Is Atheism Dead ?

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

You have a pair of somewhat dubious sources relating a tale of miraculous events. It's not exactly a peer-reviewed slam-dunk, is it?

In your next post could you give your opinion about what it was that caused thousands of Jerusalem JEWS to break with centuries of tradition to within weeks of the execution of Jesus, regard another d ...[text shortened]... g this dramatic change in mass. Be specific please and don't just point to some other belief.

Err mass hysteria, are you claiming that thousands of Jews witnessed the resurrection.
Perhaps the leaders of the old faith were so tainted by their association with the Roman occupiers and due to their collusion in the crucifixion of a charismatic faith healer and sect leader that they rejected the dogma of the old religion and announced their allegiance to the more revolutionary dogma of the new religion 🤷🏻‍♂️ I can’t prove that’s what happened but it’s not anywhere as delusional as your explanation and I know a lack of imperial evidence has never been an issue for you.

@avalanchethecat said
Darwin took a gradualist view of evolution. This is generally considered to be an incomplete view nowadays, ignoring as it does the concept of 'punctuated equilibrium' championed by Gould and others. Of course, evolution viewed through this lens is much more difficult to wave away with a simplistic question, so tends to find little purchase with those who favour the easy certainties offered by religion over the vague, complex answers offered by science.

So asking how many transitional fossils exist is a simplistic question? Seems to me it’s a legitimate question, especially considering transitional fossils are the only evidence for macroevolution.

And easy certainties aren’t found in religion. Many debates exist in religion over doctrinal issues, the interpretation of passages of Scriptures, etc.

Lastly, I wouldn’t classify the theory of evolution as science because it doesn’t follow the Scientific Method and its central claim of speciation is not based on observation or experimentation. In fact, attempts at speciation with bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans, failed.

@pb1022 said
So asking how many transitional fossils exist is a simplistic question? Seems to me it’s a legitimate question, especially considering transitional fossils are the only evidence for macroevolution.

And easy certainties aren’t found in religion. Many debates exist in religion over doctrinal issues, the interpretation of passages of Scriptures, etc.

Lastly, I wouldn’t cla ...[text shortened]... empts at speciation with bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans, failed.

1. Yes it is.

2. Yes they are.

3. Nonsense. If I thought you were actually interested I'd link some papers, but of course you're not, you're just regurgitating garbage from creationist websites; "attempts at speciation", oh my sides.

@avalanchethecat said
1. Yes it is.

2. Yes they are.

3. Nonsense. If I thought you were actually interested I'd link some papers, but of course you're not, you're just regurgitating garbage from creationist websites; "attempts at speciation", oh my sides.

So you can’t address any of those points with substance? Ok.

You need more faith to be an evolutionist than you do to be a Christian. There’s more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for macroevolution.

You need more faith to be an atheist than you do to believe in God.

In my opinion, the theory of evolution is simply a religion for atheists. It’s how they justify their atheism. In this religion, the earth is a goddess, Charles Darwin is a prophet, and The Origin of Species is the bible.

There’s no other way to explain the fanatical devotion to it and hostility to those who question it.

@kevcvs57

Err mass hysteria, are you claiming that thousands of Jews witnessed the resurrection.

I don't think thousands witnessed seeing Jesus.
Paul's letter mentions 500 who were at that time mostly still aliver to refute him
should he be mistaken.

Now I have to think about what would cause "mass hysteria".

Perhaps the leaders of the old faith were so tainted by their association with the Roman occupiers and due to their collusion in the crucifixion of a charismatic faith healer and sect leader that they rejected the dogma of the old religion and announced their allegiance to the more revolutionary dogma of the new religion 🤷🏻‍♂️ I can’t prove that’s what happened but it’s not anywhere as delusional as your explanation and I know a lack of imperial evidence has never been an issue for yo

Judaism since the first century has practically been fortified and reinforced around the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. You have with these a doubling down on the old traditions. They were reacting to the emergence of a new belief.

So you are suggesting that a mass hysteria took place and the reaction was to fortify Judaism with a strong rejection that Jesus could not be the Messiah.

Now this "mass hysteria" had thousands who did not witness Jesus after His resurrection believe that He was alive.

The book of Acts says that healings continued to be performed in His name. And the formerly cowardly hiding disciples suddenly became strangely emboldened to the point of accepting death- Stephen, James .

Do you know how many people Luke mentions in Acts that we have record of from extra biblical sources confirming that they existed? Plenty fit that criteria.

The enemies of Jesus could have instantly quelled the wildly spreading "hysteria" by simply producing the corpse of Jesus. The Romans could have. The opposing Jewish religious authorities could have.

"Here's the body of your Jesus! Forget about it and go home or come back to the traditional Judaism still waiting for a Messiah."

The rumor went out that the body of Jesus was stolen by the disciples.
So you suggest that knowing that they were suffering for a LIE which they were propagating some went to their deaths.

IE. "I KNOW that we concocted this whole fantasy. But I am willing to be killed, or driven from my home, or lose my standing with society, or go to jail for the sake of this prank we have coordinated and devised."

Think again.

Then you have something turning a persecutor Saul of Tarsus 180 degrees around from dedicated to wiping OUT the sect to being its chief exponent.

Now he was either crazy or deceived or actually thought Jesus suddenly changed his life. He was willing to go through anything to spread the belief. He was a scholar preciously obsessed with preserving the traditions of the Jews millennia old.

Then you also have the unexplained mystery of the Jews knowing anyone so executed by hanging was cursed and how COULD they possibly be the Messiah promised by God to Israel.

I have to suspend now.

@pb1022 said
So you can’t address any of those points with substance? Ok.

You need more faith to be an evolutionist than you do to be a Christian. There’s more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for macroevolution.

You need more faith to be an atheist than you do to believe in God.

In my opinion, the theory of evolution is simply a religion for atheists. I ...[text shortened]... There’s no other way to explain the fanatical devotion to it and hostility to those who question it.

I've given you more substance in support of my views than you have for yours. I would be delighted to provide more if you hadn't already declared you interest only in dismissing the fruits of human endeavour in favour of your closed-minded adherence to a pre-scientific and largely nonsensical paradigm.

You are entitled to an opinion of course, although to categorise the theory of evolution as a 'religion for atheists' just declares your lack of understanding of the difference between a religion and a scientific theory.

My hostility towards you, 'champ', is based solely on your obnoxious and patronising attitude demonstrated in this thread.

@avalanchethecat said
I've given you more substance in support of my views than you have for yours. I would be delighted to provide more if you hadn't already declared you interest only in dismissing the fruits of human endeavour in favour of your closed-minded adherence to a pre-scientific and largely nonsensical paradigm.

You are entitled to an opinion of course, although to categoris ...[text shortened]... ou, 'champ', is based solely on your obnoxious and patronising attitude demonstrated in this thread.

Do you want me to copy-and-paste “15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection” or cite three atheists and experts in evaluating evidence who researched the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and concluded it was true? I’d be happy to do both.

How am I closed-minded? I only came to believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ after evaluating the evidence for it and asking God to open my heart and mind to it. (I’ve always been a believer in God, but haven’t always been a believer in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the event upon which Christianity is based.)

And I wasn’t a believer in Darwin’s theory long before I became a Christian. I looked into the evidence for Darwin’s theory (specifically macroevolution) and found, not unlike more than a few scientists, that it’s practically non-existent.

I know the difference between a religion and a scientific theory. The problem for evolutionists is that Darwin’s theory doesn’t adhere to the Scientific Method and very little evidence exists to support macroevolution (just a few questionable transitional fossils.)

I don’t mean to be obnoxious and patronizing and apologize for coming off that way. My calling another poster (not you) in here “champ” was just an affectionate nickname, but I realized it offended you and so I ceased using it.

Have a great day!

@pb1022 said
Do you want me to copy-and-paste “15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection” or cite three atheists and experts in evaluating evidence who researched the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and concluded it was true? I’d be happy to do both.

How am I closed-minded? I only came to believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ after evaluating the evidence for it and ask ...[text shortened]... affectionate nickname, but I realized it offended you and so I ceased using it.

Have a great day!

No thanks.

If you're faithful to your religion, your mind is closed.

Darwin's theory is incomplete, that doesn't mean it is unscientific. There is a surfeit of evidence in support of 'macroevolution'. There is none to support Christianity if you exclude scripture.

@avalanchethecat said
No thanks.

If you're faithful to your religion, your mind is closed.

Darwin's theory is incomplete, that doesn't mean it is unscientific. There is a surfeit of evidence in support of 'macroevolution'. There is none to support Christianity if you exclude scripture.

On the subject of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which I believe, and the theory of evolution, which I don’t believe, I’d say you’re right, my mind is closed, as I suspect yours is also on both subjects.

The difference is much more evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for macroevolution.

And I looked into the evidence for the theory of evolution before I became a Christian. Did you look into the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

You’re technically not right about evidence for Christianity existing only in Scripture. Jesus Christ and the miracles He performed are mentioned in ancient non-Biblical writings as well.

But why is the Holy Bible not a credible source? You’re aware, I presume, that the Bible is not one book. It’s 66 books written by 40 men on three continents over 1,500 years. Would a book of the Bible suddenly gain credibility if it had been excluded from the Bible?

@pb1022 said
On the subject of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which I believe, and the theory of evolution, which I don’t believe, I’d say you’re right, my mind is closed, as I suspect yours is also on both subjects.


And I looked into the evidence for the theory of evolution before I became a Christian. Did you look into the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

You’re ...[text shortened]... 0 years. Would a book of the Bible suddenly gain credibility if it had been excluded from the Bible?

"The difference is much more evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for macroevolution."

Post some evidence which you didn't get from the bible.

I'm sure you already know why scripture, of any variety, is not a credible historical source. It exists and has been curated and edited for a specific purpose, and that purpose is emphatically NOT to be an accurate record of historical events. To attempt to represent it otherwise is consciously disingenuous, as I'm sure you are aware.

@avalanchethecat said
Well, that's not strictly true. There are some books written by some people who allege that some other people saw the 'resurrrected' Christ.

The process of speciation is observable in the fossil record, which is a lot more credible than the writings of some people whose identities, credentials and motivations are all subject to question and impossible to verify at this remove. 'Champ'.

Exactly.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Exactly.

Exactly wrong.

The Apostle John, who wrote the Gospel of John, and the Apostle Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, both saw and interacted with the Resurrected Christ.

No evidence for macroevolution exists, outside of a few questionable transitional fossils.

<<I'm sure you already know why scripture, of any variety, is not a credible historical source. It exists and has been curated and edited for a specific purpose, and that purpose is emphatically NOT to be an accurate record of historical events. To attempt to represent it otherwise is consciously disingenuous, as I'm sure you are aware.>>

This is absolutely false. I can post links to articles that state why the Holy Bible is trustworthy and why the Gospels are reliable. The articles themselves are far too long to post and I doubt they’d be read if I did post them.

But are you suggesting the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, which predate Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry by centuries, were somehow written after the fact, that is after Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection? Some of those prophecies are extremely specific.

@pb1022 said
<<I'm sure you already know why scripture, of any variety, is not a credible historical source. It exists and has been curated and edited for a specific purpose, and that purpose is emphatically NOT to be an accurate record of historical events. To attempt to represent it otherwise is consciously disingenuous, as I'm sure you are aware.>>

This is absolutely false. I can pos ...[text shortened]... that is after Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection? Some of those prophecies are extremely specific.

You are happy to dismiss the combined efforts of 100 years of paleontological, genetic, biochemical and ecological research by hundreds of thousands of the best minds humanity has produced, but you're convinced by some woolly prophecies that you have been told by some guy in a fancy hat predate some stories of magic and miracles in the same book? Fair enough, I pass.

@avalanchethecat said
You are happy to dismiss the combined efforts of 100 years of paleontological, genetic, biochemical and ecological research by hundreds of thousands of the best minds humanity has produced, but you're convinced by some woolly prophecies that you have been told by some guy in a fancy hat predate some stories of magic and miracles in the same book? Fair enough, I pass.

Now who’s being obnoxious and patronizing? 😂

Nobody had to tell me about the prophecies. I read them myself because I’ve read the Holy Bible (and more than once.)

And the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus Christ fulfilled are just some (a fraction) of the evidence for His Resurrection and that His claim of being the Messiah was true.

But, like I said, I investigated the evidence for the theory of evolution long before I became a Christian. You’ve got a few questionable transitional fossils as evidence for macroevolution and nothing else. And you’ve got a ton of evidence against it.

You seem to think citing scientists who believe the theory of evolution is the same as evidence. It’s not. And most scientists are extremely dogmatic on the theory because it justifies their atheism and is an indispensable part of their worldview.