Why I Left Atheism

[NeoSeminole]

also, what about the biblical accuracy of geological records to date. and the dead sea scrolls written hundreds of years before christ yet predicting his arrival, activities and resurection.

There are many fictional books that contain facts, yet they are still fictional. What's your point? Let's just assume Christ was even real. How does a book written over 2,000 yrs ago prove he was the son of God?

[OzmO]

your point about the geology book is moot. it is not in the same context as i am talking about predicting future events while your example is after the fact, not a valid argument. also, read about the dead sea scrolls and they will give improbable accuracy, not some general blanket statement you paint it to be.

So the History of Jesus, which was written 50 years after his death couldn't be "taylored" to fit into the OT predictions they had in their "widely" used scrolls at the time? 

Of course they could have. That's why OT predictions and NT writings are moot.  They are not proof of anything.

[Necrosis]

My questions may be pointless unto themselves but not in the context of our discussion. You claim design in nature is proof of an intelligent creator. However, you assume nature is intelligently designed. I provided several examples in the form of rhetorical questions which clearly show this is not true. I did not intend for you to answer them.

Reference please? Your statistic means absolutely nothing without a credible source. I might as well say the probability of life occuring on its own is 10 to the -10.

Your analogy is flawed b/c you described a closed system. Obviously the broken shards of glass will remain so until an outside force acts on them. Life is an open system b/c the Earth recieves energy from the sun. It's possible for order to arise from disorder in nature. For example, a mature tomato plant has more usable energy than the seed it grew from. Snowflakes, hurricanes, and lightning are all forms of order coming from disorder. None of them require an intelligent creator.

There are different types of atheism. You choose to attack one type. However, I still contend that even a strong atheist doesn't require a leap of faith. It's called being rational. There is no shred of evidence of god(s) existence. Do you consider yourself agnostic when it comes to invisible pink unicorns and leprechauns? Are you sure that Santa Claus isn't real? I highly doubt if somebody asked you if you believe in a flying turd monster, you would respond "I'm not really sure. You see? There is no evidence that proves he doesn't exist. So I choose to be agnostic."

pink and unicorns exist however, this is a philosophical point that because we can conceive of such a being it exists. you cant conceive of anything within langauge or symbolism that doesn't exist, this is an outdated argument yet valid within the argument of pink unicorns and such.

i choose to attack the idea that life came from random chance to order, and challenge the atheist claims about laws being broken such as the second law of thermodynamics, which states quite simple that everything goes from complex to simple. also, what is the mechanism in which life arranges itself, in that i mean how does and frog become a frog, no mechanism has been established in which bacterium creates a frog or in which the parts of a frog evolve synergistically as would have to occur for life to happen. speciation but that has never been seen in a macro sense.

also, what of the utter lack of transitional fossils which refute evolution and the geological accuracies found within the bible.

also evidence is seen in the improbabilities of life arising through the mechnisms you claim.
you keep missing this point and claim that a god is inprobable. manipulation is the only conceivable mechanism left to the intellect once impossiblity is established by normal means. i mean there must be an answer and there must be a cause to the effect of the universe.

[Necrosis]

So the History of Jesus, which was written 50 years after his death couldn't be "taylored" to fit into the OT predictions they had in their "widely" used scrolls at the time? 

Of course they could have. That's why OT predictions and NT writings are moot.  They are not proof of anything.

i dont understand your point the scrolls were written before jesus thus making them predictions of the future. you have mis-information.

what about in the quran the explanation of how a un-born child is shaped like a leech to the mothers uterus and forms a blood clot, which according to the top embryologists in the world is a common description. there are many other things stated in the books which could not be known at the time which indicate predictive ability. but like i already said quantum physics explains clairvoyance and the like but not to this degree.

[Necrosis]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1760096128712631511&q=evidence+of+god

good video discussing some of my points and about the improbabilties and predictions of the bible. i am not a religious person per se by the way.

also, NS, i appreciate the fact that you haven't resorted to name calling and the like and you seem intelligent. i am simply debating the alterior explanation wether i believe it or not.

[OzmO]

i dont understand your point the scrolls were written before jesus thus making them predictions of the future. you have mis-information.

what about in the quran the explanation of how a un-born child is shaped like a leech to the mothers uterus and forms a blood clot, which according to the top embryologists in the world is a common description. there are many other things stated in the books which could not be known at the time which indicate predictive ability. but like i already said quantum physics explains clairvoyance and the like but not to this degree.

My point is Jesus's history was written to fit into those predictions.  therefor moot.

The knowledge of an unborn child was likley from some one cutting open various uteruses at different stages of pregnantcy.  Barbaric?  Yes.  Typical barbasrism of the time?  yes.

[Necrosis]

good point about jesus ozmo.

the Qurans level of babymaking is at a level were the eye cannot detect thus making it impossible to know by your methods. watch the video( it is interesting if nothing else), i must ask though are you an atheist?

[OzmO]

good point about jesus ozmo.

the Qurans level of babymaking is at a level were the eye cannot detect thus making it impossible to know by your methods. watch the video( it is interesting if nothing else), i must ask though are you an atheist?

I'm not an athiest at all.  I believe in GOD.  I just don't believe in organized religion and the BIBle and Koran is a BIg part of organized religion.

I'll watch the video when i get home from work.   

[NeoSeminole]

pink and unicorns exist however, this is a philosophical point that because we can conceive of such a being it exists. you cant conceive of anything within langauge or symbolism that doesn't exist, this is an outdated argument yet valid within the argument of pink unicorns and such.

I can concieve that we live in a dream world and none of this is real. God is just a figment of our imaginations. Your religious belief is no more valid than mine since neither can be disproven.

i choose to attack the idea that life came from random chance to order, and challenge the atheist claims about laws being broken such as the second law of thermodynamics, which states quite simple that everything goes from complex to simple. also, what is the mechanism in which life arranges itself, in that i mean how does and frog become a frog, no mechanism has been established in which bacterium creates a frog or in which the parts of a frog evolve synergistically as would have to occur for life to happen. speciation but that has never been seen in a macro sense.

You can attack abiogenesis all you want. The fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere. Whether we evolved from non-living matter or god(s) made us, that's another discussion. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not being broken. Your ignorance stems from a misunderstanding of what the law states. It says the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Life is not a closed system. The mechanism which describes change in the gene pool of a poplulation over time is evolution.

also, what of the utter lack of transitional fossils which refute evolution and the geological accuracies found within the bible.

Geographical accuracies in the bible are just that - geographical accuracies! I fail to see how this proves god exist.

also evidence is seen in the improbabilities of life arising through the mechnisms you claim.
you keep missing this point and claim that a god is inprobable. manipulation is the only conceivable mechanism left to the intellect once impossiblity is established by normal means. i mean there must be an answer and there must be a cause to the effect of the universe.

Then what created god?

[Necrosis]

no no, i am not ignorant about the second law of thermodynamics it states that complexity will tend towards the simple. the universe is a closed system, the big bang cements that as well as red shift and many other facts. thus who put the energy in. no one created god, he is omnipotent thus infinite i already described this.

[NeoSeminole]

no no, i am not ignorant about the second law of thermodynamics it states that complexity will tend towards the simple. the universe is a closed system, the big bang cements that as well as red shift and many other facts.

Actually, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says "no process is possible in which the net result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." How is this law violated? Once the stars burn out, the universe will be a cold, dark place.

thus who put the energy in. no one created god, he is omnipotent thus infinite i already described this.

Nobody knows for sure what caused the Big Bang. However, you cannot substitute god(s) for a lack of knowledge. This is a logical fallacy. Who or what created god? For all we know, we could be living in someone's dream.

[loco]

So the History of Jesus, which was written 50 years after his death couldn't be "taylored" to fit into the OT predictions they had in their "widely" used scrolls at the time? 

NO.  There is prophecy that was foretold hundreds of years before Jesus was born, then fulfilled hundreds of years after the gospels were written.

Fulfilled Bible Prophecy: Jerusalem Eastern Gate

[Necrosis]

neo, see the you pick thread as to why evolution sucks. and why there are no transitional fossils, but nice picture anyway.

oh ya that bird fossil has already been refuted by a precluding fossil found years later. so no it is not a transitional fossil.

[NeoSeminole]

neo, see the you pick thread as to why evolution sucks. and why there are no transitional fossils, but nice picture anyway.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. You just choose to ignore the evidence.

oh ya that bird fossil has already been refuted by a precluding fossil found years later. so no it is not a transitional fossil.

No, it hasn't. Please show me a scientific article that says Archaeopteryx was refuted. The definition of a transitional fossil is one that displays a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. It does not mean a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. Archaeopteryx had many dinosaurian characteristics which are not found in modern birds while having certain characteristics found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact, Archaeopteryx represents a transitional fossil.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html