Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
JAD:
Armand Jacks questioned whether “someone else’s opinions” could be evil. They could be if you try to force your opinions on somebody else.
I agree. But when atheists are creating or influencing laws that impact you negatively, as Christians have done for centuries, let me know.
From what I have seen that is exactly what our regular interlocutors are trying to do.
Provide examples rather than unsubstantiated claims.
Why else would they offer their opinions with no evidence and no arguments?
Then you have a serious reading problem. I have provided rational, arguments and supporting evidence for my opinion on abortion. It is KF and others who have refused to provide rationale, arguments and evidence to support their opinion that abortion at any stage is murder (a holocaust) yet not think that women who have abortions should be tried for murder.
They want to tear down our world view and offer nothing to replace it.
A complete misrepresentation of what I am doing. I can't speak for others. All I am doing is asking you to support your world view. The same thing that you and others demand of us.
That type of thinking if not dangerous is certainly unethical, isn’t it?
Since when is asking people to support their views dangerous and unethical. Certainly the greater danger is not asking people to support their views. If the German people had have demanded this of Hitler, there would not have been a holocaust.Armand Jacks
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
And BTW, have our interlocutors taken pause to watch the vid as embedded, which is actually far more central to the core Christian message and addresses a prophecy of Isaiah of c 700 BC fulfilled c 30 AD? Where, we have not only Septuagint translations of C3 BC but the DSS scrolls c 160 BC and more. With as well 500 eyewitnesses not one of whom could be broken even in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse. Not to mention millions of onward witnesses with lives transformed down to today. As to attempted blanket dismissals of metaphysics, one cannot not have a worldview with metaphysical commitments, one can only have an unexamined, subtly controlling one. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
See what I mean about selective hyperskepticism?kairosfocus
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
jdk:
These are just all after the fact special pleadings. They are not only not compelling, they are so obviously contrived to make a point that they are, in my opinion, negative evidence for Christianity.
A written prediction comes through with sufficient detail to identify Jesus, in the role of the One whose influence on human history ranks with, well, whomever you please to name; and you consider it special pleading to make the connection? Just what is your standard for evaluating such a prediction, and how does this fail to meet it? Also, how can it serve as negative evidence if people offer interpretations you disagree with? I can make bad arguments for pilot wave theory, or cosmic inflation all day; surely you wouldn't begin to suspect these things are false on that basis? It seems more an artifact of personal displeasure than any logical necessity.LocalMinimum
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Charles, there is no need to continue. 1. I don't accept your "facts" as being actually factually true. I've explained why. 2. I explained that I don't believe that there are any supernatural beings that interact with humans, much less care a bit about communicating with Daniel. I have no interest in your prophecy beliefs.jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
I'm away for a few hours.Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
jdk @ 27
I believe it is possible that some type of cosmic intelligence is in some causally related to the existence and nature of our universe. However, I don’t believe we can know anything about whether such intelligence exists, or what it’s nature might be.
Ok, then I will reiterate the facts provided to you up to this point: The literature in Daniel chapter 9 states that in 538 B.C. (Dan 9:1-2) Daniel’s concept of a supernatural being revealed to him that from a decree issued to rebuild and restore Jerusalem there would be 69 weeks of years (483 years) until the Messiah would appear (Dan 9:25). In 458 B.C. Artaxerxes I issued that decree in his 7th year (Ezr 7:8-14) plus 483 years ends in A.D. 26. In A.D. 26 Jesus proclaimed himself that Messiah (Luke 4:18-20). The literature is factually correct on when Daniel wrote his prophecy in the 1st year of the new governor of Babylon following Cyrus the Great’s capture of it from Belshazzar, factually correct on when was Artaxerxes I 7th year, factually correct on Ezra receiving a decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem, and factually correct on A.D. 26 being the year of Tiberius’ 15th year, and factually correct on Jesus being about 30 years of age having been born in 5 B.C. just prior to the death of Herod the Great in March of 4 B.C. The literature is factually correct on all those points. The math is correct on all those points. You admit as an immaterialist atheist to the possibility of a cosmic intelligence. Regardless of your characterization of the supernatural concepts as mythical, the literature is factually correct that Daniel wrote a correct prophecy 563 years in advance of that prophecy factually being fulfilled. Yet when confronted with the choice of answering, “might a cosmic intelligence (of which you admit the possibility) have told Daniel 563 years in advance that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26”, you argue the prophecy is "after the fact". If this prophecy were “after the fact”, the literature would have been written later than A.D. 26. But copies of Daniel were transcribed in the Septuagint as early as 3rd century B.C. and Ezekiel whose date is unquestioned at 592-570 BC also mentions Daniel. By any factual measure, Daniel wrote his literature well before the 69 weeks prophecy came true. So, I ask you again: What is your immaterialist atheist explanation that reconciles those facts? Might a cosmic intelligence have told Daniel when the Messiah would appear?Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
john_a_designer, do you have something to offer other than your opinions? Also, I'm not trying to "tear down" your world view, I'm just telling you that I don't believe it. Why is that so threatening?jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Charles, let me be more specific. Although I am a strong agnostic about all metaphysics, I believe it is possible that some type of cosmic intelligence is in some causally related to the existence and nature of our universe. However, I don't believe we can know anything about whether such intelligence exists, or what it's nature might be. However I don't believe at all that that intelligence is some type of conscious, willful being who interacts with human beings. As I have said, "I definitely think that all the human conceptions of supernatural beings (for instance, the Christian God) that take an active interest in the lives of mankind are myths." We can't know what the ultimate ground of the universe is, so we have made up stories. All the gods of humanity are narrative fictions. These are not "conflicted assertions."jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Armand Jacks @ 2,
KF: why are atheists and especially those involved with evolutionary materialistic scientism or its fellow traveller ideologies and agendas so agitated? KF AJ: Agitated? I’m not the one posting thousand word comments and dedicated OPs bemoaning the evils of someone else’s opinions.
>jdk @ 16,
These are just all after the fact special pleadings. They are not only not compelling, they are so obviously contrived to make a point that they are, in my opinion, negative evidence for Christianity. This is way off my main points, so I will have nothing further to say about this.
Opinions? Is that all atheists have? Our interlocutors need to answer the following questions: Are you just showing up here to just share your opinion? You do understand your ungrounded opinion is just your opinion and not the truth and not even an argument, don’t you? Why should we give your ungrounded opinion any credence at all? Are you smarter, more honest, better looking, more smug, a certified know-it-all? There has got to be a reason beyond “this is just my opinion,” doesn’t there? Or, do you just want us to accept your opinions uncritically. Armand Jacks questioned whether “someone else’s opinions” could be evil. They could be if you try to force your opinions on somebody else. From what I have seen that is exactly what our regular interlocutors are trying to do. Why else would they offer their opinions with no evidence and no arguments? They want to tear down our world view and offer nothing to replace it. That type of thinking if not dangerous is certainly unethical, isn’t it?john_a_designer
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
jdk @ 13 I also am very interested in some of the metaphysical issues, and don’t rule out the unprovable idea of some type of fundamental cosmic intelligence.
jdk @ 24 Or are you saying that my general belief that the Christian God, as well as all other human beliefs about supernatural beings, doesn’t exist is an example selective hyperskepticism?
Maybe you just don't pay attention to your own conflicted assertions.Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
kf says, "F/N: the exchanges here remind me uncomfortably of the points WJM made in his OP here .../ Selective hyperskepticism is a fallacy. KF" Are you saying that dismissing all this talk of this prophecy in the Bible is an example of selective hyperskepticism? Or are you saying that my general belief that the Christian God, as well as all other human beliefs about supernatural beings, doesn't exist is an example selective hyperskepticism?jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @ 21
Is this [Daniel in fact did prophesy in 538 B.C.] reliable? What external evidence is there that Daniel did indeed make a prophecy in 538 B.C.?
Yes, it is reliable. The external evidence is that Cyrus the Great captured Babylon from Belshazzar in 538 B.C., which would be the 1st year of any new governor. Daniel says that is when he received the revelation from God (Dan 9:1-2). The language of Daniel also conforms to terminology used at the Babylonian court in that era, and Ezekiel (whose date is unquestioned at 592-570 BC) mentions Daniel.
My understanding is that scholars date the book’s writing to a couple of centuries later.
Yes, some do. The reason they do is they can not, will not, accept the supernatural nature of prophecy being so accurate, and so they look for a later date. But such date can not be any later than the Septuagint which was copied beginning 3rd century B.C. and contains Daniel in its entirety. But let's assume that later date for a moment. Assume Daniel chapter 9 was written in the 3rd century B.C. The prophecy is still the same, word for word. Jesus is still the Messiah and still began His ministry in A.D. 26. The prophecy is still exactly foretold before Jesus appeared and fulfilled exactly with Jesus in A.D. 26 – the only difference is the assumption Daniel wrote the prophecy after Artaxerxes I issued the decree. But it was still the same decree, still issued to Ezra at the same time. Nothing has changed. So some scholars, by delaying the date of Daniel Chapter 9 a couple hundred years, still have not escaped the fact of fulfilled supernatural prophecy they wish to avoid.Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Oh, and I'm still trying to work out what all this has to do with Fast Fourier Transforms. :-)Bob O'H
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Charles -
Daniel in fact did prophesy in 538 B.C....
Is this reliable? What external evidence is there that Daniel did indeed make a prophecy in 538 B.C.? My understanding is that scholars date the book's writing to a couple of centuries later.Bob O'H
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
jdk @ 16, 17
But I definitely think that all the human conceptions of supernatural beings (for instance, the Christian God) that take an active interest in the lives of mankind are myths ... they are literature, but they are not factual.
Ok, the literature in Daniel chapter 9 states that in 538 B.C. (Dan 9:1-2) Daniel's concept of a supernatural being revealed to him that from a decree issued to rebuild and restore Jerusalem there would be 69 weeks of years (483 years) until the Messiah would appear (Dan 9:25). In 458 B.C. Artaxerxes I issued that decree in his 7th year (Ezr 7:8-14) plus 483 years ends in A.D. 26. In A.D. 26 Jesus proclaimed himself that Messiah (Luke 4:18-20). The literature is factually correct on when Daniel wrote his prophecy in the 1st year of the new governor of Babylon following Cyrus the Great's capture of it from Belshazzar, factually correct on when was Artaxerxes I 7th year, factually correct on Ezra receiving a decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem, and factually correct on A.D. 26 being the year of Tiberius' 15th year, and factually correct on Jesus being about 30 years of age having been born in 5 B.C. just prior to the death of Herod the Great in March of 4 B.C. The literature is factually correct on all those points. The math is correct on all those points. You admit as an immaterialist atheist to the possibility of a cosmic intelligence. Regardless of your characterization of the supernatural concepts as mythical, the literature is factually correct that Daniel wrote a correct prophecy 563 years in advance of that prophecy factually being fulfilled. Yet when confronted with the choice of answering, "might a cosmic intelligence (of which you admit the possibility) have told Daniel 563 years in advance that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26", you argue:
These are just all after the fact special pleadings. They are not only not compelling, they are so obviously contrived to make a point that they are, in my opinion, negative evidence for Christianity.
If they were "after the fact", the literature would have been written later than A.D. 26. But copies of Daniel were transcribed in the Septuagint as early as 3rd century B.C. and Ezekiel whose date is unquestioned at 592-570 BC also mentions Daniel. By any factual measure, Daniel wrote his literature well before the 69 weeks prophecy came true. The question was obviously contrived to explore your belief in immaterialist atheism, yes, I said so upfront. Your intellectually honest answers might have been: - I don't know - Give me some details about .... - How did you determine .... - Yes, a cosmic intelligence, if it could somehow traverse time, could have told Daniel about a future event. But instead you opt for not answering, accusing the math, the literature, and the history behind it as "mythical", and then proceed to castigate the question as "negative evidence for Christianity". And there is my point about the atheist needing to buttress his unwillingness to honestly answer a question by instead expressing contempt for the questioner. Why do you try to disqualify the question? What were you worried your answer would reveal?Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
F/N: the exchanges here remind me uncomfortably of the points WJM made in his OP here: www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-woeful-state-of-modern-debate/ Selective hyperskepticism is a fallacy. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
jdk:
These are just all after the fact special pleadings. They are not only not compelling, they are so obviously contrived to make a point that they are, in my opinion, negative evidence for Christianity.
In other words, you have no idea whatsoever, but you are certain that nothing transcendent was involved.
This is way off my main points, so I will have nothing further to say about this.
And not only do you have no idea, but you'd really rather not be challenged by ideas outside your bubble.Phinehas
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Charles writes, "Might a cosmic intelligence have told Daniel when the Messiah would appear?" As I said immediately after the statement that I "don’t rule out the unprovable idea of some type of fundamental cosmic intelligence",
But I definitely think that all the human conceptions of supernatural beings (for instance, the Christian God) that take an active interest in the lives of mankind are myths: that is the sense in which I am a strong atheist. Human religions are human inventions: they are literature, but they are not factual.
So no, I don't think that is a possibility.jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
These are just all after the fact special pleadings. They are not only not compelling, they are so obviously contrived to make a point that they are, in my opinion, negative evidence for Christianity. This is way off my main points, so I will have nothing further to say about this.jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Thanks, jdk.daveS
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
jdk @ 13 I'll simply repeat the specific question asked of you. Since Daniel said in 538 B.C., that God revealed to him that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26, and the Messiah in fact did appear in A.D. 26, how did Daniel know 563 years in advance exactly when (A.D. 26) the Messiah would appear? What is the immaterialist atheist explanation that reconciles that account?
I also am very interested in some of the metaphysical issues, and don’t rule out the unprovable idea of some type of fundamental cosmic intelligence.
Might a cosmic intelligence have told Daniel when the Messiah would appear?Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
I'm a strong atheist, and I did comment about not having "fear and worry" about my lack of belief. I also am very interested in some of the metaphysical issues, and don't rule out the unprovable idea of some type of fundamental cosmic intelligence. But I definitely think that all the human conceptions of supernatural beings (for instance, the Christian God) that take an active interest in the lives of mankind are myths: that is the sense in which I am a strong atheist. Human religions are human inventions: they are literature, but they are not factual.jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @ 9
Daniel didn’t say in 538BC that that God revealed to him that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26.
Daniel in fact did prophesy in 538 B.C. (Dan 9:1-2) that beginnning from a decree issued to rebuild and restore Jerusalem there would be 69 weeks of years (483 years) until the Messiah would appear (Dan 9:25). In 458 B.C. Artaxerxes I issued that decree in his 7th year (Ezr 7:8-14) plus 483 years ends in A.D. 26.Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Although going back 490 years from 26 AD gets you to 461 BC, so that doesn't work either. And where did 563 years come from?jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Charles,
I would suggest then, because you seem genuinely interested in exploring (as the term conotes an open mind) some questions around theism/atheism, that you are not a hard atheist in the strict sense of the term.
Yes, I would identify as a negative/weak atheist, or agnostic if you prefer. I'm guessing a positive/strong atheist could still have posted my #5, particularly the part about fear or worry (and being intellectually threatened, later on in the post). Any positive/strong atheists here interested to comment?daveS
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Since Daniel said in 538 B.C., that God revealed to him that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26, and the Messiah in fact did appear in A.D. 26, how did Daniel know 563 years in advance exactly when (A.D. 26) the Messiah would appear?
Ooh, ooh, I know the answer to this one! Daniel didn't say in 538BC that that God revealed to him that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26. This is a later interpretation, where someone counted back, errm, 490 years from AD 26.Bob O'H
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
jdk @ 6 asserts:
Just a reminder: “atheist” and “materialist” are not synonyms. All materialists are atheists. All atheists are not materialists.
That means "materialists" are a subset of a larger set "atheists", and hence some "atheists" (of which jdk seems to include himself) are "immaterialists". Ok, let's explore the implications of that viewpoint, that an atheist like jdk can believe in the immaterial. Since Daniel said in 538 B.C., that God revealed to him that the Messiah would appear in A.D. 26, and the Messiah in fact did appear in A.D. 26, how did Daniel know 563 years in advance exactly when (A.D. 26) the Messiah would appear? What is the immaterialist atheist explanation that reconciles that account?Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
daveS @ 5
Even for a nonbeliever, there are many interesting questions around theism/atheism that some of us find worth exploring.
I would suggest then, because you seem genuinely interested in exploring (as the term conotes an open mind) some questions around theism/atheism, that you are not a hard atheist in the strict sense of the term. Perhaps you're less in need of refuting claims for God & Jesus and more of an agnostic that is unpersuaded to date by whatever claims of which you're presently aware.Charles
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
I was writing his as DaveS posted, and I agree with him My post For the record: Charles bolds the following from the other thread:
while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.
So I'll repeat what I wrote at that time:
I’m an atheist. If Christian theists didn’t feel like they needed to legislate their beliefs into society, claiming that they had some uniquely valid view of what is right, then I would be quite content to let them believe whatever they wanted to. I definitely don’t worry about being wrong."
I'll also point out that I later posted the reminder that,
Just a reminder: “atheist” and “materialist” are not synonyms. All materialists are atheists. All atheists are not materialists.
With that said, I'll elaborate. Charles mentions a whole bunch of reasons why he (and many other) think materialism and atheism are untenable. I think there are good and interesting arguments in opposition all those topics, and I have discussed some of them here. I am very satisfied that theism is not a useful or compelling answer to those many questions. More specifically, I think that Christian theism, with it's myth that God has played a special role in the lives of humans, is definitely not true. I have absolutely no concern that I am not a believer in Jesus Christ. I have no interest in being part of a debate about these issues here at UD. What I do want to do is make it clear that claiming that I, as an atheist, "fear and worry" about being wrong about God is absolutely false. Claiming that someone you disagree with has secret, fearful motivations for his position, rather than accepting people's views as they state them, is inappropriate. There is much anthropological evidence that people in general have questions about issues that cause them concern, such as death as well as many others, and universally make up stories to avoid the uncertainty of not knowing. As an atheist, and strong agnostic about materialism, I am comfortable living with uncertainty, and certainly do not worry that I don't believe in Christianity, or any of the other of the world's theistic religions.jdk
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
1 15 16 17 18

Leave a Reply