What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[harmonica]

We’re all going to die because of atrophy

Funny, you say that because one of the causes of atrophy is mutations (evolution).

We all fear death because deep down we all know this is it for us. No one is a god in waiting. I’d love to believe after I die I become a god myself to live for all eternity but that’s utterly ridiculous

At least, you're honest. Why is it ridiculous when we know the supernatural created the universe, Earth, and everything in it? There is evidence for Genesis, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, and the end times prophecies have begun to happen.

Big bang and evolution doesn't really explain what happened. It's murky. In 2006, abc news had a documentary that atheists and evos believed global warming to cause the end of the world and now it could be a large asteroid. We have Chicxulub evidence, but it didn't cause the end of the world, and the dinosaurs all died is just a theory.

No, you do not become God. That is a fantasy. You get to live forever and with him though.

there is NO evidence for that...stop please

He gets to live forever, never get sick, never have to work, never get hungry, never sad, have whatever he wants, never argue, a feeling better than an orgasm non stop for all eternity. If that's not a god what is?

He can never be THE God but he certainly would be a god based on his description of what's going to happen to him for the rest of eternity.

orgasms are overrated

 

[james bond]

Actually, how science got this way is very important. Investigation of the natural world was aided immensely with the waning influence of the Christian church. The embracing of the scientific method, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment is what shaped Western culture and allowed the advances in the physical sciences, art, culture we see today. The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment combined to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious dogma with knowledge and understanding.

What science are you referring to? What Christians are you referring to? You lump us all together because you cannot comprehend. Sir Francis Bacon came up with the scientific method and was a devout Anglican. He said, "Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate"

The Renaissance was a period of rebirth of science and culture. It was influenced greatly by the Black Death or plague as people were dying left and right. The other great influence were the wars in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere in Europe. People tried to escape both. Yes, it was a period of getting away from Middle Age thinking and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but the church changed as well. Art was created for the other churches in Italy, not just for the Vatican. It was a period of humanism, but the church changed from the Middle Ages, too. You seem to ignore that. Are you sure science was humanist, too? What you claim as secular today is not all that.

Look at its people from DaVinci, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, and more to see they were influenced by the RCC and they tried to get away, too.

Even the Protestant Christians (many of us here) rebelled against the RCC and broke away from its teachings to go by the five Solas.

The Renaissance: The 'Rebirth' of Science & Culture | Live Science

Francis Bacon

https://www.history.com/topics/renaissance/renaissance

The Five Solas - Points from the Past that Should Matter to You

Yes, the Renaissance was a time when the shackles of the church were removed and the arts, science, literature and exploration flourished. The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology and carried much of this lofty battle to the scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding of the natural world.. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? All of the whiny arguments of ID'iot Creationism only serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Once again, wby don't you supernaturalists present your "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" so we can peer review your claims to tbe god as opposed to all the other competing claims to the gods.

Still need your

As I said, it was mostly due to the plague and wars.

None of what you give credit to science were done by evo scientists. Most of the findings during that period came from Christian scientists as I have posted from creation.com their accomplishments.

So what were the evo scientists accomplishments during that time?

 

[harmonica]

Actually, how science got this way is very important. Investigation of the natural world was aided immensely with the waning influence of the Christian church. The embracing of the scientific method, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment is what shaped Western culture and allowed the advances in the physical sciences, art, culture we see today. The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment combined to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious dogma with knowledge and understanding.

What science are you referring to? What Christians are you referring to? You lump us all together because you cannot comprehend. Sir Francis Bacon came up with the scientific method and was a devout Anglican. He said, "Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate"

The Renaissance was a period of rebirth of science and culture. It was influenced greatly by the Black Death or plague as people were dying left and right. The other great influence were the wars in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere in Europe. People tried to escape both. Yes, it was a period of getting away from Middle Age thinking and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but the church changed as well. Art was created for the other churches in Italy, not just for the Vatican. It was a period of humanism, but the church changed from the Middle Ages, too. You seem to ignore that. Are you sure science was humanist, too? What you claim as secular today is not all that.

Look at its people from DaVinci, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, and more to see they were influenced by the RCC and they tried to get away, too.

Even the Protestant Christians (many of us here) rebelled against the RCC and broke away from its teachings to go by the five Solas.

The Renaissance: The 'Rebirth' of Science & Culture | Live Science

Francis Bacon

https://www.history.com/topics/renaissance/renaissance

The Five Solas - Points from the Past that Should Matter to You

Yes, the Renaissance was a time when the shackles of the church were removed and the arts, science, literature and exploration flourished. The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology and carried much of this lofty battle to the scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding of the natural world.. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? All of the whiny arguments of ID'iot Creationism only serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Once again, wby don't you supernaturalists present your "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" so we can peer review your claims to tbe god as opposed to all the other competing claims to the gods.

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

 

[james bond]

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.

 

[harmonica]

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.

ok, I'm going to try it ...standby

 

[james bond]

orgasms are overrated

No.

 

[harmonica]

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.

nothing--nothing...I must be doing something wrong ....he's not revealing himself

 

[Vastator]

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.

nothing--nothing...I must be doing something wrong ....he's not revealing himself

We’re you facing east? Or west?

 

[harmonica]

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.

nothing--nothing...I must be doing something wrong ....he's not revealing himself

We’re you facing east? Or west?

O--does that matter?? which way ?

 

[james bond]

nothing--nothing...I must be doing something wrong ....he's not revealing himself

I didn't know you were going to be serious about it. Here is what most people start with:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

or

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Believe one or both are true. Focus on it and sincerely pray to God to reveal this truth to you. It may take longer than what you are giving it.

 

[james bond]

You have to keep an open mind and be sincere, i.e. you are using your heart. Maybe Ben Piershale and what he says will help. Give it a little time since you were so persistent about having proof.

 

[Vastator]

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If naturalism had the scientific method behind it, then probably all of us would believe you and become theistic evos. It would make me question the Bible and Bible theory as all of the scientific parts would be contradicted. However, most of us, except the current theistic evos, know that did not happen. You believe in lies and won't accept the truth of my first sentence in this post.

nothing--nothing...I must be doing something wrong ....he's not revealing himself

We’re you facing east? Or west?

O--does that matter?? which way ?

Well that depends on your sign. If your Sagittarius, it only works if you’ve fasted for two days and face west in the light of a full moon.

 

[ding]

what was written on the tablets bond, it was the reiteration of the religion of antiquity you are in contempt of

Show us your tablet. I already got one goober making up his own commandments, but no tablet and has no one to give them to. You sound like you got a tablet with no commandments.

Funny how these written directions from God always end up getting destroyed. You would think they would take better care of the words of God

Same thing happened to Joseph Smith and the Mormons

Written directions from God?

Would it make you feel better if they were only suggestions?

 

[ding]

Ok, so then you believe the 24,000 written manuscripts detailing the 3 1/2 year ministry, death and resurrection are what?

They are theological texts written down hundreds of years after the events. They are NOT historical. Did Washington chop down that cherry tree or is it a myth to show he was honest?

No. Historical texts, with the earliest being 25 years after the event. The number, accuracy and timing is unparalleled in antiquity.

If you're speaking of Paul's letters, the oldest manuscripts we have are generally dated between 175 and 225 CE. These are most certainly not the originals penned by Paul but more likely copies of copies of copies of copies. Every copy was hand copied by someone with a theological agenda and the copies we have never agree 100% with other copies. Copyright laws didn't exist so it is likely that several of Paul's letters were written by others much later.

No. I am talking about all of the written manuscripts.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

 

[dblack]

So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

 

[mamooth]

You asked for proof of God and we keep telling you to have faith in God first and then he will reveal himself. Sheesh.

If you have faith in Odin, he will reveal himself. Why won't you sincerely open your mind and heart to Odin?

I see a special pleading fallacy on your part, so there's no reason to take you seriously.

One time you said you wanted him to open the ground in front of you and give you a lot of money and a new car. Then you'll believe. But Jesus knows that doesn't work for long as you'll just forget.

If God rearranges the stars to say "I AM GOD", I guarantee I won't forget, so you can't use that excuse.

 

[diver52]

So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

As I said, if that's the myth that makes you happy.....

 

[G.T.]

So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god ...

There is no argument that there is no god. But that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheist stop at that fact that there is no argument that there is a god. That's all we need.

Theres arguments...theyre just not that compelling if you're disciplined.

 

[ding]

’

Because the last supper occurred at least 1000 years before the account of Balder.

So the story might have one believe. The writer can claim any date they like. It does nothing to add to the veracity of the claim.

Which writer?

Indeed...

Exactly. Which is how I know you have never given this any serious consideration.

This has been research by myself long ago. Still peruse aspects of it today, when points of interest arise. It's interesting stuff. But I've moved on long ago...
Consider the statement that "you know" what I've considered... Then realize the absurdity of such a claim. Now juxtapose that same mindset against what "you know" as it concerns the book, "The Bible". The conclusion should be apparent...

Actually the statement was I know that you have never given this any serious consideration. But that's because you pointed to the legend of Balder as the source for the passion of Christ when the passion of Christ was recorded before the legend of Balder.

But putting aside the need for time travel, there's still the problem of geography.

 

[ding]

Actually, how science got this way is very important. Investigation of the natural world was aided immensely with the waning influence of the Christian church. The embracing of the scientific method, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment is what shaped Western culture and allowed the advances in the physical sciences, art, culture we see today. The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment combined to supplant the fears and superstitions of religious dogma with knowledge and understanding.

What science are you referring to? What Christians are you referring to? You lump us all together because you cannot comprehend. Sir Francis Bacon came up with the scientific method and was a devout Anglican. He said, "Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate"

The Renaissance was a period of rebirth of science and culture. It was influenced greatly by the Black Death or plague as people were dying left and right. The other great influence were the wars in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere in Europe. People tried to escape both. Yes, it was a period of getting away from Middle Age thinking and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but the church changed as well. Art was created for the other churches in Italy, not just for the Vatican. It was a period of humanism, but the church changed from the Middle Ages, too. You seem to ignore that. Are you sure science was humanist, too? What you claim as secular today is not all that.

Look at its people from DaVinci, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, and more to see they were influenced by the RCC and they tried to get away, too.

Even the Protestant Christians (many of us here) rebelled against the RCC and broke away from its teachings to go by the five Solas.

The Renaissance: The 'Rebirth' of Science & Culture | Live Science

Francis Bacon

https://www.history.com/topics/renaissance/renaissance

The Five Solas - Points from the Past that Should Matter to You

Yes, the Renaissance was a time when the shackles of the church were removed and the arts, science, literature and exploration flourished. The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology and carried much of this lofty battle to the scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding of the natural world.. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? All of the whiny arguments of ID'iot Creationism only serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Once again, wby don't you supernaturalists present your "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" so we can peer review your claims to tbe god as opposed to all the other competing claims to the gods.

..I've asked for their theory many times --and received nothing

Not true.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.


So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.


If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.


But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.


We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.


The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.


If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.


All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.