Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[solja247]

They are things that you are attributing to a god, there is no evidence those things are due to a god. It's an argument for your opinion of a god existing, nothing more. Don't try and claim those things are evidence for a god. Also, Appearance of design does not mean there is design.

We can only decide three things:

1. God did it
2. Chance did it
3. I have no dam idea

I choose number 1, although number 3 is a better stance to take though...

[Skipper]

They are things that you are attributing to a god, there is no evidence those things are due to a god. It's an argument for your opinion of a god existing, nothing more. Don't try and claim those things are evidence for a god. Also, Appearance of design does not mean there is design.

We can only decide three things:

1. God did it
2. Chance did it
3. I have no dam idea

I choose number 1, although number 3 is a better stance to take though...

Why do you choose number 1 when number 3 is the better stance?

[lrh9]

Natural selection did it.

[solja247]

Why do you choose number 1 when number 3 is the better stance?

Fine tuning argument is one of several pieces which proves to me that God exists.
I am not worried to go out on a limb, if there is a limb and in this case there is a limb, all I have to do is take that small step of faith...

[Thor]

As I have said before, the reason why I am a Theist (Christian) is because Jesus died and rose again, there is enough evidence to say that.

There is NO evidence to support the notion of a man rising up from the dead. There is NO evidence that Jesus even existed. If you have evidence, please present it.

Most scientists cant argue with the fact that the universe appears to be designed, they just say it wasnt designed, its all just an accident and we are just really lucky.

There are many things in nature that "appear to be designed". There are rock formations that look like faces. There are natural bridges (check out Arches National Park). There are natural features of striking beauty. And we know that none of this was "designed". Appearance of design does not necessarily indicate that it was designed.

---

I am not worried to go out on a limb, if there is a limb and in this case there is a limb, all I have to do is take that small step of faith...

Yes, all you have to do is take your intellect, reasoning ability and logic, and throw it all out the window....

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Show me where logic is faulty...

Most scientists cant argue with the fact that the universe appears to be designed, they just say it wasnt designed, its all just an accident and we are just really lucky.

What scientists? I've read every astronomy and physics related book I could get my hands on for well over ten years and I've never heard any any reputable scientists say anything of that nature. Just the quacks over at the discovery institute and theists attempting to 'prove' that god created the universe.

I'm not going into detail over every arguement presented - I've neither the time nor the desire to write a novel, but I'll give you the short version:

Their logic is faulty because virtually every arugement altogether requires virtually every single logical fallacy I can find in order to pose any kind of arguement. Seriously. I attempted to make a specific list for this post, but the cosmological arguement and morality arguements alone nearly forced me to copy-paste the lists I've found.
For example, the cosmological arguement (which I am much more familiar with thank you to a few trolls that have come on gone on these boards) is quite dependant on making arguements based completely on things we don't know - like anything prior to a few moments prior to the earliest point we can know about - which is just a few fleeting moments after the big bang began to big bang.
Still, that's only scratching the surface of everything that's wrong with simply that one arguement.

This book convinced me that the resurrection DID happen.

Why? How did this book convince you that the resurrection actually happened?

[solja247]

There is NO evidence to support the notion of a man rising up from the dead. There is NO evidence that Jesus even existed. If you have evidence, please present it.

The idea that Jesus didnt exist is held by a small minority of scholars and is ridiculous.

There are many things in nature that "appear to be designed". There are rock formations that look like faces. There are natural bridges (check out Arches National Park). There are natural features of striking beauty. And we know that none of this was "designed". Appearance of design does not necessarily indicate that it was designed.

I think galaxies and planets are different than rocks which appear to be designed...

Yes, all you have to do is take your intellect, reasoning ability and logic, and throw it all out the window....

The good old fallacy, if you are a Christian or believe in God you commit intellectual suicide. I will give you 10 points for trying.

like anything prior to a few moments prior to the earliest point we can know about - which is just a few fleeting moments after the big bang began to big bang.
Still, that's only scratching the surface of everything that's wrong with simply that one arguement.

This is what Marcelo Gleiser has to say about that idea:

Can science “explain” the age-old question of Creation? Certainly, physical models describing the origin of the cosmos can and have been proposed, at least since the 1970s. But these models face a serious technical obstacle: the lack of a proper theory to describe physical processes at the enormous energy scales prevalent during the first moments of cosmic history. They could be called scientific creation narratives, at least until they can be placed on more solid theoretical ground. We see old themes coming back, dressed in scientific jargon. In some models the universe was born out of “nothing,” a quantum vacuum populated by all sorts of ephemeral energy fluctuations; others see the beginning as essentially chaotic, with an ordered cosmos emerging homogeneously in three dimensions.

The problem is we dont know anything about our universe to even speculate its origins...I say God created (I go out on a limb here) but it would be better say we dont have any idea!

Why? How did this book convince you that the resurrection actually happened?

a) Not many serious scholars deny Jesus existed
b) It is disputed if the gospels should be taken as historical accounts of the hitsorical Jesus (I think they should be, mostly)
c) The resurrection explains how this new Jewish sect became so persuasive
d) Many other 'messiahs' rose up, yet they didnt have this effect on people, let alone the enitre world
f) To say the discples stole the body or Jesus's body was placed in a forgotten tomb is ridiculous, we should use the earliest sources to get the picture of what actually happened, not ridiculos stories with no evidence
g) These new Christians faced persecution pretty much anywhere in the world they went. Not even 10 years later did the Christians church suffer mass persecution. Yet, the Christians were sure that Jesus was alive and continued to believe in Him, it cost them their lives, and they died horrible deaths.
h) Acts 5:33-41: 33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

41The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.
The problem is, that the Jewish sect contuned to thrive, infact by the 7th century it had reached Japan (although that is disputed)
i) That Jesus was not a mere man, that He was God, there are many verses and stories reffering to the Messiah. In the temple they could only sacrifice a perfect lamb and its blood justified the person from any sin, Jesus is that lamb, what the Law could not do, He has done...

As N.T Wright says, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty
tomb behind him.” - N.T Wright

I will take that small 'leap' of faith and say Jesus is Lord.
However, if I am wrong, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then as it says it 1 Corinthians 15:1 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (vs 14). The Christian faith would be a waste of time and ridiculous.

[Skipper]

What do you say about other stories prior to that of your saviour following the same narrative of, virgin births, having disciples follow them, being killed then being resurrected then ascending to their fathers in the heavens? Why don't you follow any of them god's?

[Ashendant]

I've seen both these arguments in the stonemakers argument

http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html

It's both hilarious and show the logical falacies

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The idea that Jesus didnt exist is held by a small minority of scholars and is ridiculous.

If by 'minority of scholars', you mean 'majority of historians' then yes, you'd be correct.
I think you're confusing regular scholars with religious scholars - the difference tends to involve the matter that the former researches historical facts and the latter has a degree in theology.

I think galaxies and planets are different than rocks which appear to be designed...

How things appear to be is entirely irrelevant.

The good old fallacy, if you are a Christian or believe in God you commit intellectual suicide. I will give you 10 points for trying.

When it stops being true, people will stop using it as an arguement. You can't hold irrational beliefs in the same light as science and skeptical rationality otherwise you really are committing intellectual suicide.
You believe in what is essentially magic, human resurrection from the dead, and a hyperintelligent superbeing whose only notable contribution to the modern world is religion - whose only notable contribution to the world involves killing people who offend their religion if they arent' also scamming people out of their money or attempting to convert the world into their faith.

Can science “explain” the age-old question of Creation? Certainly, physical models describing the origin of the cosmos can and have been proposed, at least since the 1970s. But these models face a serious technical obstacle: the lack of a proper theory to describe physical processes at the enormous energy scales prevalent during the first moments of cosmic history. They could be called scientific creation narratives, at least until they can be placed on more solid theoretical ground. We see old themes coming back, dressed in scientific jargon. In some models the universe was born out of “nothing,” a quantum vacuum populated by all sorts of ephemeral energy fluctuations; others see the beginning as essentially chaotic, with an ordered cosmos emerging homogeneously in three dimensions.

The difference between science and religion in terms of the creation of the universe is that religion states it has all the answers and science does not. It has theories based on what we know and some but not nearly enough answers.

The main difference between the two is best described as a math problem where science left a lot of blank answers but the answers given are all true if not at least close given the student's knowledge.
Religion filled in all of the blanks with consistent answers completely independant of any knowledge on the topic.

Even if they both get Fs on that particular test, science has done more to answer the question than religion ever can. What, after all, has religion ever done to answer these questions that have any supporting, repeatable answers to any of this?

The problem is we dont know anything about our universe to even speculate its origins...I say God created (I go out on a limb here) but it would be better say we dont have any idea!

You certainly do but science has some answers that have allowed humankind to glimpse into how the universe began to come to be in its current form far more succinctly with each passing year and each discovery in physics, astronomy, and astrophysics.

a) Not many serious scholars deny Jesus existed

Irrelevant. Unless there's actual evidence to that end, then it doesn't matter what their personal opinions are. Further, proving the man exists is one thing - proving he was anything other than a carpenter's son (like, say, the son of a deity) is something completely different.

d) Many other 'messiahs' rose up, yet they didnt have this effect on people, let alone the enitre world

67% of the entire world disagrees with that assessment.

As N.T Wright says, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty
tomb behind him.” - N.T Wright

If this is one of your supposed 'scholars', then he is an idiot. He can't explain it, therefore Jesus resurrected himself? If that's his honest opinion, then he is no scholar. He's a shill.