Six Questions to Ask An Atheist

last SG · 2012-04-05T16:15:24+00:00

This is a very entertaining and logically sound read- unlike our Thread Starter. Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the Na...

BroInChrist SG

Religion has always played an important part in man's life, as it is a source of spiritual comfort in times of distress. The happenings in legends and myths represent an idealized version of the world that man hopes for the world to become, thus we always see that the monster who eats children is killed by the god or warrior in the end, proving the motto "Good Triumphs Over Evil" to be true. However, in real life, it is not necessarily true that the antagonist always meets with a bad end, while the protagonist triumphs; rather it is often the other way round!

Under this topic, we will explore the various customs, traditions and religions that existed during the time of the ancient civilizations. We will also see how these customs, traditions and religions still apply to the modern world today and their importance in the past as compared to the present.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/religion/main.htm

I think you should start a new thread rather than to sideline the whole thread by going off topic on another thread.

βέτά SG

I think you should start a new thread rather than to sideline the whole thread by going off topic on another thread.

What topic did I sideline to?

Everything I brought up is related to your topic.

It's just hard for you to drop your sole source of spiritual reliance.

I understand.

βέτά SG

i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.

I believe all religions are good, cause they teach people to be good.

I don't believe in a superior religion like Christianity who claims they are the ultimate in godliness and all other religions are fake.

BroInChrist SG

Question of origin is not a scientific question?

So you would not accept scientific theories on the origins of life which proof was provided for.

You'd rather accept a christian god who banish non-believers to hell (even handicapped, intellectually challenged) which cannot be verified by physical laws.

If you are blind, how are you going to lead?

If you want to go on an evangelism, go take out some scientific studies and rebut all the scientific theories.

They use to think that the earth revolved around the sun, but Gallileo was persecuted because he thinks otherwise.

Think about it, the question of origins is about what happened in the past, it's history. Science is mainly about the observable present, repeated and controlled testings, collection of data and interpretation.

Scientific theories about the past are not really scientific, since you CANNOT test them. Or do you have a time-machine to observe the past?

That unbelievers go to hell is IRRELEVANT to the question of the origins of the universe. Why are you throwing red herrings all over the place?

Since when is a scientific qualification required for evangelism? The Bible does not teach that. In any case, is a qualification required to talk about origins?

Regarding the Galileo case, it seems that you are still perpetuating myths about what really happened. Please get the facts here http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial and http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist

BroInChrist SG

What topic did I sideline to?

Everything I brought up is related to your topic.

It's just hard for you to drop your sole source of spiritual reliance.

I understand.

Really? Then please relate your posts to one of the six questions of Post #1.

BroInChrist SG

Your list in the modern period seem to lack alot of physcist, only doctors and rock pickers.

You missed the point still. Give up?

The point is that the founders of modern science were all in the 1400s-1600s. All your modern scientists and atheists are simply standing on the works of CHRISTIANS who paved the way for modern science.

βέτά SG

You missed the point still. Give up?

Me missed the point?

Look at imdestinyz's comments.

i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.

You are a hardcore religious fanatic.

Forefathers of modern science yes, but if you try explaining Einstein's theories to them, I doubt they would understand during that time.

Try telling Isaac Newton the existence of a box where you can see images, or even a palm sized box where you can store all the world's book in.

BroInChrist SG

i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.

You are mistaken. I accept science. I like science. I love science. I enjoy the fruits of science. But the science that send men to the moon falls under operational science, or observational science. But the science that deals with what happened in the past is historical science. They operate rather differently. Besides, science is largely limited to examining natural causes, but that does not mean that supernatural causes are a priori excluded. It's just that supernatural causes cannot be studied or observed empirically.

BroInChrist SG

Me missed the point?

Look at imdestinyz's comments.

i think he could not accept because he felt that scientific prove is not substantiative enough to prove the origin of universe. thats my guess, im probably wrong.

You are a hardcore religious fanatic.

Name-calling now?

So what are you, a hardcore fanatical atheist?

How do you know they would have a hard time understanding Einstein? You are just speculating and talking condescending about them, just because you are embarassed by the fact that modern science stands on the shoulders of Bible believers. C'mon, don't be an anti-Christian bigot ya?

βέτά SG

Einstein has refuted and proven that some of Newton's theories are wrong.

Newton had many interesting characteristics such as his study alchemy. Which is a blend of chemistry, magic and religion. Achlemists' goal was to find a way to produce gold out of different metals and also to find a magic potion which could cure ills and increase ones life. Isaac was modest, and generous to his family and those who helped him along the way. Some of Newton's discoveries were later refuted by Albert Einstein in reference to his theories of gravitational pull. However, Einstein and others still contend that Newton was indeed a very important force in man's quest for knowledge and is highly regarded for his contributions in many different areas of science.

βέτά SG

Name-calling now?

So what are you, a hardcore fanatical atheist?

I didn't know hardcore religious fanatic was name calling.

But it's factual.

BroInChrist SG

I didn't know hardcore religious fanatic was name calling.

But it's factual.

Just as factual as you are a hardcore fanatical atheist.

BroInChrist SG

Einstein has refuted and proven that some of Newton's theories are wrong.

And SO?

You are still missing the point! The point is that if you think that there is a conflict between the Bible and science, then you are dead wrong and ignorant about the history of science and its Judeo-Christian roots. But then again I suppose you would loathe to find that out. The truth hurts for the atheist.

βέτά SG

And SO?

Hard for you to accept the non existence of Christian gods, other than in your heart. I understand, peace be with you.

God bless you.

BroInChrist SG

Hard for you to accept the non existence of Christian gods, other than in your heart. I understand, peace be with you.

God bless you.

Well, you haven't given me good reasons to reject the existence of God. You may start by answering the Six Questions.

Jacky Woo SG

from the way this fellow twist facts and logic to bend his faith, is really despicable and contemptible, not to mention reprehensible. it just goes to show what warped logic and rationale to argue his case or rather a non existent case. I am utterly disgusted to say the least. to continue replying back just smacked of one's intelligence. he is just using words to twist and bend the facts to fit his belief system, which is his unique warped way of reasoning.

when I say he is extreme, he accuses me of being having an extrene atheist views, which is his way of deflecting the extremism from his faith. perhaps he does not know what is extremism and fundamentalism means?

Jacky Woo SG

Well, you haven't given me good reasons to reject the existence of God. You may start by answering the Six Questions.

I wonder if you are living in MARS all this while? perhaps you are blind or selective reading of what you want to read. doesnt it dawn on you that the reasons are already stated very clearly. perhaps you only want to reply to what you wish to say.

BroInChrist SG

Like the typical village atheist, Jacky resorts to heaping scorn on my postings and spewing personal attacks instead of coming up with counter-arguments. One wonders if Jacky has the intellectual mettle to really deal with my arguments. Personally I am not optimistic about it.

BroInChrist SG

I am asking for GOOD reasons to reject God. Where are your GOOD reasons?

[imdestinyz] SG

I am asking for GOOD reasons to reject God. Where are your GOOD reasons?

If there's no good reason to reject GOD, does it eventually proves GOD exists? If GOD's existance cannot be proven now but only can be recorded down in the historical books that we are reading now? Is that good enough proof of GOD's existance?

If someone who is not of christian faith points out irregularities in the christian faith and instead that person talks more and believes more in science? does that make a person a troll? or in fact a atheist troll?

« Previous Page Next Page »