panelarrow

Atheist Tuesday Comes to an End

| 13 Comments

After several years of this feature, I’ve decided to stop writing weekly posts. I will give my reasons in the ensuing weeks.

Sayanara, atheist friends.

13 Comments

  1. Bummer, but expected.

  2. Well done for the time you spent on the atheist.

    I will miss the will thought out objects to the Gospel that many them presented.

    I’ll even the miss the “determinist”. I say that tongue in cheek, as I really never could understand there worldview.

    I did appreciate the atheist voicing there understanding of the truth. The written interaction with the atheists helped sharpen the reasons for what I believed. I hope that I was able to respond to them in a rational and non arbitrary manner.

    Again, I pray that your efforts in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ will cause many of our atheists friends to turn and repent.

    • Don’t hold you breath.

      • Bro, go ahead an argue against the existence of air while your breath comes and goes. How in the evolutionary world do you account for the laws of logic, absolute laws of morality, or the uniformity of nature. These make since in the Christian world. Now, argue against the existence of air.

      • Hi Richard,

        I have no idea what you mean by “the evolutionary world”, but I’ll assume you mean “secular world”, since you compare it against “the Christian world”.

        Here would be my responses:

        1. There’s no problem for accounting for the “laws” of logic in a secular world, since they are a model of reality.

        2. There are no absolute laws of morality, but there is objective morality. “Absolute” and “objective” are not the same thing.

        3. There’s no problem for accounting for the “uniformity of nature” (assuming I understand what you mean by that), because that’s how the math works, along with the resulting emergent properties. As a determinist, I especially have no problem for accounting for the “uniformity of nature” (although I’d be interested to know exactly what you mean by that).

        I encourage you to research this if you want to learn more.

        I, personally, have no desire to argue against the existence of air because neither you or I claim that air doesn’t exist. The reason why there’s a discussion here is because you claim that a God exists, and so we ask for evidence, and we’re then found wanting.

    • I second that brother Richard!

    • I’ll even the miss the “determinist”. I say that tongue in cheek, as I really never could understand there worldview.

      Hi Richard. I’m the determinist, and I’m still around, so let me know if you have any questions.

      As for not being able to understand it, did you ever look it up? I get the feeling that you didn’t do that, so of course it would be difficult to understand, since I didn’t feel like going into the long description of it.

      If you remember, I would only bring up the fact that I’m a determinist if you, Steve, or another believer here made the claim that atheists believe that random chance created the universe (or another claim along the lines of that). I brought it up because a determinist, like myself, does not believe in random chance. Take a coin flip, for example: it may seem random whether it ends up heads or tails, but a determinist would claim that if you could effectively quantify the variables involved in how the coin was balanced before the flip, the angle and amount of force involved in the flip, the air friction, the tiny grooves on the quarter, the teeny tiny cracks in the pavement where it lands, and so on, that you’d be able to determine exactly which side of the coin would land facing up. Therefore, the result of the coin flip is not random, but detemined, although the number of variables is so massive that it appears to be random.

      I hope that cleared it up for you.

      Also, until I believe in Jesus being a means to salvation, I have no reason to repent to Him. I will continue to repent to the actual people I do transgress upon, though.

      My issue with your responses wasn’t that they were arbitrary as much as I felt you engaged in consistent “failed mind-reading”; instead of asking us how we thought, you would tell us how we thought, and you were rarely correct. That’s not a good way of persuading people that you have The Truth, when you can’t get the small things that we do know correct.

      All in my opinion, of course.

  3. Bro Nohm, how in your worldview do you example the ability to do math and physics. Without God, you, Nohm, can’t know anything. Until you repent to the God you know exists, you won’t know anything.

    • Hi Richard,

      how in your worldview do you example the ability to do math and physics.

      I’m not clear what you mean by this. Math and physics are models of the natural world. What about “my worldview” would make it difficult to do math and physics?

      Without God, you, Nohm, can’t know anything.

      Please demonstrate this. As I’ve said before, since I think you’re parroting Eric Hovind and Sye TenB, there’s a drastic difference between “know anything” and “know anything for 100% certainty”. I think you’re saying the former (which you haven’t demonstrated to be true) when you really mean the latter (which I’ll accept).

      Until you repent to the God you know exists, you won’t know anything.

      You haven’t demonstrated that this claim of yours is true, and I don’t agree with it.

      I know that 1+1=2, and that’s without believing in God.

      Oh, and no, I don’t know God exists. I fully understand what happens to me in a Christian worldview, so please understand that no sin would be worth an eternity in Hell.

      I repeat: I do not know that God exists, because if I did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

      Romans 1 is an example of Paul doing failed mind-reading, and you’re just following in those footsteps.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.