Hello DarkForum Members. I am Hezekiah's Prayer. Grace and Peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. This is my first post and I hope to have some meaningful conversations here. I love defending my faith and discussing viewpoints in an open and thoughtful atmosphere. I eagerly anticipate your responses.

A certain annoying subject keeps popping up in my head. Most evolutionists/scientists claim to be atheists and find it to fit quite nicely these naturalistic ideas. But Atheism, reveals itself unviable. By actively choosing to NOT believe in God atheism is a negative position in nature which makes it VERY, VERY difficult to defend. From a logical standpoint one can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.


Think about it, you rarely hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles. I mean, you can’t exactly prove that in all places and all times, there is no God can you? Likewise, naturalism assumes (incorrectly) that God does not exist as all events can be explained in terms of natural causes/laws but this negates that God is outside natural laws since He is the creator. Furthermore, naturalism is NOT fact as it cannot explain all events today nor can we assume it will in the future as we don’t know what can and will occur. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism. So with no proofs for atheism’s truth or that there is no God that boils down to that nasty word we call faith. EGAD!

At least Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, the Bibles Historical accuracy etc.

It’s a mistake to allow an atheist to put a Christian on the defensive when really it’s the opposite. To appear more intellectually viable atheists must disprove theistic arguments and negate any evidences presented for God’s existence. The only intellectually defensible way to defend atheism is through simple possibility. It may be possible that there is no God. That something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or make it a wise position to adopt does it? If I said it is possible that the moon is made of Gouda cheese, that does not make it intellectually defensible or worthy of adoption because it is merely a possibility. Simple possibility is not sufficient grounds to claim viability in their atheism. Atheists must provide more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," lest they must also step up and defend that the moon really is made of cheese.

It gets better boys and girls! Refuting evidences for God’s existence does not prove atheism true. At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God so far. Naturally, No person (except God) can know all evidences that exist, otherwise he would be God. There could be future evidences presented that will suffice. Since there may be an undiscovered proof then there is a possibility of Gods existence. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.

This is why atheists must attack Christianity as it makes very high claims concerning God’s existence which challenges their atheism and exposing the holes that it is riddled with.

I’d say faith..to a degree is a component of atheism. Furthermore, To say and hold to “I believe God does not exist” places one in a position and atheism becomes a belief system. There is no official organization nailing it down and the views tend to vary widely. We could say an atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god or someone who “lacks belief” in God or even the self-described free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas among a few others.

We would be more accurate in expanding the definition to include atheism as a non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief that there is no God," but is "not believing either way". Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists (though there are many of them) but as non-theists. Some view it as a belief system some do not.

One would think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves for what do the people of a nonexistent God matter? Yet we find many involved in politics, social groups, and various lawsuits bent on changing society to a more atheistic nature. Sadly they have made their mark in our schools and our government as we well know. They consider Christians a threat to freedom, common sense, and a good life.

Atheists often use mockery of God, religious leaders, and the Bible as weapons. This isn't always the case but ridiculing attitudes are surprisingly prevalent. Character assassination, half-truths, and out-of-context Bible quotes are frequently employed in attempts to make Christianity look bad. From Atheists, I often encounter great arrogance, rudeness, and condescension and have been called mentally ill, a brain dead idiot, a lying sack of crap and just yesterday an “ignorant piece of Christian fecal matter” for my belief in God J. All the while implying reason is best used by them and not by the mentally challenged Christian. Enter an atheist’s chatroom with a Godly screenname and see how long it takes. My impression is they are so convinced of their “truth” that no other options exist and disagreement surely means you are not smart. So much for free-thinking. Note that is just my observation and not all atheists act this way. Visit www.atheist.org and you will quickly perceive the obvious HATRED for any and all other opposing views/religions, ESPECIALLY Christianity. Still they use self-descriptive terms like "Free thinkers," “logical,” "Free from religion," or "Rational," while deferring Christians as religious bigots, losers, and brainwashers.



Consider these two statements from Atheist.org

Quote:

"Godism is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness." “As long as religious purposes are served, ethics, inquiry and reason are abandoned.”

These statements fail to convince me of their so-called attitude of tolerance, impartiality, truth, and sound judgment. It justifiably makes one ponder that if such atheists were in power would they then either imprison the 'offenders' or strive for total annihilation of all things religious?

Does atheism really teach freedom? No. It teaches bondage for its adherents and for those who disagree with it.

As I mentioned, many Atheists are belligerent, full of anger and condemnation and I have wondered why it is so prevalent. After asking in a chat room once, and when the cussing ended, many told me that they hate that the Christians try and tell them that they need to believe in Jesus or they will go to hell. I can see how that would offend.


Well, that is too bad. Truth is truth whether it's offensive or not.

The truth is that all people need Jesus and the Christians are simply telling them the truth. God loves even the greatest “disbeliever” and we are called to spread the message to them. Since all biblical evidence is unacceptable logic is the best bridge to a productive exchange.

For the most part, Atheists have two main arguments. In a nutshell, one says there isn't enough evidence to decide and the other says there is evidence contrary to God's existence. There is a growing population that simply claims a lack of belief and exercises no energy in the discussion as neither believe nor disbelieve.

Those that claim to have no convincing evidence for God must agree that doesn’t disprove God itself. As before, it’s possible that evidence exists that proves/supports God's existence and we just don’t know it. Hence God could exist right? Likewise it could be said there is no evidence for God. To make this an absolute statement we require the knowledge of all evidence to demonstrate there is no evidence. Since we can’t have that we conclude there could be evidence supporting theism. If you cannot refute this then at the very least you should be an Agnostic.


Ain’t that a peach? J


We still need evidence right? What kind of evidence do you require as sufficient? Different people see things differently. What may convince one person may not convince another. Presuppositions strongly effect how evidence is interpreted and accepted. Various evidences have been offered to atheists. Some have been convinced and converted to theism. Others have not. Therefore, it is not the evidence that is the issue, it is the atheist. To someone who "will not see", no evidence will be sufficient. Can one objectively examine theistic evidence with an atheist Presupposition? Admitted objectivity is difficult for everybody (myself included) and it depends on the person but it’s difficult (almost impossible) at best to convince a “free-thinker” to even briefly assume objectivity for unbiased discussion.

So is your selected criteria reasonable? In other words did you put an unrealistic requirement upon God or the laws of logic?? For example do you want Him to pop out a Chef Boyardee can and hand you a meatball, appear in blazing glory or perhaps create square circles or some self-contradictory event? Because if God exists, He made the logical laws and cannot violate them. Have you suspended the presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur to objectively examine the evidence? If you haven’t then your presuppositions may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence forcing you into an atheistic/agnostic position and God is unknowable to you. Do you define the miraculous from existence and what is the basis for that? For to assume (presuppose) science explains all events then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.

On the other hand, a popular stance for today is to say “I lack belief in a god”. For these atheists it is a non-issue so they have no position, no intellectual action required and have no “belief or unbelief” on the matter. They lack belief in God as they lack belief in the man on the moon. There’s a hitch man. Through our lives we are introduced to new ideas and because we naturally make judgments we can’t stay neutral. You can cogitate on it, accept or reject it or some combination thereof but you cannot return to “lack of belief”. For example, take a child with no conceptual awareness of the man on the moon. When baby matures he is introduced to the notion. He can accept or reject it, dimiss it as silly, be unsure etc. Either way he takes some position and that requires some intellectual action. The “lack of belief” won’t float if “lack of belief” is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning it. You could defer judgment about the man on the moon but you still have the concept and deferring judgment a chosen stance. It’s NOT returning to a lack of awareness.

To suspend belief on a concept requires you admit more information is needed. That is agnosticism not atheism. If I said that there was a cabbage factory on saturn, what would you think? Dismiss it as absurdity? Request more evidence for it? We know a cabbage factory on Saturn is silly and quickly make a judgment. The lack of belief defense is not logical. It ignores the reality that it’s human nature to categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection

I have a Basset Hound named Molly. She lacks a belief in God so is she an atheist? Does she need to repent of her doggie sins too? What about the water faucet? Leaves and air? They lack belief. An atheist would claim "lack of belief" relates only to sentient beings. It’s a necessary position to negate all others and include only people. He must amend that broad statement to something like “as a person I decide to lack belief in God”, “Lack of belief is a position only held by people”. Oh the Contradictions abound.

In my opinion, I would say that the “lack of belief” notion is the Atheists pitiful attempt to avoid facing the problems inherent to there creed. To “lack belief” means their “non-position” is not open to attack or scrutiny and they remain secure. But Atheism IS under more examination J and it’s shaky foundations exposed. Most Americans profess faith of some kind. It’s amazing that such an illogical group has so profoundly restricted the rights and voices of a nation built on tolerance. I have yet to encounter an organized Atheist group that isn’t “ANTI-God”, most reduce to hate mongering. Just read their literature. For WAY TOO LONG have Atheists hidden under an illogical, often refutable logic veiled with “Fact” “Rationale” and “Impartiality” while stripping away God in schools and our courts. In the end the Truth will be shown.

Thank You for your time and I'll be posting more later.

In His Service,


HP




The Prayer of Hezekiah

Hezekiah received the letter from the messengers and read it. Then he went up to the temple of the LORD and spread it out before the LORD . And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD : "O LORD , God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Give ear, O LORD , and hear; open your eyes, O LORD , and see; listen to the words Sennacherib has sent to insult the living God. "It is true, O LORD , that the Assyrian kings have laid waste these nations and their lands. They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by men's hands. Now, O LORD our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O LORD , are God."


2 Corinthians 14-17

But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.

...is where I stopped reading.

Job 38:4
Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.

well, see, not all who disbelieve in the christian version of god as being inacurate are atheists...that depends on who's viewing "god", how they relate to that god, and ultimately what they believe "god" is...he could be some high and mighty beign that clapped his hands and there was life...that i don't buy,

but some gradual change of more simple naturalistic creatures with the advancement of thought, intelligence, and a cosmic energy that's permeated the earth before a puddle of ooze slimed up on ground and breathed in a breath of air...these simple creature making more simple gods, raw and primal...representing everything that made up their world...

i'm not an absolute evolutionists...but not everything in the bible is acurate, as the many translations and writers have lost the original meaning over time, altering it with their own personal feelings and ideals...contemporary archeological studies are verifying this...and much that the bible left out...including where many of their "original" ideas came from.

there were many gods before the christian one...his followers were just more...ruthless in spreading his word.

Jordyn,



Thank You for your reply. Please forgive me if I was unclear. I must clarify that this discussion relates to Atheism being logically plausible at all, not what others may disbelieve about the Christian God. It seems to me easily refutable-Atheism as a belief system.



“not everything in the bible is acurate, as the many translations and writers have lost the original meaning over time, altering it with their own personal feelings and ideals”



It is a common misconception that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted. The Bible has not been rewritten. For Example, The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low and does not affect doctrine. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordyn ..there were many gods before the Christian one...his followers were just more...ruthless in spreading his word.

First, Never judge a philosophy/religion by its ABUSES. It’s unfair and one sided. It’s true there have been violent acts justified in the name of Christ. That was just an excuse for power mongering and domination. Hitler called himself a Christ Follower. That doesn’t make him one. He was NOT a Christian. Jesus NEVER EVER preached forced conversion nor did He preach violence against unbelievers. True followers, though imperfect, live by example and His commandments. I will also briefly note that far more people have been killed at the hands of unbelievers than in the name of religion. Stalin, an atheist, killed over 20 million people and the entire Chinese Gov’t that even IMPOSES atheism has killed and tortured who knows how many more millions. That’s just a few examples

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordyn ..there were many gods before the Christian one

My apologies, but I’m not really sure what your point is. However, there can be only ONE REAL God. By default all others cannot exist. Calling something a God does not make it so. God has a nature-that is, He is Sovereign over ALL creation, eternally exists, is all knowing and Omnipotent. If there were another God then God could not be God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordyn ..that depends on who's viewing "god", how they relate to that god, and ultimately what they believe "god" is...he could be some high and mighty beign that clapped his hands and there was life...that i don't buy.

God, as part of His nature, is also absolute truth. Truth is not relative. Truth can never contradict itself…or it isn’t truth. What I hear you saying is that religion is whatever you feel is right. If so, then you are putting yourself in the place of God and looking to yourself for what you "feel" is right. Say, Hitler believed in killing jews. An extreme example but you get the point.



Please forgive me and correct me if I have misstated you anywhere.

You could say the same thing about the cabbage. The only difference would be that you find only one claim silly while a atheist finds them both silly.
Since you place the burden of proof on the disbeliever....what evidence do you have that other Gods do not exist? It seems that the only real evidence you do have is a belief in another theory.
Now if I adjust this quote:
Using a kind of argument that uses the suggestion of open mindedness or a indefinite suspension of judgement works both for and against anyone in a religious argument. If you say something else does not exist (which you did)then you are doing the same thing as those you oppose.

Hello, HP, and welcome to the Religion board.

Proving that something does not exist is backwards logic. The burden of proof is upon those that say it is, not those who say it is not.

Right. So you have two groups. One that believes that the unknown is knowable through a divine agent, whichever is preferable (God/Allah/Krishna/etc), and the other that while science is not infallible, it at least is a tried and true method of understanding. There are myriad things in nature that were unknown even fifty to a hundred years ago which are now understood. Hence, an atheist would have faith that science will continue to improve its capability to understand the universe. So, while it is indeed faith, it is a faith with a strong base for such belief.

I know of many books of fiction which are historically accurate. Am I to assume that due to that fact I can consider them true as well? I also have to site the many inaccurate points in the Bible as well. We have two different creation stories in Genesis which directly contradict one another. The Bible is truth, yet these two stories are inconsistent. They can't both be true. There are others as well, but I'll leave this point for the sake of brevity.

I find it interesting that you are using the basis of the same argument that atheists use against religion. I could, in fact, take your statement there and substitute the word 'atheism' for 'religion.'

An interesting argument, but again I will bring up burden of proof. A lack of evidence does not make the position that God exists any more likely than an atheist's position that God does not exist.

Actually, one of the reasons I know of that atheists attack Christianity, and other religions, as Christianity is not the only one singled out here, is because they feel that mankind has progressed enough in its ability to reason that religion just throws a wrench in the works. They cite all the times where religion repeatedly attempts to overrule government (i.e. the Catholic Church protecting priests suspected of child molestation from due process of law, the Ten Commandments monument outside a state courthouse, etc.) as reasons that religion should be actively fought against. At least, this is my understanding from listening to those of the atheist persuasion. However, there are those atheists who have a 'live and let live' policy.

There is a conflict of "truths" there. They obviously do not believe they are going to Hell. That is there truth. It is fairly sensible that people will become uncomfortable if you try to convince them of things that they do not believe, especially if such things are unpleasant. You could expect an even worse reaction from a Muslim or a Hindu in regards to your "truth." A Buddhist would simply smile, as he would already know where he is going. He might even thank you for your concern.

Just a bit out of the Bible here, since you take it seriously, for your consideration:

Thomas didn't believe the first time, because he was not there to see it for himself. Now, does this mean that because Thomas didn't believe the Word, that he'll be going to hell, even though he accepted Jesus on sight?

If not, then why is it that Thomas receives preferential treatment over the 6 billion people on the planet currently? I'm sure if Jesus makes an appearance at their deathbed, there are plenty of people willing to cry out their affirmation of belief just as Thomas did.

I also find it a bit of a misnomer to call a God "loving and compassionate" if people are going to eternal damnation over a belief. There are people in my country who believe that some people are inferior due to the color of skin they were born with, or their gender. Rather than be punished for these obviously nonsensical notions, they are simply allowed to believe as they wish so long as they harm no one because of these beliefs. Should I think that my system of government is more forgiving and compassionate than God?

My personal bias is the notion that the good people I've met who are not Christian should be condemned simply for being non-Christian. I know Buddhists who are kinder, gentler, and more saintlike than many professed Christians I've encountered. The idea that they would be hellbound galls me to the core. With years of experience I've come to recognize such reactions as warning signs. Hence, that would be one "truth" I will wholeheartedly reject. It can go by the wayside with the beliefs of racial or gender based inferiority. I'm perfectly content to allow others to believe it, so long as it does no harm.

I'm faithless, not an atheist.

Atheism has an equal chance of being credible as any religion.

Hm, nearly a week with no reply. How disappointing.

Hey Hez, nice post. You are brave. From what I have seen, it is only Godless pagans and confused kids and adults around here. Kudos for not being afraid to be what seems the only person here not afraid or ashamed to be a Christian.

About your arugument on atheism, I say your point is valid. Like, how CAN you prove something DOESN'T exist? You nailed them right there.

I have argued with atheist before too, because it is fun. They can't win anything for it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe there was a Being that created all this ORDER and not chaos.

Good stuff.

Firstly-- he is not the "Only" christian around here nor the first to voice an overbearing rant--
Secondly-- we are not all godlesspagans or confused adults and children-- disagreeing with a religious view does not make us "confused" unless you are a close minded sort of a person with a deflatable opinion.

Thirdly-- your argument--""
About your arugument on atheism, I say your point is valid. Like, how CAN you prove something DOESN'T exist? You nailed them right there.""
Can easily be reversed to assume the same is true for attempting to provide proof about something which is claimed to exist.

Lastly--- not everyone who disbelieves the Christian god is an athiest--- I for example do not believe in its existence and I am not an athiest either. You should((within you next post)) attempt a bit more logic.

What the hell? Darkforum refuses to show me the latest version of this thread.

oh... nevermind.. haha.

PHP Code:


From a logical standpoint one can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. 


I have to dissagree with this. I mean, in almost any other case it would be true you can't prove something never existed, but the whole god theory has way to many contradictions and paradoxes to be claimed true in the first place. People who believe in god say he created everything that exists. That means there was a time nothing existed. But it took an already existing god to create existence. You could say that he both exists and does not exist. But existence does exist, so thats a paradox. I'll list some more...

-"God Can do anything." If god was really omnipotent, he could do anything...And if he could do anything, he could do the impossible. Now, think about this...2+2=4. Could god make it equal 10? Or 12? Or 150? It would be impossible. (And it doesn't count to say he could make you think it was 10. We could get drunk and do that on our own.) If he could do anything, he could simply make 2+2=10 and not have to mess with our preception to do so. You also can't really say he can only do the logically possible, because that goes against his credibility on omnipotence.

-"God created logic." Now, logic is basicly how we as living beings get through our day to day lives. It's how we use our brains to get us out of cetain troubles like keeping our car doors locked, or voting for Kerry. Basiclly the ability to choose right from wrong. But that's also what free will is, and god can't control that. It's supposed to be our choice to believe in him or not. If we make the choice not to, we are punished. But if we are subjected to Gods logic, isn't it Gods accountability if one chooses to denounce him and not the individuals? Why should we be punished to Hell for the lack of logic we've been given? I guess my point is there just cannot be such thing as free will if your bound to the constraints of Gods hampered and restrained logic.

-"God created time." Creation is an event in time.

Those are just a tiny amount of theories. I am an athiest, or a non believer in god or whatever you want to call it. I think it's reasonible to have a life of demanding evidence rather than blind faith. It takes questioning to uncover the bullshit in life. And that is a huge reason I don't like religion...or more specificly Christianity. It seems like it's against all forms of using logic. If you dare question god or Christ, you shall burn in hell kind of thing that makes me go, "allright enough of that crap." I believe the consept of god is merly a specific substitute for that which we cannot understand in life. And yes I said belive. I'm not against believeing which Christains seem to think Athiests are against. Like I said, I'm against blind faith. I belive the universe is endless, though I have no proof, I feel there is reasonible theories to it. The whole god thing to me though is just bs. Even if there was a god, we would just fuck up all his messages anyway. So yeah call me an agnostic now or whatever I don't care, it's all so stupid. Just live people!