Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
June 15, 2005
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,169
Favourites
0
Comments
87
×

God doesn't believe in atheists

Wed Jun 15, 2005, 4:37 AM
"We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."
- Thomas Edison"

--

Read this in PDF format @ www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2…

God doesn't believe in atheists:
Chapter 1


Someone with dry wit once made me laugh when he mumbled, "Come in, boat number nine. Please come in, boat number nine. Boat number nine, can you hear me? Wait a minute--we don't have a boat number nine! Boat number six - are you in trouble?"

It amazes me that people can have a belief in the existence of God, and yet not think for a minute that something is radically wrong in our world. They can smile while boat number six sits upside-down in the water, slowly sinking. Let's look at an average day on God's fair earth. The day dawns to find that (according to UNICEF), 20,000 children have starved to death during the night. Another 20,000 children and many thousands of adults will die today of severe malnutrition. Nothing new there. Thousands of people will die from snake bites, poisonous spiders, attacks by sharks (an average of twenty-eight per year), scorpion bites, being eaten by lions, tigers, and devoured by other man-eating killers, not to mention blood-sucking mosquitoes and leeches.

Perhaps today we will have a surprise volcanic eruption, or an earthquake to crush families to death beneath the debris of their homes. Cancerous diseases will continue to take their toll and cause thousands to die in agony. Multitudes will perish from fatal ailments that have always plagued mankind, from asthma to typhoid to leprosy to heart disease. Today, human beings will be struck by lightning, drowned in floods, stung to death by killer bees, killed by hurricanes and tornadoes, tormented by blights, pestilence and infestations. They will be afflicted, devastated and brought to ruin.

The fact is, there are only three alternatives to explain all this suffering:
1. There is no God, as evidenced by the chaos.
2. God is totally incompetent and can't control His creation (or won't, which makes Him a tyrant).
3. Another explanation exists, one which the Bible gives for the state of the world.
Let's take a rational, logical look at the first of these three possibilities. It is the basis of a philosophy commonly called "atheism."

Faith Is for Wimps
From my own experience and from listening to many objections to Christianity, I have found that the subject of faith is often offensive to the nonbeliever. My own thinking was that faith was for the weak-minded, for little old ladies, and for those near death. Yet every belief you and I have about history, other countries, science, biology, etc., exists because of faith. You only believe what you believe because you believed the person who told you the information you believe. You don't know who discovered America. You simply have faith that what was told to you is indeed true. Neither do you know if General Custer died at the hands of Indians, or if Napoleon really existed.

We can't live without faith. Try it. Say to yourself, "Today, I refuse to exercise any faith at all." Then before you eat your corn flakes, go through every flake, scientifically testing it before you eat it. Refuse to trust that the manufacturers have obeyed health regulations and mixed the ingredients correctly. Do the same tests on the milk before you pour it on the corn flakes, in faith. You don't know that the milk processors have done their job and given you pure milk. They may have mixed in something that could be harmful to your health. Don't trust the sugar producers either. God only knows what they did while they were processing the sugar. Check the microscope and other tools used for your analysis. How can you really trust that the information you gather from them is reliable? Don't trust your weight to the chair at the breakfast table. Don't believe today's weather report or any news item until you actually go to the proper location and see for yourself if what they would have you believe is true. Even then you will have to trust your natural senses (which can't always be trusted).

Before you drink your coffee, don't trust that the cup is perfectly clean. Wash it out yourself. Don't use untested water, in faith. We really don't know what's in it nowadays. It may be contaminated. Analyze the coffee. If you decide to take a taxi to work, you will have to trust your life to the vehicle and the taxi driver, and trust the other drivers to stay on their side of the road. You will have to trust elevators, stairways, airplanes, the post office, and banks. Believe me -- we either live with faith or fall victim to paranoia.

If, then, faith so evidently surrounds us, why should it be so offensive? It is simply because faith is as essential to the spiritual realm as oxygen is to the natural realm. The professing atheist thinks that if he can get rid of any thought of faith, he can get rid of Christianity. In trying to do so, he saws through the branch he is sitting on. His own faith in the erroneous information he has, makes him think he is atheistic in his beliefs.

Trump Card
I have found from experience that the popular atheist's question, "Who made God?" doesn't deserve to have a question mark. It is usually presented as a statement. The questioner is persuaded that such a question cannot be answered. A twinkle is usually seen in his eye as he tosses what he thinks is his trump card onto the table. He gambles his very soul on the belief that there is no higher card--that it cannot be answered.

Actually, the explanation is very simple. Does space have an end? If it does--if there is a brick wall at the end of space that reads "The End," I want to know what's behind the brick wall. By faith you and I are forced to believe that no matter in which direction we set off, space will never end. It just goes on and on and on--forever. It has no beginning or end. It hurts the brain to think about such a state, but we have no choice but to accept that fact by faith.

God also has no beginning and no end. But with God, we have a little more information than we have with space. Time is a dimension that God has created and it is to this dimension that mankind is subjected. We have to wait for time to pass. We can't jump ahead even one second in time. We are enslaved in its power. It is because we are in time that reason demands a beginning and an end. It hurts the brain to think of any other dimension.

God is not subject to the dimension of time. He dwells in eternity. The Bible tells us that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to us (see Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8). You can prove this for yourself by studying the prophecies of the Bible mentioned in a later chapter. God can flick through time as you and I flick through the pages of a history book. If you find this hard to believe, even when confronted with the evidence of biblical prophecies, you will find it to be true one day. The Scriptures tell us that God will eventually withdraw time, and we will then dwell in eternity.

The Christian is told that he understands "by faith." This happens if I have major surgery. I trust a surgeon, even though I have no real understanding of how he is going to operate. I have to trust him or there will be no operation. I understand that he has the ability to make me well, so I have faith in him.

In the same manner, I trust God. Many have died at the hands of surgeons, but no one perishes in the hands of God. God's ability is boundless and His promises are "both sure and steadfast, an anchor of the soul" (Hebrews 6:19). Doctors and pilots will fail you, friends you trust will disappoint you, elevators will let you down, but the promises of Almighty God are utterly trustworthy. This may be hard for you to appreciate at this time, but I want to encourage you to have an open mind as we look closely at the subject of atheism.

The Atheist Test
I don't believe in atheists. This isn't because I haven't met people who claim the title, but because such a person cannot be. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? I think I can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic"--one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

-Taken from the book "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" written by Ray Comfort, for further reading buy the book @ www.livingwaters.com/

  • Mood: Mad
Add a Comment:
 
:iconconflicts:
conflicts Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2012
I'm an atheist and I exist. Also, gay sex.

HAVE A NICE DAY! :D
deviantART muro drawing Comment Drawing
Reply
:icondreamstalk:
dreamstalk Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2011
Sorry, one more thing: since 10 out of 10 of us WILL die and since only one side can be right (there either is a God or there isn't) observable proof IS on its way.

If I am right then Jesus saved me from my own sinful nature and there are millions, if not billions, who will be sent to destruction in a lake of fire for every lieing, hating, lustful, idoling, coveting, blasphemous, dishonorable word or thought they have ever had and never repented for -- ground up unto ash in an unquenchable holy fire.

If I am wrong then at the very least I have lived a better life due to the philosophy of the many authors of the gospels.
Reply
:icondreamstalk:
dreamstalk Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2011
Great article, good posting. I've read and listened to a lot of Ray Comforts works.

As the Bible says it's foolishness to those who are perishing and from reading all the comments that is very true.

I would be interested to direct some of the commenters to places in the Bible that describe scientific things (e.g. Earth being a sphere and not flat) almost two thousand years before that was ever proven scientifically. Or how the Bible describes there as being more stars than any man could ever count and at the time their science believed there was only 1,100 stars.

What Ray Comfort is saying here is that our knowledge is so limited for any man to claim he has proven there is no God is ridiculous. Furthermore, if you go on to read more of Ray Comfort's books you'll see how he shows that it takes more "faith" to believe that nothing created everything (where did the first matter come from?) than it does to accept something created everything.

People have made themselves into their own God's so they can be free from moral obligation and that is the source of their resistance towards intelligent design.
Reply
:iconxheartonfire43x:
xheartonfire43x Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2007
I love how in a philosophical debate bringing this exerpt up brings on a lot of confusion then someone claiming to now be an agnostic.
Reply
:iconcoelophysis:
Coelophysis Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2006   Writer
Hmmm . . .

You've proved that since absolute knowledge of everything is impossible, one can't really call one's self an atheist. But by this reasoning, wouldn't it also follow that one can't call one's self a christian either?

And why must so many christians be under the false impression that evolution somehow obviates God and our concept of original sin, regardless of whether or not they accept it on intellectual grounds? I.D. is not science; it never has been and it never will be. Those who insist that it as are building a house on sand, and that does faith little good. In fact, no credible scientist takes the anti-evolution arguments seriously, and it isn't because they're all militant atheists with a dogmatic adherence to scientific law. You don't believe me? Then try reading "Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth R. Miller, and "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins. Theistic Evolution, anyone?

I'm a christain too, I hope you realize. But I think some of these arguments need to be re-evaluated.
Reply
:iconcwooten5:
cwooten5 Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2011
2 Peter 3:3 bro. Tells all about them. It's not the intellect blocking
belief, it's the self-seeking human will and pride.
Reply
:iconbleysofamber:
BleysOfAmber Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2005
"The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic"--one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus.""

Complete B.S.
Agnostic is derived from
"A": against, or not
and "gnostic" a particularly zealous sect of christianity.

Thus, if you want to go by actual derivation, "Agnostic" means "one who disagrees with the Gnostics," or, "A person who is not a religious zelot."

I can't believe that this guy published that in a book.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2005
Gnostism is as much a sect as Christianity as Mormanism, or The Church of Latter Day Saints is. when i say that i mean that they don't believe in Biblical Christianity, they pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible and then they add in their own Scriptures. they all deny the diety of Christ in their "other writings" which all have no volitity to them:
Gnostic got the Gnostic Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, ect...)
Mormans of the Book of Morman
The Church of Latter Day Saints has the books pressed by the Watchtower Fellowship and they retranslated the Bible to make it work for them.
All in all they are man made thus we can say they are not the same as Biblical Christianity.
Not sure where you heard the definition of "gnostic" but it is not "a particularly zealous sect of christianity"
The word “gnostic” derives from the Greek word gnostikon, one who has secret or esoteric knowledge; from the Greek root gnosis, knowledge. Stemming from the same Indo-European root as the English word “know,” gnosis forms the basis of words like “agnostic” (one who lacks knowledge), “diagnosis” (knowledge obtained by observation), etc.

Greek aside check out the definition according to Webster's:

Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.

Things like this are little disputes that don't matter much, they important thing to ask yourself is what you believe,...and why do you believe it. Do you believe there is a God? Why?
Reply
:icondemann6654:
DeMann6654 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2005  Professional Writer
It's spelled "Mormon" =D

Also, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the current and official tag attached to the religion founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the former part of the 19th century. Members of this religion are commonly referred to as "Mormons;" but don't call them "members of the Mormon Church." They hate that! Their scriptural additions include the Joseph Smith Translation/Insipred Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrines & Covenants. An article about the LDS church, which included an interview with LDS President Prophet and Revelator Gordon B. Hinkley, was recently featured in "Time" magazine. It was absolute and utter propoganda on Hinkley's part. He can be quoted as saying that Mormons are Christian because "His name is in the title of our organization." *Golf clap.*

The Watchtower Organization/Watchtower Fellowship is the official head of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult, which was started by Charles Taze Russel in 1872. You will know these people when they knock on your door at nine in the morning, carrying copies of their "Awake!" and "Watchtower" magazines, in addition to their New World Translation of the Bible (which as you noted is horribly altered.) These people believe, as Russel drilled into his converts, that the true revelation of the scripture can come only from the Watchtower Organization. They also don't salute the flag, sing the national anthem, vote, or celebrate certain holidays.



I figure you mistakingly mixed-and-matched your Christian-wannabe religions, so I felt obliged to note and cite the distinctions. Hope you don't mind.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2005
ah yes i always get the two intermingled. thanks for that, i am sure by that point i had already replied to liek 5 or 6 other arguments and my brain was starting to grow weak and tired. thanks again.

Godspeed
Reply
:iconbleysofamber:
BleysOfAmber Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2005
It doesn't really matter to me how you define "true" christianity. Fine, The gnostics weren't true christians, then.
You are right about the word gnostic actually, and the word does have roots with the term "knowledge."
I wasn't saying that my derivitive definitions were the actual definitions of agnosticism - your dictionary definition is quite accurate. I was merely pointing out that it is quite a stretch to say that 'agnostic' and 'ignoramus' are the same.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2005
he's not merely comparing the two if you re-read it you will find that the author is saying the Latin word for "agnostic" is "ignoramus" which is where we get our word ignorant from, so one could not say it is a stretch because it just is truth.

so the question that really matters here is do you believe in God? when you think about it think about things that you have been wrong in in the past, for example just with the definition of agnostic and what you thought it meant (i don not say that to put you down i use it just as an example to prove a point). point is we all have preconceived ideas about issues and most of the time we don't look into the facts, we as humans are very prideful and think we know everything, but God bids us to humble ourselves before Him,

one example of this is when i ask people why they believe God will let them into Heaven, most say it is because i am a good person. those people don't matter right now though, what i would like to ask you is if this God of the Bible truly existed and you died today do you think you would go to heaven or hell? and why?

also thanks for taking the time to conversate, i always enjoy a good discussion.

Love never fails,

jason
Reply
:iconsystemofastef:
systemofastef Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2005  Professional Interface Designer
Amen to all of that! Even though we Christians are not all knowing we still choose to have faith because it is not only the most logical choice, but it is the only truth.

"I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement."

Brilliant. *goes out to buy the book*
Reply
:iconfajra:
Fajra Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2005  Student Writer
I have to disagree. I am an athiest. I was raised in an extreamly religious home and do actually know a lot of religious dogma (for the luthren church, at least). And I don't think the way you (or whoever wrote the book) says that I supposedly believe. I do not, and have never looked down on believers. I think that faith is a powerful thing and if faith is an integral part of your life, more power to you. Religion is a great thing. It helps and saves so many people. However, I don't believe that any one thing is good for everyone. Sure, milk may do a body good, but you can't force everyone on the planet to drink it. What about those who are lactose intolerant? What about those who just don't like it? There are other ways to get calcium. I hope my analogy makes sense.

You said "If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence? "

I would like to point out that being an atheist is not a supreme declaration for everyone. Just like there are different types of Christians, there are differenet types of atheists. (and I'm not just talking about the difference between atheists and agnostics). I do not for one second insist that I know everything there is to know. To use your own words; If you insist upon belief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is a God." I believe that there is no god. I don't know for sure, but I have faith, if you will, that there is no one out there watching over me or who created me. Just as you have been convinced by one means or another that God does indeed exist, I have been convinced that he does not. But I don't assume to know all there is to know in life. The Webster's New World Dictionary, (c) 2003, 4th edition published by Pocket Books defines atheism as: "the belief that there is no god". So it's less of a smug superiority know-it-all complex and almost a religion, using the same dictionary's 2nd definition as being "a specific system of belief". And any religion requires faith. I don't actually think I've meet any atheists who truely believe that they know everything.

I would also like to point out that you are compleatly correct in your observation that it is impossible to live life without faith of some kind. In sociology, students are taught that society itself is only held together by a faith in the system, otherwise society would fall into chaos.

Perhaps in the future, when trying to prove your point by disproving anothers, you ought not assume so much about that group.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2005
in my oppinion, science is just a one-level basis on things that we can see around us [and the effects of non-visible things like gravity and the wind also] - we can test them to our hearts contents - but because of our limited minds and knowlege, we obviously don't know everything that is out there. Isn't the whole point with broadening our minds, is about wanting more than to 'stick to what we know [ie. the realms of science]'? or is it too uncomfortable thinking of anything more than that? It's just a thought, I guess :)
of course, there's still the difference between the realm of science and sci-fi/fantasy, but people would've thought mobile phones were 'sci-fi' in the 1800s until someone made them. In light of that, where would one end, and the other one start? if you can believe that, when why not a Creator of the Universe? If someone told you that some amazingly advanced race came to Earth and populated it, would you believe that more than someone who made the Universe?

anyway, here's a question to consider:

Imagine there was a person called Kevin Vrushabokle. You have never heard of him but he's really eager to meet with you, and he's SUCH a great guy that you'll want to be with him forever! Now, I've merely passed on the information to you that he's a truly fantastic guy. It would be up to you if you wanted to go and meet him, and see for yourself if his personality is for real.
Of course that is on the precept of someone whom you can touch and see, but that's not the point I'm getting at.
The moral of the story, is there's someone out there who loves you more than the Universe, and if won't experience Him, you will never know He exists - no matter how much scientific knowlege anyone has. i.e. if you don't try it, you won't find out, right? :)

so, maybe you just haven't met Him yet?
Reply
:iconfajra:
Fajra Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2005  Student Writer
"Isn't the whole point with broadening our minds, is about wanting more than to 'stick to what we know [ie. the realms of science]'? or is it too uncomfortable thinking of anything more than that? It's just a thought, I guess "

I think you missed my point. I'm all for broadening my mind. I compleatly agree with "pushing the envelope" and "thinking outside the box". I am compleatly open to other suggestions or ideas about life. I love science. However, now we're moving away from the realm of atheists-as-a-whole and into the realm of me-as-a-person. Part of the reason I don't believe in a god is that I've looked at a lot of different ideas out there; i.e. Buddism, Hinduism, Science, Logic, Ba'hai, Judism, Christianity, the Tao, and things like that. And through "the broadening of my mind" have come to some decisions. Decisions that are highly personal, I might add. These are the beliefs that I hold. I have never advocated "sticking to what we know" and I don't think that you know me to assume that about me. Let me ask you a question in return. Is it too uncomfortable for you to reevaluate all that you've been taught and believe? Are you just sticking to what you know?


"so, maybe you just haven't met Him yet?"

I was raised in a very religious home. I went to church every Sunday until the age of 16. Every Sunday. I know about "Him", have heard about him, ect. There was once a time when I never for a moment doubted that there was a god. But things change. There was no defining moment in which I lost my faith or one catastrophe that made it go away. It just happened. Religion isn't for me.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2005
"Is it too uncomfortable for you to reevaluate all that you've been taught and believe? Are you just sticking to what you know?"

I have found/seen too much undenyable evidence that there is a living, breathing, loving God at work on this Earth for me. I've learned so much of His love, and known that He is always there for me withOUT needing [more] assurance of that.

just going to church doesn't make you a Christian, and just knowing "about/hearing of Him" doesn't either - remember, Satan knows God, but that doesn't mean he's any better off - it's about having a relationship with God, through the sanctifying power of His blood and His Spirit.

I completely agree, religion isn't for me either! I hate anything to do with 'religion', which is why Christianity is about living the life, and not making it a burdonsome 'religion'.
Reply
:iconfajra:
Fajra Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2005  Student Writer
Christianity is a religion. The Webster's New Dictionary define's religion as: "1. A belief in and worship of God or gods. 2. A specific system of belief, worship, ect. often involving a code of ethics." If you want to refute either of those definitions, go for it. But I still maintain that as a Christian, being raised as one, You probably follow both definitions of religion. And I know that just going to church or hearing about him doesn't make you a christian. As I pointed out in the first post, I'm atheist. Which is not Christian. I don't believe in Satan either. I'm sorry, but I don't need to be converted. I know you think I do. My main reason for replying to *llatrejull's journal was to offer another point of view.
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2005
who do YOU think are the best people to tell you what Christianity is, hmm? Christians themselves! :)

anyway, please take a moment to have a read through this site: [link]
Reply
:iconservantofjesus:
ServantofJesus Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2005
no, wait. Here's a BETTER site showing the differences- please read this one [link] instead, sorry
Reply
:iconfajra:
Fajra Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2005  Student Writer
I read it. I still think Christianity is a religion. I actually don't agree with that site. Dictionary and Encyclopedia's differ with you on what a religion is. It's okay to be a religion. There's nothing wrong with relgion. I don't see why you want to reject that term so badly. It's okay terminology.
Reply
:icona-moonless-night:
A-Moonless-Night Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2005
Hmm, I disagree a lot with this. Being an atheist myself, I do not believe there is a god that exists. Science has proven this so, although I do not trust science wholly. First off, you say that us atheists (or 'agnostics') should say "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no god". Does this mean that Christians should say "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is a god"?
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2005
the basic premiss of this little chapter out of this book is asking how someone who has at the most 1% of all the knowledge in the world can make the absolute statement "There is no God". this does not work if a Christian says "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is a god". being a Christian myself i will say that God revealed Himself to me through the Bible. i actually set out to prove God wrong by taking the Bible and looking for false prophecies or contradictions, but after studying out hundreds of fullfilled prophecies, archeology, science, i fould a staggering amount of evidence that this God of the Bible was indeed who He said He was and when I die I would have to give an account of my life to Him. i further found out that because i had sinned (lied, cheat, steal, committed adultry in my heart, just to name a few) i would have to pay the price. and the God says that:

"the wages of sin is death..."" - Romans 6:23

i would obviously be guilty before God for i had broken His law, but i continued to read and found out what God had done for me. He sent His only Son into this world, Jesus Christ, who was prophecied over a thousand years before He came. He proved Himself to be the Son of God by fulfilling the prophecies regarding the Messiah in detail, over one hundred specific prophecies. He died in my place, He knew no sin but became sin for me so that I might have eternal life, all it took on my part was to repent of my sins, turn from my wicked ways, and trust Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

when i look back at that moment which was about 4 years ago i see how God has changed my life, further proof of His saving work and grace which He freely bestows on all who believe. it takes faith, and i don't know how you can say that science proves there isn't a God, cause science can't do that, neither can it prove there is a God, but there are many scientific things talked about in the Bible that secular scientist did not figure out till centuries later (like the earth being round, the water cycle, air systems, ect....)

there is overwhelming evidence, but do not take my word for it, study out the Bible for yourself and see if it is true, you will find that there is so much evidence that it demands a verdict. that verdict for me and for millions of Christians for thousands of years has been Jesus Christ is the only way the only truth and the only life.

Love never fails,

jason
Reply
:icona-moonless-night:
A-Moonless-Night Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2005
Thanks for that ... I have tried reading the Bible before but it's not something that really grips me ... And when one says they are 'Atheist', it is completely different to being 'Agnostic', isn't it?
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2005
from what i understand and have heard from atheists is that there is no god, period! but as i pointed out and as this article points out they are really agnostic in that they have no way of knowing. and an agnostic is alot more open to the thought and possible is even willing to find out.

i believe it is important to find out because if the Bible is true and if the things Jesus said are true then what we believe effects our eternal destination. heaven or hell, so it is obviously the most important decision we come to in life and have no doubt that it is worth researching.

do you have a Bible in your house? i would suggest starting to read the Gospel of John (usually just titled John). and if you can find a translation that is in mor modern english like the NIV translation, also the New King James Version is very good as well. God puts it this way:

"And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart"
- Jeremiah 29:13

Godspeed...
Reply
:icona-moonless-night:
A-Moonless-Night Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2005
Hmm, my whole family is atheist, so there is no bible in my house ... but my cousin might have one that she got on camp ...
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2005
i would suggest getting one at a used bookstore, can get them from $1-$5 used, otherwise they are to expensive from me, at new bookstores i see them from $10-$60.

Godspeed
Reply
:icona-moonless-night:
A-Moonless-Night Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2005
Ok, maybe I will find it sometime ...
Reply
:iconj62102:
J62102 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2005
I have to thank you for posting this. While I'm not partial to either side of the argument at the moment (I know it may seem odd.), I found this a very interesting read and will likely check out the book for some reading in spare time.

Cheers.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2005
it is a very well written book. for more reading from the auther you should check out his site @ livingwaters.com i would suggest listening to the mp3 called "hell's best kept secret"

love never fails,

jason
Reply
:iconfire-dragana:
Fire-Dragana Featured By Owner Aug 17, 2005
gotta love this =D
Reply
:iconnyuji-tora:
nyuji-tora Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2005
Excellent points made here. I know you're not the original author, but this entry and others like it make me pine for a dA function allowing you to favorite journals. ^^; D'you mind if I put a link to this journal somewhere on my page or something, so I can send others this way?

:heart:
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2005
please do the more that hear the Truth the better.

love never fails,
Reply
:iconnyuji-tora:
nyuji-tora Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2005
Awesome, thanks. ^_^
Reply
:iconcuriousdelusion:
CuriousDelusion Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2005
still in the mood for a good conversation? I have to go to work now, but will bug you when I come back.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Jul 14, 2005
bug on :) no really i would enjoy a intellegent open minded conversation, please feel free to talk about what ever.

Godspeed
Reply
:iconkpang:
kpang Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2005   Photographer
i really appreciate you sharing this with this entire web site of people...i usually don't take the time to read such a long entry, but anything that deals with God, I'm in on it :) I'm definitely going to check out the book too.

God Bless.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2005
thank you for taking time and reading it. i was hoping it would have two purposes. one to challenge the atheist and get in a good conversation with them, and 2 to let Christians know we don't have to fear them or stay away from them, for our faith is founded on Christ the rock of our salvation, a foundation which never moves for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Godspeed
Reply
:iconkpang:
kpang Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2005   Photographer
well it's definitely good to be bold...because boldness comes from being sure of who you believe in...and it's a witness to those around you...so i commend you for that :)
God Bless.
Reply
:iconllatrejull:
llatrejull Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2005
we are the light of the world
Reply
:iconnyctopterus:
nyctopterus Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2005
I have some problems with the main arguments in this. Firstly, the argument that everyone exercises faith in everyday things is misleading. Religious faith is unquestioning belief in god, whereas the "faith" that my milk is going to poison me is merely and expectation that arises from previous experience. It is more a matter of suspending judgement than believing.

The trump card is a silly argument you get from atheists, but the reply here is awkward, especially with it's reference to space being infinite, which it may very well not be. As I understand it, the current thinking is that space-time "curves-out", so that the universe curves in on itself and is in fact finite. This leaves us without any tangible example of infinity. Of course this doesn't show that God can't be infinite, it just makes the space allusion weak.

The last argument is very weak, and full of philosophical confusion. Okay, so there are a lot of particular things we don't know, but we are doing pretty well on the universal things, which are present everywhere in the universe. I'm talking about the laws of physics here, as well as the understanding of processes such as evolution.

The example of "there is no gold in china" falls flat, because it is not at all the same thing as saying "there is no god". God is supposedly infinite and omnipresent. There won't be a god hidden away in the unknown parts of the universe, because that would not be god (as I understand it). So making claims about god's existence or lack thereof is more like making claims about the fundamental laws of the universe. Just like wherever there is mass there is gravity, wherever there is anything, there is god.

Now, since a lot of us can't feel god, or devise any tests which can prove or disprove god's existence, we are no more unjustified in saying "there is no god" than we are saying "there is no such thing as the law of shoganide resistance" (which is an untestable universal law I just made up.

I think there are way to many bullshit arguments on both sides here. Logic won't prove or disprove god. In fact, nothing will.

By the way, I'd recommend "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper, it's a fascinating read which turns most people's notions about rational beliefs upside-down and inside out. Lot's of ammunition against the stupider atheistic arguments, and I think a clarification of the way Christians should see their faith in regards to science.
Reply
:iconcflare:
cflare Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2005   Digital Artist
Cool... now prove that matter exists.
As small as a atom is, they are made of particles, as small as those are particles are made of vibrations, as small as those are, vibrations don't have mass. Hence, matter itself may very well be illusionary. Thusly the idea of matter has not been proven. There are even recent doubts against the law of conservation.

Our entire universe is held together by moving vibrations, our entire existance is founded upon that. So how can you prove a vibration exists, if matter moves, but this is smaller than atoms. There is no evidence that the vibrations exist, only evidence that there are the effects of a vibration.

Science is only a method of predicting effects, and used to reproduce events. Half of the theories that are grounded by science haven't been proven yet. Matter of fact, no one intends to. The going debate against christianity is to keep it a debate. As long as it is a debate they can hold their ground. Science has its uses, but only if grounded by faith, that faith that we actually exist. Which, by the way, hasn't been proven yet.

And, in any case, you have one of two choices to consider. Either believe that God has always existed, or believe that matter has always existed. The fundamental conclusion of the inductive reasoning behind the, as of yet only valid, argument that we exist.



That matter itself has not been proven. Kudos to my Ethics instructor for that argument.
Reply
:iconnyctopterus:
nyctopterus Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2005
Um, I don't think you understood my argument. Science isn't about proving things - that's the whole point. It is a complex web of assumptions which have proven themselves not only a powerful predictor of physical phenomenon, but also a fairly cohesive philosophical system for understanding the world. It does things no belief in God has ever done.

And in what meaningful way could we say that matter does not exist? It has to exist in some form. And believe me, I'm not being a pig-headed physicalist about this, but matter is something - even if it's just an idea.

But the real point here is that Cristianity is, for me, just one a of a billion ideas out there which cannot be tested in any way. So given that I chose not to be christian because I find it philosophically problematic, not particularly interesting morally or even aesthetically, and in a personal way - I feel like it would be bowing out of the intellectual and moral struggle that is life.
Reply
:iconcflare:
cflare Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2005   Digital Artist
Oh wow...
Don't take any offense to this.
Excuse me for a second while I gather my thoughts on this one. It has that force to it that you would only understand if you personally knew Christ. This is exactly the argument that adds to my compassion for the lost.
Matthew 11
25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
1 Corinthians 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It does things no belief in God has ever done.
Actually, the search for scientific truth began in the faith. Out of that came the scientific method. Science owes itself to Christianity.Science began as a way to search to better understand the world we live in and to make life better for people, this was started in the church.
Secondly, the reverse can be said for God. He can do things science could never do. He has cured people before they went back to the hospital for surgery. Why do you think some judges rely on churches to keep young people from jail. Do you know how many convicted criminals have come to churches instead of jail. I personally know three--I mean personally know them and are close friends with them. I personally have met more than a handful, and I have never been a member of a church with more than 200 members.
Why would a proposedly church/state separated government allow this tradeoff between jailtime and church attendance?
Which, by the way, has created a logical paradigm, because it is not enforced by it's true design and not viewed as intended, but that is another debate.

Science, once it became a seperate institution from the Christian faith, originally intended to be a search for truth. They have failed at that, but still pursue it to this day. They refuse to return the original foundation, and thusly will never find truth. Under the Christain faith, it was never a search for truth, because they already had that.

The realistic applications of science are reason to not throw it out, but apart from the christain faith it is lacking. You see, everything that was founded in the christain faith that left the faith has a weak foundation: America's government, the institution of science, the institution of logic/reasoning. Why is their foundation weak? It is because they have had to replace the firm foundation of the Rock that is the Christ, with a substandard foundation that purposefully attempts to seperate God and logic. It is like the foolish man who builds his house on the sand. As the storm comes, it is washed away, because it's foundation is lacking. Home is where the heart is.

Many people have their heart in a system of logic/reason that is seperate from the original foundation of Christ. Their foundation is as weak as sand, and eventually when disaster strikes they have nothing to turn to. Can you turn to science when you are standing on a rooftop in the middle of New Orleans? Will science save your heart then? Will science truly answer "Why?"

Just one a of a billion ideas out there which cannot be tested in any way.

You're right in one aspact, that you yourself cannot test it in any way. Why is this. Well according to the scientific method, it involves experimentation, which would mean personal involvement. This would mean risk on your part, because you would have to affirm the value yourself and ACTUALLY believe in it to truly set up a valid experiment. Of course, you will not accept these conditions because you have reasoned with yourself before you ever read this that their is no reason to. Which is of course against the core of the science that has distabilized itself, to find the truth. Which is why a branch of science was created, called philosphy, which is attempting the same thing that science itself failed at.

So now you face a moral dilemna. To test Christanity by the scientific method, you would have to let go of your reasoning against it. So you have to rationalize with yourself that this is a good enough reason to not test it. Then you have rationalize with yourself that it cannot be tested. Finally you have to rationalize with yourself that this is not a moral dilemna at all. Of course you're not going to believe this, because you have already decided to before reading this as a part of your rationalization.

But of course I don't face this moral dilemna. Because my argument cannot be communicated effectively due to the fact that is includes experiences that the lost cannot identify with, does not invalidate my argument. I myself have been set apart from the evil strongholds of this world, and my faith is as firm as the foundation that I set it upon, the Christ who affirmed my faith and continually renews it. The Christ that has given me the same ability to reason as he gave you. The Christ who has set apart for himself my power of reasoning, which he bestowed upon me, to bring him glory. That he can use that which the world beleives is foolishness to confound the wise. It is all for his glory that I can even place Faith above Science, and to use one to add unto the other the way Science was originally intended.

After reading this, you can see why I have experiences that I cannot communicate to the lost, because they view it as foolishness. As I said earlier, this does not invalidate my argument, but affirms it to all who know the living Word. This affirms my argument to all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

But I do this all for you, that you might see the Truth. That it is hidden from those who would call themselves great and worthy, and revealed to all that humble themselves to see that the truth as lowly and filthy rags they had become could have Christ's righteousness traded for their own, so that they could be first in God's eyes. To be first, you have to be last. To be great, you have to be a servent. My service to you is that you might find some validity in my argumentation and see that the world has lied to you by saying Faith has no right in Science.

not particularly interesting morally or even aesthetic
Is that your reasoning? Is this your defense?

Praise God that the truth is hidden from the wise, so that it cannot be "found" by them, but must be revealed to them through the grace of God. That they might not say they found it by their logic or their reasoning, and thusly have their pleas ignore by a God that "rejects the proud."
Because, if it could be found by them, they would never be humbled enough to accept it.
1 Corinthians 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
Reply
:iconcflare:
cflare Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2005   Digital Artist
Firstly, science is a branch of philosophy
I'm sorry, I wasn't quite sure of the order, but the idea remains that it started with church that wanted to better understand the world they lived in. At that time they weren't trying to dispute the validity of faith, because they believed it. However, as it became more seperated from the faith, they began to search for an answer to why we are here. The foundation of science was in faith, and because of that, they cannot find a lasting replacement for creationism.
And more scientists are giving up on the theory of evolution, because there's no way to prove it. They may find evidence that can be placed inside the idea, but you aren't supposed to fit evidence to a theory. You are supposed to fit a theory to the evidence.
And according to the scientific method, you are supposed to revise the hypothesis as you find new evidence. There's been evidence against evolution, but they refuse to revise their hypothesis.
IE, the layers of the earth are supposed to recreate a timeline of the life on earth, however many of the species that they believe led to others have been found on top often enough to dispute their understanding of the history of the species. However they refused for so long to question the original hypothesis, because they thought they had the trump card to argue creationism.

My argument isn't against the validity of science, or anything close. My argument is that there is obviously a secular campaign against, christian faith in particular, faith. A lot of the scientific community form their theories to undermine the validity of the Christian faith, and attempt to seperate faith from logic. They force people to choose one or the other, and I think this is very dangerous, and very unfair.

If it is true that they are attempting this, then they are replacing a historical foundation of faith, with a foundation of the distruction of faith. This is a weak foundation.

This makes science a faith, if it is attempting to replace faith.

I want you to be aware that there have been many attempts at dismantling faith in the name of science.

Why do I have to choose? For me, one just adds to the other. For example, the fact that the earth is round is stated in the bible. Science tells me the same thing. Now I have two reasons to beleive it.

My faith takes priority, but if science agrees with my faith, which is not needed, then there is something to science.
Reply
:iconnyctopterus:
nyctopterus Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2005
Maybe you should try to listen to what non-militant athiests like myself have to say more carefully, and you might have more success communicating with them. I am not closed-minded, nor do I claim science is the be-all and end-all. In fact, I know that it has a rather narrow scope in life. It is not my spirituallity, and in no way an "alternative" to Christianity or any other faith.

When I said that I don't find Chistianity particularly interesting morally or even aesthetically, I didn't mean it as a reasoned argument or defence, I meant it as an honest expression of my feelings on the matter, in order to try to give you some sort of idea of my perspective. And really, I don't see why I need a "defence" in the first place.

As for science/faith/philosophy, you have got things in a bit of a confused state. Firstly, science is a branch of philosophy, not the other way round - in fact physics was orgiginally called "natural philosophy". And second, yes, the church did play a role in the early development of science, but that doesn't have much bearing on the rational justification of science now. The history of an idea doesn't effect it's validity.

Finally, the "institution of science, the institution of logic/reasoning" have weak foundations? Interesting, I thought that science and logic were doing rather well. Sorry for the sarcasm here, but you have rather obviously defined a "weak foundation" as something no longer founded on Christian faith, making it impossible to argue with.

We live in very different worlds, and I'm afraid that we are speaking a different language.
Reply
:iconpatgoltz:
PatGoltz Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2005
OK, I'll take you on. ;)

First of all, religious faith is NOT unquestioning belief in God. In fact, one person asked Jesus, Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief. Jesus commended him. We are entitled to question, and to express doubts. The Bereans were commended by Paul for being skeptical enough to check out what he claimed against the Bible. We are given brains because God expects us to use them. Personally, I don't have to make a huge leap of faith because I can verify, through empirical evidence, most of the claims of the Bible.

I agree with you about whether or not the universe is infinite. Since it is not infinite in time, it is also unlikely to be infinite in space.

I disagree that we are doing pretty well on the universal things, and given the fact that the basic ideas of science have a way of changing drastically every few decades, and science itself promotes skepticism and lack of final answers (just look at the scientific methid: you propose a hypothesis, and then you gather evidence and do experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis or part of it, and then you modify the hypothesis and start all over again). It is inimical to science to CLAIM that we have any final answers whatsoever! The theory of evolution is not only not supported by the evidence, it's not even logical. Nobody has the faintest idea what mechanism could lead to the evolution of a species that is drastically different from a predecessor, not one iota. We don't have any evidence whatsoever that gradual change over time will result in a drastically different species, and we have seen no evidence that a bird can hatch out of a reptile egg, or that partly developed organs will lead to anything but death for the organism. The logical problems and lack of evidence just don't quit. Don't let yourself be sold a bill of goods. Examine the claims objectively. Look at the evidence. Consider the logic. Just for starters, how many times have you been told that natural selection is a mechanism for evolution? Or how many times have you been led to believe that without even being told? But how can natural selection produce new genetic information? It can't. It can only operate on the genetic information that already exists. It results in death and extinction, not improvement. Where does the genetic information come from? There is such a thing as irreduceable complexity. You cannot have a half developed eye. It takes a fully developed one to see. That's an irreduceably complex organ. If you slice it up, the parts won't work. They have to be together and integrated into a whole organ before it will work.

Can you see nuclear radiation? Nope! Can you feel it, or hear it? Nope! Can you taste it? To ask is to answer. Can you see radio waves? Nope! Why do you think they exist? Because of indirect evidence. You observe them by means of instruments. Just because we can't see God doesn't mean He isn't omnipresent.

You are unjustified in saying God doesn't exist simply because you do not know everything. The essay is absolutely spot on in that assertion.

Logic won't prove or disprove God, but logic plus empirical evidence can make His existence more probable. Yes, I make a leap of faith, but I don't have that far to jump.

I'll read Popper if you will read one book for me. Deal?
Reply
:iconnyctopterus:
nyctopterus Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2005
I'm sorry, you've just got so much wrong here that I even begin to tell you.

For starters, new genetic information is created through replication errors. This has been observed repeadedly in viruses, bacteria, and of course in the random mutations of all living things. The eye example is old and very wrong - look it up on talk origins or something. Saying that there is no evidence for evolution won't be true just because you keep saying it. The fact is that there is a lot of evidence and observation of the process, you just need to look it up.

"You are unjustified in saying God doesn't exist simply because you do not know everything. "

I said no such thing, I thought I had made that clear. I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully.
Reply
:iconshoeshine159:
shoeshine159 Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2005
new genetic information is not created through mutations. mutations are merely the result of miscopied DNA. sometimes this is beneficial - but more often than not it isn't.
mutations may accidentally add a few DNA molecules. But this also isn't new information
if I add a bit of scrambled data on the end of this sentence does that make new information?dkldhlk
no. the origin of information is intelligence.
also mutations don't improve a species overall. something is lost if something is gained. for example bacteria immune to certain antibiotics have other disadvantages.
Reply
:iconshoeshine159:
shoeshine159 Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2005
new genetic information is not created through mutations. mutations are merely the result of miscopied DNA. sometimes this is beneficial - but more often than not it isn't.
mutations may accidentally add a few DNA molecules. But this also isn't new information
if I add a bit of scrambled data on the end of this sentence does that make new information?dkldhlk
no. the origin of information is intelligence.
also mutations don't improve a species overall. something is lost if something is gained. for example bacteria immune to certain antibiotics have other disadvantages.
Reply
Add a Comment: