(04-09-2019 01:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  That's wrong. The leap of faith is believing in something. Burden of proof is for those who make the positive claim. If you cannot prove it but elect to believe anyways, then that's faith.

Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

You are defining the "null hypothesis" your way. Its a leap of faith which you fail to acknowledge. When you say "we don't know how the universe came into being but God didn't do it, " you are making a positive assertion that you can't prove. That's the essential hypocrisy of most atheists. They believe there is some absolute truth that needs no faith, which is false.

Again, most atheists will respond with "I don't know" regarding whether the universe was created by a god or not. I disagree with your assertions of a positive claim, but agree to disagree. BTW, I'm RCC.

Isn't that more of an agnostic?

(04-09-2019 08:59 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This should come as no surprise to anyone. The public education system is an indoctrination into atheism.

We never discussed religion in school. The best indoctrination system against religion for me was growing up going to a southern Baptist church.

(04-09-2019 01:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:41 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 07:35 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  And there you have it, America is on its death bed.

whole planet is on death bed.

pollution, sodomy, and socialism... these are end times.

The world has been like this since the first humans evolved.

r us sure about that? or did things start getting worse....
say around 2008?

The raw stats aren't in the article.

A careful reading implies the dominance of atheists requires subdivision of Christians into Protestant, Catholic, and evangelical.

Without the raw stats you can't be sure, but it looks like if you group those Christians together they will out number the atheists.

(04-09-2019 01:31 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:59 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This should come as no surprise to anyone. The public education system is an indoctrination into atheism.

We never discussed religion in school. The best indoctrination system against religion for me was growing up going to a southern Baptist church.

I’m in the exact same boat. I’m in my 30s and I’ve only recently become interested in Christianity and the Church again.

(04-09-2019 12:19 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:31 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Some of the most "evangelical" people I know are committed Atheists. They preach that **** all the damn time.

Atheism is a religion. It requires a "leap of faith."
Agnostics-they're just the Charlie Browns of faith-wishy, washy.

That's wrong. The leap of faith is believing in something. Burden of proof is for those who make the positive claim. If you cannot prove it but elect to believe anyways, then that's faith.

Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

Regarding the burden of proof for positive claims, this applies to atheists as well, even though they try to deflect from having to provide proof.

The statement that God does not exist is a truth claim just as the statement that God does exist is a truth claim.

Regardless, both ideologies must explain the origin of the universe, life, etc. Of those arguments, theistic arguments are much more persuasive and logically sound.

Theistic arguments are more sound than the Big Bang? Pretty sure that's just an opinion, lol.

And if theism rules, who made God?

"the number of Americans who have no religion has increased 266% over the past three decades and now account for 23.1% of the population, just barely edging out Catholics and Evangelicals"

That does not equate to being an atheist.

(04-09-2019 02:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:19 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  Atheism is a religion. It requires a "leap of faith."
Agnostics-they're just the Charlie Browns of faith-wishy, washy.

That's wrong. The leap of faith is believing in something. Burden of proof is for those who make the positive claim. If you cannot prove it but elect to believe anyways, then that's faith.

Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

Regarding the burden of proof for positive claims, this applies to atheists as well, even though they try to deflect from having to provide proof.

The statement that God does not exist is a truth claim just as the statement that God does exist is a truth claim.

Regardless, both ideologies must explain the origin of the universe, life, etc. Of those arguments, theistic arguments are much more persuasive and logically sound.

Theistic arguments are more sound than the Big Bang? Pretty sure that's just an opinion, lol.

And if theism rules, who made God?

The Big Bang is a event that allowed life right? Therefore, I surmise that is the definition of a creation event. I am a Christian that believes in the Big Bang and many other "scientific stuff". I am rare, I went to college an atheist, and left a believer.

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:31 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Some of the most "evangelical" people I know are committed Atheists. They preach that **** all the damn time.

Atheism is a religion. It requires a "leap of faith."
Agnostics-they're just the Charlie Browns of faith-wishy, washy.

That's wrong. The leap of faith is believing in something. Burden of proof is for those who make the positive claim. If you cannot prove it but elect to believe anyways, then that's faith.

Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

I disagree with the statements I bolded.

The argument for God has nothing to do with the universe being governed by natural laws.

Actually, as I read through your comments again, I have to disagree with even more.

Faith, from a Christian perspective, has nothing to do with lack of evidence. There is ample evidence.

If you use your definition of faith then atheism rests more on belief without evidence.



Is the universe infinitely self-existing?

(04-09-2019 01:28 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 01:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

You are defining the "null hypothesis" your way. Its a leap of faith which you fail to acknowledge. When you say "we don't know how the universe came into being but God didn't do it, " you are making a positive assertion that you can't prove. That's the essential hypocrisy of most atheists. They believe there is some absolute truth that needs no faith, which is false.

Again, most atheists will respond with "I don't know" regarding whether the universe was created by a god or not. I disagree with your assertions of a positive claim, but agree to disagree. BTW, I'm RCC.

Isn't that more of an agnostic?

I don't think the distinction between agnostic and atheist is all that great tbh.

That's not exactly fair.

I would probably fall into that category.

You might say wishy-washy, I'd say having the sense and logic to determine that just because we don't know the answers to "questions" doesn't mean there aren't answers.

I'm open enough to admit I don't know and at this point in our evolution we aren't capable of knowing.
[/quote]

The problem is that you don't "wish to know". All the facts are there but people like you prefer to say that they don't know instead of saying I don't want to believe the facts.

But to each his own, that's your right. I won't argue that.

(04-09-2019 03:08 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  Atheism is a religion. It requires a "leap of faith."
Agnostics-they're just the Charlie Browns of faith-wishy, washy.

That's wrong. The leap of faith is believing in something. Burden of proof is for those who make the positive claim. If you cannot prove it but elect to believe anyways, then that's faith.

Atheists believe there is no God. That requires a "leap of faith" to assume the universe just came into being. Most fail to acknowledge that. As I said, agnostics are different. They are waiting to be convinced either way.

No. It's more along the lines of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be the default position is all aspects of the universe are governed by natural laws. There's not faith there. As you learn more about the universe, you can push certain subjects into being almost certainties and work with reasonable guesses for the rest with repeated experimentation as we. The alternative hypothesis would be that the universe contains a combination of natural laws plus supernatural events. If at the end of the day if you can show that it's logical to assume that a supernatural being created the universe - you still cannot make that assumption that said supernatural being is the God mentioned in the Christian bible. Unless God make himself (herself?) available to directly interact with humanity in clear and obvious ways - there's no way to prove it. Therefore faith.

I think most atheists would simply answer "we don't know" when it comes to the question of how the universe came into being.

I disagree with the statements I bolded.

The argument for God has nothing to do with the universe being governed by natural laws.

Actually, as I read through your comments again, I have to disagree with even more.

Faith, from a Christian perspective, has nothing to do with lack of evidence. There is ample evidence.

If you use your definition of faith then atheism rests more on belief without evidence.



Is the universe infinitely self-existing?

Actually, it would have to. Even if we're talking about a theistic universe where a god took the deistic approach of being a creator only - he/she would have had to intervene at least once on a supernatural level. Even with the assumption that our universe was created by the God of the bible, God has intervened a number of times throughout the history of the universe. Granted to our limited scope of knowledge, these interventions happened on earth; however, he still suspended the laws of the universe to intervene. Virgin birth, pillar of smoke, parting of the sea, great flood, etc.

What ample evidence do you have to prove God - or any god - exists? You really don't have any. Otherwise, faith is meaningless. I've seen various apologetics articles about how you can "justify" faith by reasoning out why it makes sense to believe. However, that's not proof.

(04-09-2019 02:08 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 01:31 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:59 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This should come as no surprise to anyone. The public education system is an indoctrination into atheism.

We never discussed religion in school. The best indoctrination system against religion for me was growing up going to a southern Baptist church.

I’m in the exact same boat. I’m in my 30s and I’ve only recently become interested in Christianity and the Church again.

I gave it another chance last easter at my mothers request. Different church. First time in 13 years. Still wasnt for me. I did get a chuckle at all the husbands that were sleeping during the sermon though. And they had food in the lobby, so it wasnt all bad.

There are very very few atheists. Just about everyone worships something or someone. Those that don't are very special... like Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Henry VIII, Caligula, etc...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Aren't Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestant ALL still Christians?

Am I missing something here or is the premise of 23% being atheist making up the majority wrong because those other groups when taken together as Christians still dominate?

(04-09-2019 08:56 PM)king king Wrote:  Aren't Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestant ALL still Christians?

Am I missing something here or is the premise of 23% being atheist making up the majority wrong because those other groups when taken together as Christians still dominate?

Do not identify with a distinct religious group. Because of the writer of the article called them atheists.

(04-09-2019 09:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:56 PM)king king Wrote:  Aren't Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestant ALL still Christians?

Am I missing something here or is the premise of 23% being atheist making up the majority wrong because those other groups when taken together as Christians still dominate?

Do not identify with a distinct religious group. Because of the writer of the article called them atheists.

That's not what I really was referring to...I was more shining light on the fact that denominations of Christianity are still all Christians. And they make up the majority of the country.

(04-09-2019 02:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Theistic arguments are more sound than the Big Bang? Pretty sure that's just an opinion, lol.

And if theism rules, who made God?

Ummm...just to let you know who was the originator of The Big Bang Theory.... (file under Inconvenient Truth)

Quote:While the Big Bang is as old as the universe itself, our concept of it is still strikingly new — less than 100 years old. And if you dig into its origins, you come across a curious fact.

Atheists, devout Christians, you might want to sit down for this: The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Roman Catholic priest.

It wasn't just any priest. It was Monseigneur George Lemaître, a brilliant Belgian who entered the priesthood following his service as an artillery officer in the Belgian army during World War I. He was also an accomplished astronomer and a talented mathematician and physician. After earning his graduate degree in astronomy from the University of Cambridge in England, he came to Boston and spent a year at the Harvard College Observatory before earning his doctorate at MIT.

In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, Einstein’s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein’s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein’s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion.

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." -Albert Einstein

At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

Apparently, Einstein didn't believe him at first...only later did Einstein admit the Priest was right.

oh yeah, linky: https://www.wgbh.org/news/post/big-bang-...c-creation

(04-09-2019 09:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:56 PM)king king Wrote:  Aren't Catholics, Evangelicals, and Protestant ALL still Christians?

Am I missing something here or is the premise of 23% being atheist making up the majority wrong because those other groups when taken together as Christians still dominate?

Do not identify with a distinct religious group. Because of the writer of the article called them atheists.

That's not what I really was referring to...I was more shining light on the fact that denominations of Christianity are still all Christians. And they make up the majority of the country.

Yes

Tiny creature on tiny blue dot of a planet in giant galaxy in vaster universe full of billions of galaxies says it all just came from nothing? Hard to have much faith in that. The alternative--that something much greater than any tiny human could possibly be able to comprehend had something to do with the creation of the universe seems the far more logical answer, even if one does not profess to know exactly what that something greater than he might be.