Atheist question

[PaulSacramento]

Here we go guys.
Since this has been asked numerous times in different ways I figured I would post this question from a discussion with an atheist.
This format is laid out best.

You say that Jesus died in both our places.
By "His wounds we are healed”.

Have you ever really thought about the story itself?
God is supposed to be all-knowing right?
So he creates Adam in his image and then makes Eve out of Adam's rib.
If God is all-knowing, he knew that Adam and Eve would disobey him, correct? What's moral about blaming mankind for a crime (and I use that word very, very loosely) that God knew they would commit?

This genius god couldn't think of a better way to forgive mankind than to send himself to Earth as his alter ego Jesus, have himself hideously tortured and killed so that he could forgive himself for something he knew would happen anyway? Really?

The best part is that this sacrifice (sacrifice implies something was lost, but really, what was lost?) eliminates your responsibility for being a moral person.

This is the part that bothers me the most about Christianity. It offers instant and undeserved forgiveness for the most despicable of crimes.
Joshua Blahyi (Google him) killed more than 20,000 people including cutting out the hearts of little children and eating their hearts before battle.
He has since become “saved”.
Your god finds him worthy of eternal salvation, yet someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett who give billions (billions with a “B”) of dollars to help millions of those less fortunate will spend eternity in hell right next to me.

What is our crime?
The answer is disbelief.
We don't believe in Jesus and haven't accepted him as "our savior".
Do you think this framework is the perfect example of love and moral accountability?

If I were to say that Jesus is a “scapegoat”, would you know what that means in Jewish historical context?
Do you believe that someone like Blahyi deserves heaven?
More importantly (and more telling), which type of person would you rather have more of on our planet: people like Blahyi or people like Gates, Buffett, and me? Seriously – consider this.
According to your faith, every serial killer on death row who professes faith in Jesus is ushered into eternity while someone like me will burn in a lake of fire.
That's loving? That's morality?
What lesson are we to learn from this?
How can you have morality without accountability?

You have here, the God YOU have created.
Why an atheist would even be bothered asking about "salvation" is beyond me.
Oh wait, I know, because he has created a version of 'salvation" that he can make look silly and refutable.
And created a God that can easily be refuted as well.

"Locked from the inside" as they say...

[Storyteller]

I keep getting drawn back to this post. I never knew how to answer them, saw them as a stumbling block in explaining my faith. I think, maybe, because they are the kind of questions I struggled with. So Myra Hindley is in heaven yet the dear little old lady down the road goes to hell because they didn't find the proof they needed?

What struck me, reading this thread, is that I was looking at it the wrong way.

God knew he would be rejected.. knew the sacrifice he would have to make.. yet still did it. Still gave us a way back to him...


Personally, I believe that God doesn't decide who goes to hell, we choose... by rejecting him.

He gave us free will. He gave us choice. He gave us salvation. Every single one of us.

Think of sin as not hitting the bullseye, none of us hit the bullseye, we all miss. You may be closer to the bullseye but you still "sin"

If you make someone without the ability to hit the bullseye, why make that the requirement?

I disagree that we don't have the ability. Just because we don't do it doesn't mean we don't have the ability.

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

The desire to do so (or not) is ours.

[DBowling]

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

[Kenny]

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God. I find it absurd to suggest everybody on Earth who is not Christian, is not because they make the independent choice to reject the God of Christianity every day.

[DBowling]

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God.

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?
2. Does the historical evidence demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified by the Romans, and rose from the dead?

The scientific and historical evidence regarding both of those questions is clear and unambiguous.
However, mankind's independent will allows us to disregard truth if we choose to.

[Kenny]

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God.

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

[RickD]

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God.

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

Maybe it's the same reason that you ignored the answer to your question, which was in the same post that you quoted.

DBowling wrote:
The scientific and historical evidence regarding both of those questions is clear and unambiguous.
However, mankind's independent will allows us to disregard truth if we choose to.

[PaulSacramento]

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

That is a good question, have you asked them?
I have heard some vary answers, some of them mind-boggling ( like a physicist that went on a rant about the predictability and the order of the universe and then said that he didn't believe in a god because of how random and chaotic the universe was ! )

[Kenny]

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God.

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

Maybe it's the same reason that you ignored the answer to your question, which was in the same post that you quoted.

DBowling wrote:
The scientific and historical evidence regarding both of those questions is clear and unambiguous.
However, mankind's independent will allows us to disregard truth if we choose to.

I didn't ignore his answer, I pointed out an obvious fact that proves his claim false. If you're lookin' for evidence of God, the study of the empirical world (science) is probably the last place you'd wanna look.

[Kenny]

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

That is a good question, have you asked them?

Yeah; he said there is no scientific evidence for a creator God; thus refuting pretty much everything our friend said.

[Philip]

Ken: If you're lookin' for evidence of God, the study of the empirical world (science) is probably the last place you'd wanna look.

Simply stunning in his ability to delude himself!

[DBowling]

So he made us with the ability to hit the bullseye, just not with the desire to hit it?

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God.

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

A lot of them are theists too... so that isn't really a relevant argument.

But to answer your question, scientists who choose to be atheists are (for whatever reason) going in with a set of presuppositions that exclude the possibility of God.
So when they are faced with the overwhelming evidence of design, complexity, and structure that is found everywhere in science, they have to resort to all kinds of rationalizations to avoid the clear and obvious conclusion that the existence of an intelligent design means that there is an intelligent designer out there somewhere.

It's basically a choice that is made based on preexisting suppositions.

[Kenny]

You are actually pretty close here...

I think defining the "bullseye" would be helpful.
The "bullseye" is loving God and choosing to submit our will to the One who created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.

Since God created us with independent wills, we have the ability to choose to let our love for other things interfere with our love for God, and we have the ability to choose to "become our own god" and place our will above God's will.

And when we (every one of us) make these independent choices to reject God every day, the result is 'sin' and 'evil'.

I think "hitting the bullseye" would also include picking the right God/Religion, and having life experiences that allows you to be convinced that Christianity is the correct religion with the right God.

The question is whether or not Christianity represents factual truth or not.

For me there are two basic questions that are grounded in Scientific and Historical Fact.
1. Does the scientific evidence demonstrate the existence of an Intelligent Creator (ie God)?

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

A lot of them are theists too... so that isn't really a relevant argument.

According to PEW research center, only 33% of the scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, believe in God. I wouldn’t really call that a lot.
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/sci ... nd-belief/

It’s relevant because if scientific evidence pointing to God was clear and unambiguous as you claim, logic would tell you that there would be more scientists who believe in God than the general population. The fact that the opposite is the case should tell you something.

But to answer your question, scientists who choose to be atheists are (for whatever reason) going in with a set of presuppositions that exclude the possibility of God.
So when they are faced with the overwhelming evidence of design, complexity, and structure that is found everywhere in science, they have to resort to all kinds of rationalizations to avoid the clear and obvious conclusion that the existence of an intelligent design means that there is an intelligent designer out there somewhere.

Ahh the ole “Conspiracy theory” huh? Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else? And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

[Philip]

Ken: Ahh the ole “Conspiracy theory” huh? Now why would all of these scientists refuse to accept the obvious when it comes to your God, but not with everything else? And why haven’t any of those scientists who are theists published a theory concerning this clear and unambiguous evidence that leads to your God?

This is Ken's fall back - yet one that has been addressed redundantly. And he knows that many scientists around the world believe BECAUSE of the scientific evidences. And that has been documented and explained relentlessly to him. Especially in THIS thread (viewtopic.php?f=33&t=41432) where he spews one nonsensical answer after another! There is absolutely nothing new he can say or that we can say to him that's not been covered redundantly with him.

[RickD]

I'm afraid that Kenny has been dishonest with all of us. He said that he is here to learn. Yet time and time again, he asks the same questions that he has been given the answers to. If he were truly here to learn, he would not be asking the same questions over and over, after people have been extremely patient with him.

He has proven himself intellectually dishonest. He certainly isn't open to learning anything new, especially things that he disagrees with.