophesied.

I didn't see it. Give it again and you can send it to me by DM.

God didn't provide us with an exact date..........

So what's clever about prophecy then? Here, I give you a prophecy. There will be an earthquake in America sometime in the future.. How's that.

I don't know about the other religions.

No, of course you don't. That much is blatantly obvious.

I don't really care about the others because when you find the truth, you don't need to look any further.

That's what the other religions say.

So, what are these prophesies that have been fulfilled for these other religions?

Look them up yourself....you might learn something.

And, are they backed by explorers, archeologists, ant the like, such as the Bible prophesies?

Examples please.

Oh yes he did. He was prophesied to have been born in Bethlehem, that is where Jesus was born. He was prophesied to have been called a Nazarene, and Jesus was called that, etc., etc.,

The Messiah was also prophesied to be called Emmanuel. Your Jesus was not called Emmanuel. In case you missed it, he was called Jesus.

The Jews didn't believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah because they were full of pride

No! They don't believe he's the Messiah because he didn't fulfill the Torah prophecies for the Messiah.

They felt they knew the scriptures and didn't want to accept the very fact before them.

Well they did know the scriptures. They were their scriptures. It is Christianity that has taken it upon themselves to say that they understand the Jewish scriptures better than the Jews themselves.

I guess you didn't check out the links I gave you about the flood, Moses and the Egyptians crossing the Red Sea, and proof that Abraham existed? The flood has been verified as of late, it was mentioned in the NT, but it wasn't until much after the NT was written that evidence of such a flood have emerged.

I didn't have to check them. I have researched this subject for 40 years and I know that you are wrong. I've heard them all before. Most of this idiocy comes from a clown called Ron Wyatt. Check him out.

I have given you information that backs what the Bible says. That you won't accept it does not negate it.

...and that you accept it doesn't make it true.

That such things as the Flood, the crossing of the Red Sea and Abraham's existence have been backed by reputable people doesn't mean anything to you, .....

Reputable people like Ron Wyatt perhaps??
Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation (WAR, W.A.R.)

and

Letter from Joe Zias

so I guess the only way you would believe is if you had seen Jesus in person yourself and seen his miracles?

Not at all. There are many historical figure that I believe existed that I haven't seen. Their existence is backed by verifiable evidence. Jesus is not.

If I prophesy that Univ of Texas will beat Texas Tech Sep 19, 2009 and they do, and if I also prophesy that they will beat Texas Tech for the next ten years, the first part of the prophesy will have been fulfilled. The other part of the prophesy will have to be proven only after 10 years have passed, or as soon as Univ of Texas loses to Texas Tech.

That is correct. So, until the 10 years have passed you can't make a claim of fulfilled prophecy.

You cannot say that my prophesy has failed until 2019 comes around ....

I'm not saying that has failed. I'm saying that it has not been fulfilled as you are claiming. And whilst we are on the subject, one, just one failed prophecy is enough to show that your Bible is untrustworthy...and there are many failed prophecies in your Bible.

Plain and simple. That the other parts of any prophesy have not occurred does not nullify the prophesy until all the parts have had a chance to happen or something to the contrary happens.

Nor does it make the prophecy fulfilled.

Some prophesies, such as the coming Messiah have already been fulfilled

. No they haven't. See above.

You cannot lump all the prophesies together, because they will all happen at different times. I'm sorry that you are having a problem understanding that.

I don't but you do. You are seeing a 10 point prophecy, claiming that one point has come to pass and saying that the prophecy has been fulfilled. It hasn't!

Like I gave you an example above (UT vs Tex Tech). That it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't

....and it MIGHT happen doesn't mean that it will.

If that is what you want to believe, nothing will convince you otherwise. I already gave you an explanation.

Yes, and unfortunately for you, there are now two problems where there was previously only one. Do you deny that Jesus said 'not one stone shall be left standing upon another'? If so, how do you reconcile that with the prophecy that YOU brought up[ staying that part of the temple will be left standing? You created the problem mate...you deal with it.

That it has survived thousand of years after many have tried to extinguish it is rather astonishing.

You mean like the Vedas of Hinduism...that have existed longer??

True, but you cannot say I am lying.

I'm not saying you are lying. I'm just pointing out that just because we believe thing, it doesn't make them true.

Oh, I wasn't aware that there was a Bible explaining leprechauns. I didn't realize that there were billions of Leprechaunians proclaiming to follow leprechauns.

Argumentum ad populum! A logical fallacy. Look it up.

There is plenty of evidence that God exists and that Jesus was his Son.....

No there isn't!! There is one book and that book has been proven unreliable time and time again.

....that you don't believe it does not negate it.

Nor does you believing it make it true.

Aah, we finally get to the bottom. You do not say there is no God, you only say you don't believe there is. Big difference. Maybe if you were to do some research, read accounts given by other atheists turned Christians such as Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Antony Flew (Professor at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading Univ in Britain), check out "Has Science Discovered God".

I have researched it for 40 years and have come to the conclusion that gods do not exist. The fact that some atheists become theists is no more indication that your gods exists than the fact that some Christians have become Muslims, Hindus or Zoroastrians indicate that the gods of those religions exist.

There is a web site called 'debunkingchristianity' that is set up and run solely by ex-christian ministers and ex-bible apologists that have come to the conclusion that they were wrong. If we accept your argument, that would mean that your god does not exist...yes?

If I claimed you stole my wallet and you are in a court of law - you most certainly are going to do your best to prove your innocence, that's what lawyers do all the time - prove someone's innocence. If my lawyer goes in there with all kinds of accusations, you are telling me that you will do nothing? Ha, you would be in jail in a minute.

The case of guilt must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution who is making the claim. Don't jump into this water with me friend...you will be in it way over your head.

Mythology is known as mythology. That you lump Christianity with mythology only proves you know little about either.

Do you know anything about the Sumerians?

You added the "have no morals" - I never said that. I also did not say irresponsible, I said not accountable.

I am accountable. I am accountable to the laws of the country in which I live and I am accountable to myself and my wish to be seen as a responsible member of society.

You exhibit symptoms of dyslexia,....

I'll leave the ad hominems to you...

I explained it, but apparently dyslexia and something else seems to be getting in the way. Did fish turn to horses? Did lizards become birds? If that is the case, then yes, there should be some evidence of a fish halfway between a fish and a horse. Surely some died in transition - or do you believe evolution/mutation happens instantly?

Please try to get a basic understanding about what the Theory of Evolution is all about before you attempt to dismiss it.

You are perfectly content not knowing from whence you came?

Perfectly!

That figures.

Any reason for that statement.

Please enlighten me with your own theory.

Primates, of which we are one along with apes, evolved from a common ancestor. We did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved WITH them.

I know enough to realize that I didn't evolve from a monkey or primordial ooze. If you want to believe that, that is definitely your choice.

I don't believe we evolved for monkeys. It is the Christian lack of understanding the ToE that lead them to think that that is what the theory says.

Like I said before. Science has its own problems. It goes against science that the universe was created from nothing,

It wasn't created from nothing.

.

...which only leaves another explanation - that the universe has been around forever. That also goes against science, as they believe the sun would have already cooled down if it had been there forever.

Sorry, must be my dyslexia but I don't understand what your point is.

.... yet the evidence of God is overwhelming...

.and the evidence of Brahma is overwhelming to Hindus. Strange that!!