DaveD

So many atheists seem to use the suffering of others as a weapon. In their mind suffering is some kind of "proof" that God does not exist, even though its existence says nothing about Him at all. Yet according to statistics very few actually try to ease that suffering. The largest group on the planet which contributes to disaster and starvation relief around the globe has always been the average Joe Christian contributing what they can. Atheists on the other hand are fond of pointing to contributions by wealthy atheists as if those contributions were actually coming from them.

One of Ben Franklin's adages is "Well done is better than well said." While the question I asked has always bothered me, I just want to add my own "Well done!" to all of those who do volunteer to help others or to ease their suffering.

This ship was described as "unsinkable" and at over 800 feet was the largest passenger liner built. Because she was considered so safe she only carried less than half the number of lifeboats to accommodate her passenger capacity. She set sail in April on her maiden voyage between Southampton and New York City. Her captain wishing to make a name for himself wanted to make the voyage in record time and so was pushing the ship at full speed of over 22 knots despite concerns of icebergs. When 400 miles away from Newfoundland she struck an iceberg on her starboard side opening several compartments and began to sink bow-first. Only less than 1/2 of her passengers survived.

Sounds like I am describing the actual events of RMS Titanic, right?

In actuality I am describing the death of the RMS Titan as described in Morgan Robertson's 1898 novel titled "Futility". The details which I included were in his ORIGINAL novel and do correspond to the details of the Titanic. After the sinking of Titanic he re-released the novel with a few details like tonnage closer to that of the Titanic that was not in the original novel. And certainly the actual numbers of passengers, lifeboats and speed varied slightly. But none of that has to do with the actual prediction of the event 14 years prior to its occurrence.

Who says prophesy does not exist?

This ship was described as "unsinkable" and at over 800 feet was the largest passenger liner built. Because she was considered so safe she only carried less than half the number of lifeboats to accommodate her passenger capacity. She set sail in April on her maiden voyage between Southampton and New York City. Her captain wishing to make a name for himself wanted to make the voyage in record time and so was pushing the ship at full speed of over 22 knots despite concerns of icebergs. When 400 miles away from Newfoundland she struck an iceberg on her starboard side opening several compartments and began to sink bow-first. Only less than 1/2 of her passengers survived.

How could this statement be prophetic? Sounds like I am describing the actual events of RMS Titanic, right?

In actuality I am describing the death of the RMS Titan as described in Morgan Robertson's 1898 novel titled "Futility". The details which I included were in his ORIGINAL novel and do correspond to the details of the Titanic. After the sinking of Titanic he re-released the novel with a few details like tonnage closer to that of the Titanic that was not in the original novel. And certainly the actual numbers of passengers, lifeboats and speed varied slightly. But none of that has to do with the actual prediction of the event 14 years prior to its occurrence. Does prophesy only have to do with religious matters?

This presupposes you have lived a good life, but suppose you die and DO find yourself in the presence of Christ and He gives you this choice:

Acknowledge Him and live forever, or He will grant your wish and you will cease to be forever. Which would you choose?

I witnessed one.... a teenage boy who I personally knew was deaf from birth received his hearing at the touch and the prayer of Fr. D'Orio, the "healing priest" from Worcester, MA. I know it is rare, but are there any others on-line now who have witnessed similar events?

This product was perhaps most responsible for the beginning of agriculture, irrigation, cities, the invention of the wheel, , curing of ancient illnesses with drugs not "discovered" until 1945, assisted with the construction of the pyramids, providing safe food and drink in areas that had neither during the disease filled Middle Ages, stimulated industry in the US, and provided the template of the assembly line accredited to Ford?

Take your guesses..... I will tell you in a bit, and give you the site for the info.

It seems that many of you are pretty fond about pointing out how fundamentalists ignore science, how do you account for atheists who ignore history? Not one legitimate historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person. Why do so many atheists do this?

Everyone who has experienced it knows that love exists, but can you prove it? Please show me physical evidence that love exists. And no, I am not talking about hormonal changes that take place as part of attraction. Attraction is not love. Nor does pictures of people hugging or kissing which likewise are not "proof" of love. Can you define love in an equation? Can you show undeniable proof of it?

Can you not see how illogical it is to ask for proof of something which is not physical? So why, since you always claim to be so "logical", do you continually ask the totally illogical question of "proof" of God? Is there another definition of "logic" that is only defined by atheists?

And while you are still working on "proof" of love, please recognize that John wrote that "God IS love. He who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." (1John 4:16). And like love, everyone who has experienced Him knows He exists. If you do not know Him, at best all you can say is that you are inexperienced.

Christ taught of love and the brotherhood of all men. Can someone please explain to me why so many atheists would find such a message so reprehensible that they feel they must vilify any Christian who wishes to live by that message? Is it simply the "Me-Me-Me" generation who cannot think of anyone other than themselves, and therefore must attack anything that's points to a more selfless way of action?

A roulette table hits the exact same number 100 times in a row.

Would you think that it was an example of "random chance"

or

would you think that it was more likely that someone or something manipulated the wheel?

The two men MOST responsible for the framing of the Declaration of Independence and getting Congress to approve it were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

BOTH men died on the same day.

July 4th, 1826...... the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration.

Why that when despite the best efforts of the doctors to kill the child in the womb do some of them, in those rare occasions when the child is still living when removed, go through heroic efforts to save the life of the baby?

Certainly some of them also just throw the living child into the trash along with other "products of abortion" for which if reported they could be charged. They do not get reported because those assisting in the procedure are more interested in money, and they know on what side their bread is buttered on. But what has changed other than geography in the those few seconds that killing the baby in the womb is okay, but killing the baby out of the womb is infanticide?

One instance of many: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0412_Abortio...

What would be your response to this scenario:

A roulette table hits the exact same number 100 times in a row.

Would you see that as an example of "random chance"?

or

Would you believe that there had to be some outside force that manipulated the event?

The atheist penchant for ignoring odds astounds me. I have heard even supposedly renown physicists who are atheists do this. I am reminded of the movie "Dumb and Dumber" in which the Jim Carrey character asked the girl what odds they had of getting together. She replied: "A million to one." to which the Carrey character say happily: "So you are telling me that we have a chance!". I am certain even atheists laughed at that one because it was so obvious she was saying it was impossible.

Yet they readily accept these odds (from various sciences shows, books, or newspaper/magazines on a scientific research)

Odds of the universe not collapsing in on itself moments after the Big Bang: billions upon billions to one.

While not speaking about the origins of life itself, the odds of a planet to have all of the conditions necessary for life conditions to exist and continue to exist : 1:5,203,106,979,840,000,000,000, 000,000,000. (This would included the size of the sun, heat of the sun, size of the planet, location of the planet, tilt of the planet, rotation of the planet, orbit of the planet, existence of a moon, size of the moon, location of the moon, chemical makeup of the planet, the planet's atmosphere, existence of substantial water, etc. etc.)

Odds of all the elements of DNA coming together in the primordial soup: billions upon billions upon billions to one. (still no life)

Odds for life to spring from lifelessness: by today's understanding 0

Odds of a single cell organism being anything other than a single cell organism: by today's understanding: 0

We can go on and on into all of the other totally impossible odds involving evolution. And lest you miss my point, I am NOT denying any of these things happened... I believe they DID happen. But the difference is that where as the atheist sees it as just dumb luck and random chance, to me the only conclusion that can be drawn it that their had to be an intelligent guide which influenced the process. Which one of these actually seems to be more likely?

This used to pose difficulty for me because Christ said that blasphemy against the Father AND against Him were forgivable, but blasphemy against the Spirit was not. What I could not understand that if all are God, then how could blasphemy against one person of God be forgiven, but blasphemy against another not be forgiven?

What dawned on my was the fact that to believe in God, and then to go further and believe in Christ requires a "leap of faith" where you go beyond what is absolutely provable to acceptance based on trust. Christ realized that not everyone would make that leap, and hence the reason that blasphemy against the Father and Son could be forgiven. Christ forgave the non-believing Jews and pagans who crucified Him from the cross "for they know not what they do."

However, the Spirit speaks to the heart of each individual through their consciences. No matter what faith or lack thereof everyone knows right from wrong. To blaspheme the Spirit then becomes to turn your back on His call through your conscience. It is to so dedicate yourself to evil that you have blacked out its call.

What are your opinions of this view? Or what different views can you offer that would explain how blasphemy against either of the first two persons of the Trinity could be forgiven, but blasphemy against the third not be?

This used to pose difficulty for me because Christ said that blasphemy against the Father AND against Him were forgivable, but blasphemy against the Spirit was not. What I could not understand that if all are God, then how could blasphemy against one person of God be forgiven, but blasphemy against another not be forgiven?

What dawned on my was the fact that to believe in God, and then to go further and believe in Christ requires a "leap of faith" where you go beyond what is absolutely provable to acceptance based on trust. Christ realized that not everyone would make that leap, and hence the reason that blasphemy against the Father and Son could be forgiven. Christ forgave the non-believing Jews and pagans who crucified Him from the cross "for they know not what they do."

However, the Spirit speaks to the heart of each individual through their consciences. No matter what faith or lack thereof everyone knows right from wrong. To blaspheme the Spirit then becomes to turn your back on His call through your conscience. It is to so dedicate yourself to evil that you have blacked out its call.

What are your opinions of this view? Or what different views can you offer that would explain how blasphemy against either of the first two persons of the Trinity could be forgiven, but blasphemy against the third not be?

Everyone knows that love exists, but what physical proof can you show that it does? People saying that they love is not prove of it. Quite obviously it cannot be "proven".

So why do so many atheists ask the equally silly question that they want "proof" of God when you cannot prove something which you KNOW exists to actually exist? And by the way, if you asked the vast majority of Christians, they would agree with John in 1Jn 4:16: "God IS love. He who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him."

Atheists are fond of saying that atheism is a "lack of belief" which too me is illogical on its face as it ignores the definition of the word, and overlooks the fact that it means that NO thought can go into it if its is a lack of belief.

Isn't that sort of like calling a black people a "lack of color" race? This in fact, when you think of it is more logical since black is NOT a color but is in fact a lack of color. If you combine all colors of the spectrum together you do not get black, you get white.

So which is more logical, atheism being a "lack of belief" or black people being the "lack of color" race?

Most atheists seemingly cannot get a logical handle on their own position. According to them, there are two types of atheists.... intrinsic and extrinsic.

I have no problem with the "extrinsic atheist". These are those who have thought things through and have come to their own conclusion that God does not exist. These are people you can have a worthwhile debate with. They have reasons why they say they are atheist. It is a positive statement of belief ("I believe this because...") that should be able to stand to any question put to it. This is the true definition of an atheist.

However, the vast majority of so-called "atheists" here claim they are "intrinsic atheists" These argue that atheism is a "lack of belief" or that "people are born atheists". As one response said (and many agree with) "Atheism is not a conscious decision, it is a lack of belief." This is false on its face. They choose this argument so that they can claim that they are not making a "positive statement", and as a result claim they do not have to answer questions because "you cannot prove a negative". Apparently however they miss the fact that logically those who take this view cannot have ANY reasons why they are atheists. This position is obviously a false position. The reasons why the position is false is at the at the least threefold.

First of all if it were truly a "lack of belief" then they should have absolutely no opinion about whether or not God existed. At best they could say "I have no knowledge of a God." That would make them agnostic... not atheist. If as they say that all people are born with a lack of belief then they should have absolutely no opinion either way. To say that makes them atheistic, is absurd.

Secondly, I was shocked that so may agreed with the girl who said that "Atheism was not a conscious decision." That is saying that absolutely no thought has been given to the matter. That may be alright for a 2 year old child to say, but hardly something that an adult should argue or agree with. Again, totally illogical.

Thirdly, if it is as you say that your atheism is a "lack of belief" arrived at with "no conscious decision" then there should be absolutely nothing for you to argue about. Saying you have a "lack of belief" is saying that you have absolutely no opinion on the subject. Once you make an argument on any topic you can no longer say that you have no opinion of have a lack of belief on that topic. I guess you have not figured out that when you make an argument about a topic is saying that you DO have an opinion and DO have beliefs. If you make ANY argument for position that "God does not exist and here is why I believe this" that is a "positive affirmation" making you an extrinsic atheist. While people can certainly point to why they believe what they do, no one, atheist, Christian or any other belief, has to "prove" their beliefs. But being an extrinsic atheist the often claimed phony "burden of proof" would apply to you just as much. And they certainly should be able to logically answer any sensible question put before them which takes into account the reasons for their belief.

The other common lie by atheists here is the creation of a false Christianity. Comparing theistic beliefs with the existence of fairies, unicorns or Santa. None of those are part of Christian beliefs. There is the common lie of assigning the beliefs of a few, for example fundamentalists, to the whole of Christianity. And in my mind the biggest one.... the rewriting of history to try to support their false position, such as the "Jesus never existed", "Nazareth never existed", and "other gods had the same history" claims. I have to laugh at people who claim that one cannot refer to the claims of the Bible as being real, but then they claim that sites like these MUST be taken as factual, despite the real fact that hey have all been debunked. How does lying about Christianity in anyway "prove" your position?

For those atheists who do use tactics like these why the lies? Why can you not deal with Christianity honestly? Why can you not deal with your own claim to be atheistic honestly and be willing to state the real reasons why you are an atheist and have the courage to stand behind what your supposed convictions are?

Most atheists seemingly cannot get a logical handle on their own position. According to them, there are two types of atheists.... intrinsic and extrinsic.

I have no problem with the "extrinsic atheist". These are those who have thought things through and have come to their own conclusion that God does not exist. They have reasons why they say they are atheist. It is a positive affirmation that should be able to stand to any question put too it. This is the true definition of an atheist.

However, the VAST majority of so-called "atheists" here say they are "intrinsic atheists" These argue that atheism is a "lack of belief" or that "people are born atheists". As one response said (and many agree with) "Atheism is not a conscious decision, it is a lack of belief." This is false on its face. They choose this illogical argument so that they can say that they are not making a positive affirmation, and as a result claim they do not have to answer questions because "you cannot prove a negative". The reasons why the position is false is at the minimum (at the least).

First of all if it were truly a "lack of belief" then they should have absolutely no opinion about whether or not God existed. At best that would make them agnostic... not atheist. If as they say that all people are born with a lack of belief then they have absolutely no opinion either way. To say that makes them atheistic is absurd.

Secondly, I was SHOCKED that so may agreed with the girl who said that "Atheism was not a conscious decision." That is saying that absolutely no thought has been given to the matter. That may be alright for a 2 year old child to say, but hardly something that an adult should argue or agree with. Again, totally illogical.

Thirdly, if it is as you say that your atheism is a "lack of belief" arrived at with "no conscious decision" then there should be absolutely nothing for you to argue about. Saying you have a "lack of belief" is saying that you have absolutely no opinion on the subject. Once you make an argument on any topic you can no longer say that you have no opinion of have a lack of belief on that topic. I guess you have not figured out that when you make an argument about a topic is saying that you DO have an opinion and DO have beliefs. If you make ANY argument for position that "God does not exist and here is why I believe this" that is a "positive affirmation" making you an extrinsic atheist. While no one has to "prove" their beliefs, but being an extrinsic atheist the often claimed phony "burden of proof" would apply to you just as much.

Sorry to disillusion you but that position is TOTALLY illogical.