Atheism: Is It a Plausible Worldview?

CCGR

CCGR

Member
http://www.reachingforchrist.org/apologetics/atheismpe.html

here's an tidbit

Quotable Quotes

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:1a) The Hebrew word "nabal" translated "fool," means "stupid, wicked." Those are the exact sentiments of Professor Christian B. Anfinsen, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Harvard and a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. He states, "I think only an idiot can be an atheist." (Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p.139) I guess we know what he thinks of Richard Dawkins' intellect, or lack thereof.

Ulrich J. Becker, Professor at MIT and member of the Research Council of Europe in Geneva, Switzerland states, " How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer given." (Ibid, p. 29)

Robert A. Naumann, Professor of Chemistry and Physics at Princeton states, "The existence of the universe requires me to conclude that God exists." (Ibid, p. 72)

Professor Roger Gautheret, former Professor of Cell Biology at the Paris Facility of Science and former President of the Academy of Sciences in Paris concludes, "I believe that notions such as infinite space and time, matter, structure, and order which govern the universe suggest the intervention of a spirit which has established the universe and its laws. Reflection on these subjects cannot avoid the notion of God." (Ibid, p. 176)

Dr. Arno Penzias, winner of the Nobel Prize for physics writes, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan. Thus, the observations of modern science seem to lead to the same conclusions as centuries-old intuition." (Ibid, p. 83)

Lastly, Professor Wolfgang Smith, a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University and Professor of Mathematics at Oregon State University writes, "To me personally nothing is more evident, more certain, than the existence or reality of God. I incline in fact to view that the existence of God constitutes indeed the only absolute certainty, even as he (or it) constitutes, in the final analysis, the only true or absolute Existent… " (Ibid, p. 117)

One could cite many more contemporary scientists, Nobel Prize winners, etc, but I think the point is clear by now. None of these men that were quoted are morons or un-educated by any stretch of the imagination. Some atheists and the like just seek to intimidate whom they are debating and leave it at that. As we have shown however, the arguments from the VERY FOUNDATION of their philosophy are baseless and unfounded.

Now pertaining to this vast and grand universe that we live in, it is commonly cited (and parroted) by skeptics that this universe is billions of light years across and the Milky Way Galaxy alone is 100,000 light years across (and it probably is), therefore, that proves that the universe is billions of years old. This might be better put in a science forum but as the Humanist Manifesto 1933 states:


"In order that RELIGIOUS humanism may be better understood, we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate… RELIGIOUS HUMANISTS regard the universe as self-existing and not created… Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that HE HAS EMERGED AS A RESULT OF A CONTINUOUS PROCESS." (emphasis mine)
However, new developments in cosmology are again demolishing another one of the atheist's "security blankets."
 
One should not neglect to read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel (ex-atheist, journalist). He cites several such sources as these against the impossible odds for random chance. But still, I see in my brother's biology book (I'm in Physics/Chemistry) that they believe in random chance. They don't state the odds, and they neglect to mention that evolution is a theory except for in the introductory paragraph...
But then, why should we be surprised? Britain kept a "transitional form" in their Museum of Natural History for 40 years after it had been disproved by a dentist who had studied the skull's teeth and disproved it as a fake. Oops, right?
Thanks for the link, though.
 
Humanist manifesto <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>1933</span>.

Wow, you found this in a *gasp* apologetics *gasp* web site! Jee, now that must be an objective report!

An appeal to authority is merely a logical fallacy and in no way demonstrates the validity of anything. You have shown nothing here other than the fact that you are skilled at 'mining' for quotes. Many contemporary and esteemed men will also argue the opposite point of view. You are using selective reasoning.

Cosmology is a pseudo science. It is in the form of Socratic logic, in that it follows a sequence without testing the premises for their validity.

I would love to hear about any RECENT cosmological "developments".
biggrin.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:1a)
Click to expand...

That's an ad hominem. I can do the same...
A fool hath said in his heart, there is a god. See? It's rude and doesn't provide support for your argument.

And not only does that article open with an ad hominem, it is made up entirely of logical fallacies and unsupported claims. Personal attacks, appeals to authority, affirmations of the consequent, etc. Surely you don't think that article supports the notion of god?



And a note to Ultima Avatar; the theory of evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It has been continually observed and supported like any other scientific theory. Just think of the "theory of gravity". But if you'd like to discuss this further, perhaps one of the many evolution themed threads would be a better place.
 
It...is NOT observed. All transitional forms proving change from one form to another have been refuted by evolutionists themselves or by others (see Peking Man, see Nebraska Man, see Neanderthal, see australopithecus).
 
I found both "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ" uncompelling. I no longer have access to either and as such can't really debate them...
But as for the quotes that are given the usual argument runs like this:
If the universe requires a creator, why does God not require a creator? If you can say that "God is the first thing ever and has no creator" why can you not say the same about the universe?
 
I was looking and I saw no Eon and no Mustard, and the newbies look like they're being battered about pretty handily, though I hope they don't take offense to that. So I guess I shall step in for the forces of evil. ^^
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kohael &lt;PC&gt; @ Sep. 23 2003,4:47)]I found both "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ" uncompelling.  I no longer have access to either and as such can't really debate them...
But as for the quotes that are given the usual argument runs like this:
If the universe requires a creator, why does God not require a creator?  If you can say that "God is the first thing ever and has no creator" why can you not say the same about the universe?
Click to expand...
I hope to have the answer to that one day.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kohael &lt;PC&gt; @ Sep. 23 2003,5:26)]I was looking and I saw no Eon and no Mustard, and the newbies look like they're being battered about pretty handily, though I hope they don't take offense to that. So I guess I shall step in for the forces of evil. ^^
Click to expand...
who's being "battered about pretty handily"?
 
I aknowlege and agree to some extent with some of your stances, that this all could not have happened by chance. But even if this was all created, why the christian god?

Btw, I'm new to these forums. Is there anywhere in particular I should introduce myself?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Sep. 21 2003,8:19)]see Neanderthal
Click to expand...
My knowledge is a bit spotty in this area.

I was unaware that Neanderthals were dismissed as frauds. As a friendly request, and not a challenge...could you provide a link? (preferably not Dr. Dino, LOL)

I would ask my usual questions, but
Kohael:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If the universe requires a creator, why does God not require a creator? If you can say that "God is the first thing ever and has no creator" why can you not say the same about the universe?
Click to expand...

and

Pez:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]even if this was all created, why the christian god?
Click to expand...

beat me to them.
smile.gif
 
welcome Pez, the general forum is a great place for introductions and casual chat. Brave fellow for diving into the religion arena  
wink.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Pez @ Sep. 25 2003,1:08)]I aknowlege and agree to some extent with some of your stances, that this all could not have happened by chance. But even if this was all created, why the christian god?

Btw, I'm new to these forums. Is there anywhere in particular I should introduce myself?
Click to expand...
Why the Christian God?

well two reasons for me.

1.  The Bible says so (although not in great scientific detail)
2.  Jesus (who walked this earth) takes credit for it and I belive in him

granted many holy books borrow from the Bible but do other religions have a creation story?

Here's a good quote on religious pluralism
_

The popular notion that all religions are true ignores three imperative considerations. In order to think through and respond to the issue of religious pluralism, one must recognize and understand each of these points.

1. While the religions of the world do share some common beliefs and especially moral values, fundamental and irreconcilable differences clearly divide them on many crucially important issues, including the nature of God, the source and focus of revelation, the human predicament, the nature of salvation, and the destiny of mankind.2 A plethora of views exists just concerning the nature of God (or ultimate reality). Some religions affirm monotheism (one God); others, polytheism (many gods); still others affirm pantheism (all is God); and some even affirm atheism (no God).3 In Judaism4 and Islam, God is personal (and singular); in Christianity God is clearly more than personal and singular (superpersonaland triune5); while in strands of Hinduism and Buddhism God is less than personal and singular (apersonal and diffuse).6

Some of the world's religious traditions view God as wholly transcendent (beyond the world), others as wholly immanent (within the world), and still others as both transcendent and immanent. Some religions view God as infinite in nature and nonidentifiable with the world, whereas in other religions God is finite and identified with the world. Clearly no universal agreement exists among the world's religions as to who or what God really is. As scholar Harold A. Netland states, "Careful examination of the basic tenets of the various religious traditions demonstrates that, far from teaching the same thing, the major religions have radically different perspectives on the religious ultimate."7

Identifying mankind's ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma must be resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment) creates other stark contrasts between religions. Fundamental differences exist between the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, and the dominant religion of the East, Hinduism. Christianity affirms that redemption in Christ for the believer involves an eternal personal relationship with God in the afterlife. Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms a cycle of rebirths leading ultimately to the absorption of one's individual consciousness into God or ultimate reality. Those two visions of future reality are simply irreconcilable.8

2. The religions of the world are so diverse in belief and in worldview orientation that they defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme or essence. Indeed, this vast and complex array of religious perspectives makes religious reductionism a dubious venture altogether. Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath notes, "There is a growing consensus that it is seriously misleading to regard the various religious traditions of the world as variations on a single theme."9

Netland draws a similar conclusion about attempts to consolidate the religions according to a single salvific (relating to salvation) objective: "It is highly misleading to speak as if all religions share a common soteriological goal and simply differ on the means to reach it."10

Attempts to reduce a variety of religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting the religions. Homogenizing the religions is a costly price to pay to solve the problems of religious diversity, for in the end the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place. Moreover, the various religions do not easily conform to any particular reductionistic category.

While some rightly identify similar ethical values as a common motif, upon closer inspection it becomes evident that even the similar moral principles are motivated by, and grounded in, fundamentally different views of the nature of reality. Religion cannot be reduced simply to ethics, for religion makes claims about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics), to which ethics appeal for justification. The renowned authority on world religions, Cal Berkeley professor Huston Smith, clearly rejects the notion all religions are basically the same:

For as soon as [the notion of sameness] moves beyond vague generalities––'every religion has some version of the Golden Rule'––it founders on the fact that the religions differ in what they consider essential and nonnegotiable.11

The similar ethical values shared by religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism cannot be separated from the distinctive doctrines promoted by those particular religions. This distinctiveness is especially true in terms of historic Christianity; for Christianity is not primarily a system of ethics. Instead, Christian ethics flow from a redemptive relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore the ethical teachings of Jesus in the New Testament cannot be separated from the unique Christian doctrines that emerge directly from the great redemptive events of Jesus' life (such as the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection). In other words, the truth of Christian ethics is tied to the truth of Christian theology.

3. Formal laws of logic demonstrate the impossibility that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way (the law of noncontradiction: A cannot equal A and non-A). For example, Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam). Contradictory religious claims have opposite truth value, meaning that they negate or deny each other. Therefore exactly one is true and the other false. And, accordingly, Jesus Christ must either be God incarnate or not be God incarnate; no middle position is possible (the law of excluded middle: either A or non-A).

Since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all conceive the identity of Jesus of Nazareth differently, logically speaking, their conceptions simply can't all be true. While it is logically possible that all three positions are false, they definitely cannot all be true. Thus, the claims of popular religious pluralism fail to comport with the self-evident laws of thought. This fact led Christian philosopher Ronald H. Nash to conclude that "any one who would become a pluralist must first abandon the very principles of logic that make all significant thought, action, and communication possible."12

Some people argue that applying logic to religion is false or misleading. They insist that ultimate truth comes only through some type of nonrational intuition. Their argument betrays them, however, because in arguing against logic they must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. To do so is, of course, self-contradictory. As Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks point out, "Even those who claim, 'Logic does not apply to God,' use logic in that very statement."13

To divorce oneself from the self-evident laws of thought when it comes to ultimate reality is to resign oneself to irrationality. Netland explains a price too great for most people to pay because it requires the "forfeiture of the possibility of meaningful affirmation or statement about anything at all––including statements about the religious ultimate. One who rejects the principle of noncontradiction is reduced to utter silence, for he or she has abandoned a necessary condition for any coherent or meaningful position whatsoever."14

http://www.reasons.org/resourc...._to_god
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Pez @ Sep. 25 2003,2:08)]I aknowlege and agree to some extent with some of your stances, that this all could not have happened by chance. But even if this was all created, why the christian god?

Btw, I'm new to these forums. Is there anywhere in particular I should introduce myself?
Click to expand...
Why must everything have been created? Why could it have not have come about by "random" chance? If you think that there's just too many random things that had to occur, I suggest you Google and read up on the Anthropic principle.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Sep. 25 2003,8:57)]granted many holy books borrow from the Bible but do other religions have a creation story?
Click to expand...
CCGR,

You seem like a nice person.
smile.gif
So understand that I ask these to you (and anyone else who desires to answer) as things that I had difficulty with.

If another religion/belief system's writings predate the bible, it could not borrow from the bible.

As an exaple, Jesus said to do unto others as you would have done to you.

Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain. (Mahabharata Anusasana Parva 113.8)

Zoroastrianism:
Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. (Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29)

Buddhism
Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. (Udana-Varga)

Confucianism
Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. (Mencius VII.A.4)

All of which predate Jesus.

So, Why?

Also, most, if not every, religion has a creation story.
(Or were you being sarcastic asking if other religions have a creation story?)
 
Christianity is the ONLY world religion that takes the power of your salvation out of your hands

ALL of the other ones place it on you.
 
No I am seriously curious on how the other religions believe humans/life/universe came to be.

Regarding Christianity granted it is a relatively new religion if you consider it going from Christ's lifetime and beyond...but the roots and beginning dates back to Judiasm. The jewish religions don't acknowledge Christ as their savior they are still waiting, yet we believe he has fufilled all the prophesies.

Virgin Birth OT:Isaiah 7:14 NT: Matt. 1:18,25
Bethlehem OT:Micah 5:2 NT: Matt 2:1
preceded by messenger OT: Isaiah 40:3 NT: Matt 3:1-2
rejected by his own OT: Isaiah 53:3 NT: John 7:5, 7:48
betrayed by friend OT: Isaiah 41:9 NT: John 13:26-30
pierced in his side OT: Zech. 12:10 NT: John 19:34
crucifixion OT: Psalm 22:1,Psalm 22:11-18 NT: Luke 23:33;John 19:23-24
resurrection OT:psalm 16:10 NT:Acts 13:34-37

So what's the big deal withthe prophesies?

How can your average Joe be born of a virgin, know where he will be born, killed and resurrect?
 
timor: It's not polite to say, but since you asked me directly I was referring to umm... you and the other athiests. ^_^;;;;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top