PDA

View Full Version : Why are atheists so stubborn ?



Sherry W
Mar 21st 2009, 01:40 PM
I use three analogies to point out how evolution and the Big Bang are very unlikely, but it doesn't work. Is it because atheists don't WANT to believe?

1. The watch and the watchmaker.

2. A tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a fully operational 747.

3. The chance of only eight out of the more than 300 messianic prophecies coming to pass by accident is like covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep and marking one with an "X" and mixing them up and having a blindfolded man walk around and picking out the right silver dollar.

The fact that none of these analogies work reinforces my view is that people become atheists because they WANT to, not because of "lack of evidence". If I'm wrong please correct me and show why this form of reasoning falls on deaf ears.

Revinius
Mar 21st 2009, 02:43 PM
What part of those arguments denies the 'big bang'?

Sherry W
Mar 21st 2009, 02:53 PM
The first two analogies simply show how improbable it is that the Universe came about without a Creator.

Gregg
Mar 21st 2009, 03:15 PM
The first two analogies simply show how improbable it is that the Universe came about without a Creator.

I think Revinius is implying that God used the Big Bang as his method for getting us started.

Sherry W
Mar 21st 2009, 03:19 PM
I can see how that is possible.

moonglow
Mar 21st 2009, 03:25 PM
Well the big bang did happen though...which for me proves a Creator started it all. That the universe had a beginning...people used to believe it always just existed. For anything to have a beginning that says alot actually!

You are trying to tell them to ignore evidence that is in their face in order to accept God. We really don't have to do that. They don't have to reject one thing in order to accept another thing (God). There are many Christians that believe evolution happened too...and to a degree it did. Micro evolution is small changes in the same thing...such as the flu virus changes every year so they have to make vaccines with the change or the vaccines won't work against it. Its still the flu bug though no matter how many times it 'evolves' though. Marco evolution on the other hand is the belief something changed so much it became something else entirely which is what Darwin taught.

While I agree that something didn't come from nothing and created itself into something so elaborate...atheist are many times what I call science worshipers...Science is their religion. To them they have the evidence and we have none (from their point of view). I wouldn't even bring up evolution actually...as I said many Christians believe this is how God did it. Make it a non-issue and you might have better luck.

Oh and you are right...many atheist just don't want to believe.

God bless

Sherry W
Mar 21st 2009, 03:33 PM
You make a good point. The types of atheists who don't want to believe are the ones I get angry at.

moonglow
Mar 21st 2009, 04:29 PM
You make a good point. The types of atheists who don't want to believe are the ones I get angry at.

Well getting angry at them though doesn't make a good witness. The bible tells us God will judge those that aren't believers...so let Him do that. Jesus says to shake the dust off your feet from those that don't want to hear the message.

Matthew 10
14 If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave. 15 I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day

It also says to not cast your pearl before swines.

Matthew 7:6
ďDonít waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Donít throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

So if they don't want to hear it, quit talking to them. Find those that want to hear the gospel. :)

God bless

BroRog
Mar 21st 2009, 04:35 PM
I use three analogies to point out how evolution and the Big Bang are very unlikely, but it doesn't work. Is it because atheists don't WANT to believe?

1. The watch and the watchmaker.

2. A tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a fully operational 747.

3. The chance of only eight out of the more than 300 messianic prophecies coming to pass by accident is like covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep and marking one with an "X" and mixing them up and having a blindfolded man walk around and picking out the right silver dollar.

The fact that none of these analogies work reinforces my view is that people become atheists because they WANT to, not because of "lack of evidence". If I'm wrong please correct me and show why this form of reasoning falls on deaf ears.

Yes, Paul the Apostle argues that belief is a matter of the will in Romans the first chapter. He says that atheists suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Revinius
Mar 22nd 2009, 01:30 AM
You make a good point. The types of atheists who don't want to believe are the ones I get angry at.

The only real issue that a Christian can really smash heads with an atheist (one we can all agree is uncompromisable) is whether the processes atheist's claim are the origin of life are down to RANDOM chance with natural selection OR whether such processes are GUIDED by God. It is a philosophical point moreso than an atheistic one. If any scientist tries to say: "evolution disproves God" then he is making a very unscientific claim (and imho opinion should go back to being a 1st year undergrad and be taught what science is).

In the end, science is a study of process, and anything beyond such a process is merely philosophicial opinion. Anyone is entitled to have one, but it's extremely dishonest to suggest: "i am a scientist, bow before my wisdom on this claim" when a scientist is out of his depth. Evolution as process is observable, evolution as origin is an entirely different kettle of fish (a philosophy).

In the end, i find it all quite a moot point. The bible doesnt seek to answer the 'how' that most seem to want it to answer. It's not a science text book, and we should never treat it as such. Genesis seeks to answer the topic of 'why' the universe (and us) was created. Science can try and study the process of 'how' as much as they like, but it and the bible are asking different although compatible questions. Why was the universe created? (the bible says God willed it) How was the universe created? (Big bang etc etc) No compatibility issues there.

The only issue is whether God did it or not, and scientists can't go into metaphysics. From this stalemate perspective on creation it's then beneficial to take the curious atheist into ethics (eg. If there is no God, what is evil?) although that is for another thread and question. ;)

ilovemetal
Mar 22nd 2009, 06:40 AM
i usually go with the 'things don't come from nothing/information doesn't come from non-information' argument. the problem is many people, once examined actually don't know what they believe. those people claiming to be athiests are apathetic and believe a couple random books or internet sites and misinformation. i know of some like this. they'll say words and expect them to be an argument, when in reality, they are spitting rhetoric. its amusing sometimes.

*Hope*
Mar 22nd 2009, 03:30 PM
Stubbornness isn't exclusive to atheists. There are plenty of Christians who refuse to believe truth in various areas as well.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 22nd 2009, 04:12 PM
We still have christians who claim the sun orbits the earth. I daresay stubbornness isn't exclusively an atheistic trait.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 22nd 2009, 04:20 PM
I use three analogies to point out how evolution and the Big Bang are very unlikely, but it doesn't work. Is it because atheists don't WANT to believe?

1. The watch and the watchmaker.

2. A tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a fully operational 747.


Those are rather "rough" analogies that aren't really comparable to reality.

How does the probability of just one out of a million possible supernatural explanations being correct stack up against those odds?



3. The chance of only eight out of the more than 300 messianic prophecies coming to pass by accident is like covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep and marking one with an "X" and mixing them up and having a blindfolded man walk around and picking out the right silver dollar.
Well, often atheists may point out that a lot of those fulfilled prophecies are somewhat subjective.

Additionally this analogy is kind of flawed in that it assumes all these fulfilled prophecies are purely accidental instead of intentional, and when you're dealing with human beings intentionality is always a factor.

Finally, there's always the fact that even really improbable things happen alot - people win the lottery, are struck by lightning, ect. Given enough time someone will eventually win a long bet.

BroRog
Mar 22nd 2009, 05:12 PM
Those are rather "rough" analogies that aren't really comparable to reality.

What part of reality would that be? I think one would have to work extremely hard to ignore the simple truth, and implications of the fact that the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker. But men do work that hard, even as Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth?", the godless reprobate of mind continue to ask "what is design?", not that the question is inappropriate but that the question is never allowed to be answered.

How many people do you know, between bouts of drunken stupor, will wake up and freely acknowledge the reality of cause and effect?

The tornado/junkyard analogy speaks to the untenable, indefensible notion that time and chance can account for everything that exists. The point of the analogy is to say that no matter if the tornado kept blowing for a million years, it wouldn't produce such a sophisticated machine as a commercial jet airliner, let alone a runway long enough to get it off the ground.


Well, often atheists may point out that a lot of those fulfilled prophecies are somewhat subjective.

Only the ignorant among their kind would suggest that the fulfillment of a prophecy is subjective. The others would rightly point out that the fact of their fulfillment is a separate issue from belief in the truth claims they make. What Sherry may be learning and what many of us have already learned is that unbelief is a matter of the will. A man will refuse to believe the factual truth if he doesn't want to believe it.


Additionally this analogy is kind of flawed in that it assumes all these fulfilled prophecies are purely accidental instead of intentional, and when you're dealing with human beings intentionality is always a factor.

I believe the analogy speaks to the atheist claim that fulfilled prophecies are due to random chance. The analogy is not suggesting that the prophecies were chance events, but that the only explanation for them falls outside of random chance.

The Biblical view, as I understand it, shows that God is able to broadcast his intentions in advance and bring about that intent at some future time. His predictions are specific enough to rule out random, chance events.


Finally, there's always the fact that even really improbable things happen alot - people win the lottery, are struck by lightning, ect. Given enough time someone will eventually win a long bet.

This is true, but now you seem to be getting at a set of criteria by which to analyze whether a predicted event has been fulfilled.

Discerning the difference between a legitimate prediction/event and a bogus claim takes skill and practice. The Biblical presentation of this idea records God's instructions on how to tell the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet, how to know whether a prophecy came from the Lord or another source, and what do with that information. Prophets were taught how to recognize the voice of the Lord (refer to Samuel) and the people were taught how to recognize real prophecy from the fake. (refer to Elijah).

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 23rd 2009, 01:01 AM
What part of reality would that be?


The part where you actually try to nail down specific variables. How, exactly, is this analogy related to evolutionary theory? Is a tornado really comparable to, say, a single celled organism in terms of complexity? Is a junkyard really comparable to the environment of the early earth? How, precisely, does a 747 compare to a living thing? These kinds of questions will arise.



I think one would have to work extremely hard to ignore the simple truth, and implications of the fact that the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker.
And I agree with you, I've always viewed a supernatural origin of the universe far more probable and logical than an infinite series of cause and effect. Or, as I like to put it, I find it easier to believe in a supernatural unicorn than and endless tower of tortoises and elephants. However, even if you make it this far you're left with the problem of actually identifying this "magical unicorn" as, say, the God of Christianity instead of Brahma. Or we could go even farther and say that it was simply an unknown non-god phenomena that we simply don't understand.



How many people do you know, between bouts of drunken stupor, will wake up and freely acknowledge the reality of cause and effect?
Stephen Hawking has some interesting ideas on how time can have a definite point of origin and still not have a definite starting point. But I already have a headache tonight and trying to wrap my head around his theories always makes it worse.



The tornado/junkyard analogy speaks to the untenable, indefensible notion that time and chance can account for everything that exists. The point of the analogy is to say that no matter if the tornado kept blowing for a million years, it wouldn't produce such a sophisticated machine as a commercial jet airliner, let alone a runway long enough to get it off the ground.
Sure, but what your average atheist will reply is that a tornado isn't really analogous to conditions of the early earth in regards to the availability of the necessary amino acids. Nor is the assembly of a machine like a 747 really analogous to the assembly of a simple life form which can then self-replicate.

Please keep in mind, I think you can argue against abiogenesis based on the evidence much better than based on analogies. I'm just throwing out some holes that your average atheist is going to shoot into your arguments, which isn't to say that these holes are actually valid points.



Only the ignorant among their kind would suggest that the fulfillment of a prophecy is subjective. The others would rightly point out that the fact of their fulfillment is a separate issue from belief in the truth claims they make.
Aw come on now, I've seen plenty of claimed instances of "prophecies fulfilled" that are tenuous at best. Besides, your arguing a point based on the reliability of a text an atheist doesn't believe in anyway. The best you can hope for is to convince him that what he regards as a made up story is internally consistent.



What Sherry may be learning and what many of us have already learned is that unbelief is a matter of the will. A man will refuse to believe the factual truth if he doesn't want to believe it.
I'll drink to that. . .but it can cut both ways.

bosco
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:44 PM
I think Revinius is implying that God used the Big Bang as his method for getting us started.

Interesting, and what verse was the Big Bang in?

Bosco

Philemon9
Mar 23rd 2009, 05:53 PM
Interesting, and what verse was the Big Bang in?

Bosco

The one where God gave us a rational mind to understand his rational universe

Evolution
Mar 23rd 2009, 07:30 PM
I use three analogies to point out how evolution and the Big Bang are very unlikely, but it doesn't work. Is it because atheists don't WANT to believe?

1. The watch and the watchmaker.

2. A tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a fully operational 747.

3. The chance of only eight out of the more than 300 messianic prophecies coming to pass by accident is like covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep and marking one with an "X" and mixing them up and having a blindfolded man walk around and picking out the right silver dollar.

The fact that none of these analogies work reinforces my view is that people become atheists because they WANT to, not because of "lack of evidence". If I'm wrong please correct me and show why this form of reasoning falls on deaf ears.

You can really make atheists think if you point out that the universe "looks created" and point out some of the prominent atheists that have become deists, etc.

They generally love scientific discussions as long as you know what you're talking about and aren't inflammatory.

Also, you will find that many of them say they are atheists but are closet pantheists that just want to slam Christianity. Again, this is where science comes in...

IamBill
Mar 25th 2009, 06:38 PM
I look forward to hitting 60 yrs old ...when I can finally and proudly say "I have been Christian Half of my life"
Until then though -atheist for the bulk of it.

Though I don't really remember how I in ANY way "willed" my disbelief (as being suggested) ..or "refused" to believe any of it. I am not even sure anymore what I was thinking.

But, I do know that noone could have convinced me that a "God", "Spirit", "Ghost", invisible world (Heaven), magic etc was more than expanded fairytale.
never really gave it more than that ...come to me just now, I remember at one point how a lie can grow ...thinking, "this all branched from "santa" :lol: :B

Again, never gave it more credit than that. certainly was not interested in discussing the possibility, but was NOT opposed to anyone else doing so,
blah de blah ....

which brings me to the point, atheists you bicker with on this inter webby thingy are more than likely not interested in more than making fun of you ..or carrying the title of 'the one who stumped you' perhaps. I never personally Knew (and still don't) an atheist who was like what we see today.
These people have ..agenda. and it is NOT to Learn anything from you except maybe how to stump a christian better Next time.

Be wise :)
any questions ?

teddyv
Mar 25th 2009, 08:12 PM
which brings me to the point, atheists you bicker with on this inter webby thingy are more than likely not interested in more than making fun of you ..or carrying the title of 'the one who stumped you' perhaps. I never personally Knew (and still don't) an atheist who was like what we see today.
These people have ..agenda. and it is NOT to Learn anything from you except maybe how to stump a christian better Next time.

Be wise :)
any questions ?

I have this same impression as well. I don't think one can underestimate the power of anonymity on the internet, even at times on a forum such as this.

Revinius
Mar 25th 2009, 08:37 PM
Interesting, and what verse was the Big Bang in?

Bosco

A beginning and causality dictates it, and i have little doubt that when God made it happen it would have been quite a 'big bang'.

JesusMySavior
Mar 25th 2009, 09:09 PM
Athiests are stubborn because they are fools (see Ps. 14:1).

And as far as the "big bang" or "evolution" goes, I don't see either in scripture, therefore I do not support or believe in either.

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 25th 2009, 09:19 PM
Athiests are stubborn because they are fools (see Ps. 14:1).


Sweet.



And as far as the "big bang" or "evolution" goes, I don't see either in scripture, therefore I do not support or believe in either.
[/quote]

I don't see "computers" in scripture, therefore I do not support or believe in them.

JesusMySavior
Mar 25th 2009, 09:28 PM
I don't see "computers" in scripture, therefore I do not support or believe in them.


Sweet.









But they weren't an integral part of creation. Just like I don't see my teddy bear in the Bible, it doesn't really matter - but if God said, I used furry brown teddy bears to create the earth, and someone else says, no, God used a white rabbit... I'd say wait, what? It's not in there. But they assume since the rabbit is faster than the teddy bear and you can feed him carrots, because they can see it with their eyes, they say no, God you are wrong - you used a white rabbit instead of a brown teddy bear. Isn't that cute?

Itinerant Lurker
Mar 25th 2009, 11:01 PM
But they weren't an integral part of creation. Just like I don't see my teddy bear in the Bible, it doesn't really matter - but if God said, I used furry brown teddy bears to create the earth, and someone else says, no, God used a white rabbit... I'd say wait, what? It's not in there. But they assume since the rabbit is faster than the teddy bear and you can feed him carrots, because they can see it with their eyes, they say no, God you are wrong - you used a white rabbit instead of a brown teddy bear. Isn't that cute?

Dude. . .wha. . .wh. . .what does this paragraph even mean?

IamBill
Mar 25th 2009, 11:04 PM
I have this same impression as well. I don't think one can underestimate the power of anonymity on the internet, even at times on a forum such as this.

I hear ya loud and clear. ;)

IamBill
Mar 25th 2009, 11:53 PM
Athiests are stubborn because they are fools.


I will be the FIRST to admit that "YES I WAS A FOOL" JMS. I never thought so at the time though. Nor was any insult from someone who "believed" - an insult. ...nor would I have ever called you a Fool.
Nor was I in search of God, God found Me. I didn't know I was lost.

Revinius
Mar 26th 2009, 03:08 AM
God gave us a brain to interact with His creation. To then go the dangerous path of solo-scriptura is actually more bible worship than God-worship. Beware.

bagofseed
Mar 26th 2009, 03:27 AM
God gave us a brain to interact with His creation. To then go the dangerous path of solo-scriptura is actually more bible worship than God-worship. Beware.
I would agree.
Knowing God is more then just study and human understanding.

But it is equally true that we can not reject the written word without rejecting the author.

We make our selves out to be above God when we judge the law.

We would all be better off in humbly judging our selves and our understanding by it and asking to be brought in line with the ultimate truth of His power in and through us.

bagofseed
Mar 26th 2009, 03:40 AM
Its the same all over.

Man closes his eyes because he does not want to see, so God closes his eyes all the more and the man becomes blind.

Man hardens his heart so God hardens his heart all the more to the point where a man of God calls fire down from the heavens and still the man cant accept God's commands.

Man humbles him self and he confesses his blindness and God opens his eyes.

Man repents of his own way and his own truth and turns to God, so God changes the mans heart and establishes His truth in the man.

What can you say but,
God have mercy on blind, hard hearted, prideful men like us.

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you!

JesusMySavior
Mar 26th 2009, 04:31 AM
I will be the FIRST to admit that "YES I WAS A FOOL" JMS. I never thought so at the time though. Nor was any insult from someone who "believed" - an insult. ...nor would I have ever called you a Fool.
Nor was I in search of God, God found Me. I didn't know I was lost.

I'm sorry if you took that wrong. :) I was just quoting the Bible.

If you have an issue with that you'll have to take it up with God, not me. :D


"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Ps 14:1)


(granted I don't go around calling people fools, but you get my drift I hope)

IamBill
Mar 26th 2009, 06:52 PM
I'm sorry if you took that wrong. :) I was just quoting the Bible.

If you have an issue with that you'll have to take it up with God, not me. :D


"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Ps 14:1)


(granted I don't go around calling people fools, but you get my drift I hope)


No no :) ..it is good. This way if the OP is looking for a way to "win an argument" they can toss 'P 14:1' at them.

But I am hoping the goal is their "Soul"
...in which case some 'insight' would be more effective.

So again, (maybe I can make it more clear) ..an atheist does not believe in such things, It is not personal to "Jesus" or the "Christians", it includes satan, witchcraft, psychics, boogy-man, spirits, souls and all "unseen" with about the exception of gravity.

BUT what we see all over the net is a group/s calling themselves atheists and the difference being ..They BELIEVE there is no Christian God
Understand the difference ? ..A religion that is based on science. They are no more interested in your "religion" than you are of theirs.

They are Against-Christ personally

Sam07
Apr 3rd 2009, 03:57 AM
Hi everyone

The body of Christ is made up of many members each member is unique in there perception and personality thatís what makes them effective individuals and team players in body of Christ.

God has set each person accordingly in the body and given them different gifts and talents so they are able to plant and water seeds it is a team effort you have planted seeds or continued to water seeds of another but it is God that prepares there heart ready for harvest in due season.

So donít be dismayed or discouraged as you will also share in there reward for your faithfulness, just continue to plant and water in season and out of season for the harvest truly is plenteous but the labors are few. Mat 9:37

Peace

Sam