5 reasons atheism is irrational

[MrFungus420]

You mean like the graves in Jerusalem opening and the dad walking amongst the living at the time Christ died? You think we'll come up with a mundane explanation for that?

Ah, well that one I am inclined to consider a prophetic and eschatological passage, rather than literal (it is pointing towards the end days), though I don't totally rule out the literal possibility.

I've heard of playing both sides, but isn't this playing at least three sides?

The whole point of Christianity is that you believe in the miracle of the Resurrection. If it turns out it was something mundane, like say he took a substance to make his heart slow down so much it gave the appearance of death, then it is no longer a miracle, it is but a trick, Jesus is a con-man and the whole of Christianity is in ruins.

Agreed - if the resurrection (not resuscitation) was a trick then Christianity looses its foundation.

No. Not "if it was a trick", but "if it wasn't a miracle".

And that pretty much undermines your entire argument that there are no "real" miracles, just gaps in our knowledge.

I don't believe the apostles would have given their lives if Christ was not resurrected,

So, I guess that you accept Islam. After all, if it wasn't true, then people wouldn't be willing to give their lives for it.

which is of course consistent with scripture. But I am not suggesting it was a trick, only that perhaps there are things we do not yet understand?

Either it was a miracle, or it wasn't.

If it was, then your contention that there are no real miracles is wrong. If it wasn't, then Christianity is based on nothing.

[MrFungus420]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.

I have a feeling that he's going to ignore most of them...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.

I have a feeling that he's going to ignore most of them...

Maybe he's just waiting for divine inspiration.

[FBM]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.

I have a feeling that he's going to continue to ignore most of them...

[Feck]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.

I have a feeling that he's going to ignore most of them...

Maybe he's just waiting for divine inspiration.

Searching fora grain of truth in the bible that doesn't include killing people can take a long time give the guy a break .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.

I have a feeling that he's going to ignore most of them...

Maybe he's just waiting for divine inspiration.

Searching fora grain of truth in the bible that doesn't include killing people can take a long time give the guy a break .

A break? Sure, like the one the Amalichites got.

[Theophilus]

You guys are having all the fun. Now he's going to ignore my questions.

I have a feeling that he's going to ignore most of them...

Maybe he's just waiting for divine inspiration.

I'm trying to get around to stuff, but I seem to get about 5 replies of questions for each reply I post. A quick calculation shows we only have to go through 5 rounds of that and I'll have 3,125 replies to make

Where were we?

Can I just recap:

1) I believe that the scriptures can be used as evidence in the way any other old manuscripts can (which doesn't mean you automatically reject them or automatically say everything contained in them must be true). I don't use scriptures to validate themselves, but I use them as commentaries on the events of the first half of the first century. I don't put them forward as "proof" as I'm in the camp that believes that faith is necessary to make that final step to belief.

2) Miracles, if defined as any event that appears to violate known physical laws (which was the definition given to me) do exist, and I would suggests the big bang if accepted as the start of the universe is such an example though if you want to posit existence of a universe before 15 billion years ago then I accept that you can simply follow your infinite regress (is that where I shout "evidence please!"?). But it (the big bang start of a universe) is not something we normally expect to happen (why do I feel like I've opened myself up to a few fnar fnar jokes with that one?). I don't see God as working against his own "physical laws" but as using them, and so in a sense the mundane is as amazing as the "miraculous", something does not loose it's beauty when we understand the physical and temporal relationships present (in my opinion)


So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions. Evidence that fits our presuppositional framework is easily accepted at face value. Evidence that conflicts with our presuppositional framework is not accepted at face vale and is questioned or rejected out of hand (to the extent of even ignoring the data). Everything I have read on this thread would appear to support that presuppositional basis (Calvin would be pleased, if Calvin ever could be pleased). We're all working to our paradigms, and they are very difficult things to change (which makes sense, otherwise we'd spend our life in a haze of confusion unable to ever act decisively).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

[Theophilus]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative

We don't have to disprove any god. You have to prove your assumptions are actually fact.

[Theophilus]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative

We don't have to disprove any god. You have to prove your assumptions are actually fact.

I'll take that as saying you can't do it then. No surprise - you are as locked into requiring presuppositional bias (faith) as I am. But I''ll admit to it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative

We don't have to disprove any god. You have to prove your assumptions are actually fact.

I'll take that as "I can't do it" then.

Okay, you can't do it. Fair enough, nobody ever has.

[Feck]

So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions. Evidence that fits our presuppositional framework is easily accepted at face value. Evidence that conflicts with our presuppositional framework is not accepted at face vale and is questioned or rejected out of hand (to the extent of even ignoring the data). Everything I have read on this thread would appear to support that presuppositional basis. We're all working to our paradigms, and they are very difficult things to change (which makes sense, otherwise we'd spend our life in a haze of confusion unable to ever act decisively).

Maybe but science is full of instances where cherished theories have been demolished by new evidence. Theism is the exact opposite .
There are many many many atheists who accept that there can be no definite disproof of god .There are many many "theories" of god ,you are asking us to accept your's with no more evidence than any others. Science and rationality work by studying what we do see every day what can be experimented on things that are repeatable. Simply getting lots of people to "witness" cold fusion for example is not a valid prove because they may have been deceived or are lying for some reason.The experiment has to be repeatable. If reports of cold fusion were found in badly translated third (at least) hand thousand year-old letters no credence would be given to them.

I repeat YOU are the ones making extra-ordinary claims about things that are contrary to all observed phenomena ,and tying yourselves in knots doing so. IT is up to you to PROVE any of it .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

BTW, Theo, the "setting the rules" game doesn't work here, you can't create your own playground.

[FBM]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.