[TheFartKnocker777]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Person,

Jesus Christ is dynamic and always interacting with the Creation, yet He does not change, nor does His Word, the Bible!

you always think that Jesus or the lord did this and that. but the truth is that religion is made by idiots who made people racist, sexist, and even made countless of wars all by his name.


now I know your gonna insult me by saying your going to hell or saying jesus made miracles or some [FILTHY LANGUAGE REMOVED BY FRIENDLY MODERATOR] and also add a bible verse. Now I want you to make an insult without saying anything related to Jesus and hell.


Thanks,
Pheonix

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

you always think that Jesus or the lord did this and that. but the truth is that religion is made by idiots who made people racist, sexist, and even made countless of wars all by his name.


now I know your gonna insult me by saying your going to hell or saying jesus made miracles or some [FILTHY LANGUAGE REMOVED BY FRIENDLY MODERATOR] and also add a bible verse. Now I want you to make an insult without saying anything related to Jesus and hell.


Thanks,
Pheonix

No one has any interest in insulting you, you filthy talking wretch. We are here, minding our own business, enjoying fellowship with other Christians. You were not invited, but you came anyway. You have graciously been awarded posting privileges here, but you have used those privileges to try to vex Christians. You have been here for several days and still have not followed the simple directions, which are a condition of your membership here, to make a proper introduction. Instead, you barge into other people's conversations as if we are interested in what you have to say. You are rude, fellow. Now, what say ye to these charges?


BTW-You have misspelled your own name.

[handmaiden]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

. . . I want you to make an insult without saying anything related to Jesus and hell.


Thanks,
Pheonix

That really isn't so very difficult to do. My problem is that I don't feel sufficiently motivated to insult you. Why do you suppose that is?

[TheFartKnocker777]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Why do you suppose that is?

Because, all you do is saying that atheism is going to hell or even Jews are fags or homosexuality is a sin or etc. isn't it time for anyone to anyone who listens to different religions and (admiring reference to male organs removed for the sake of the children).

Thanks,
Phoenix

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Because, all you do is saying that atheism is going to hell or even Jews are fags or homosexuality is a sin or etc. isn't it time for anyone to anyone who listens to different religions and don't be a dick about it.

Thanks,
Phoenix

You are quite mistaken. We have a lot to say about a lot of things and all of it has been previously verified by the Lord God. It goes without saying that atheists will go to Hell, but I doubt that anyone here thinks that all Jews are homosexuals. They will go to Hell, too, but only a few will go for being homosexuals. Most will go for denying the Son of God. And, of course, all homosexuals defy God's word and so they have to go to Hell. You have cherry picked a number of known facts and now you want to complain about them. I note that there is still no introduction from you. You are very rude and smug and you seem to be wrong about almost everything you believe. Hell is full of the likes of you. Please be aware of the fact that our patience is not endless. We have tolerated your nasty talk and rude abrasive attitude for some time now and you are growing tiresome. Don't expect our patience to last forever.

[handmaiden]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Because, all you do is saying that atheism is going to hell or even Jews are fags or homosexuality is a sin or etc. isn't it time for anyone to anyone who listens to different religions and (admiring reference to male organs removed for the sake of the children).

Thanks,
Phoenix

Based on the statement above, I feel an overwhelming urge to hire a tutor for you so that you can communicate your own insults in a comprehensible manner.

[Titus Templeton]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Another point is the violence caused by atheist teenagers. Just look at this shocking footage. Police had to kill the kid at the end because he had no moral compass.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

None of the ten points listed in the original (first) post are true. They are all wrong, each one of them. However, there is a way to defeat an atheist. Just ask him, "Why is there something rather than nothing." His answer will be that this is a meaningless question. Then ask, what is the cause of the universe. His answer will be that the notion of causality does not apply to this question. The ask him why are all of the universal physical constants fine tuned exactly so that to admit the existence of life. His answer will be that this is by pure chance because our universe is only one of 10^100 other universes where these constants are not tuned correctly. Then ask him to prove the existence of the multiverse. He will not be able to do so by the scientific method of experiment. Even so, ask him where did the multiverse come from and why does the multiverse exist. By asserting the existence of a multiverse he has only kicked the can a bit further down the road, but offered no explanation. The ask him how does human consciousness come into existence by rearrangement of atoms. Can he create human consciousness in the laboratory of atomic particles alone? Where did human consciousness and human ability to understand and reflect upon the world around them come from? I don't see the explanation of human consciousness in a materialistic theory.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

None of the ten points listed in the original (first) post are true. They are all wrong, each one of them. However, there is a way to defeat an atheist. Just ask him, "Why is there something rather than nothing." His answer will be that this is a meaningless question. Then ask, what is the cause of the universe. His answer will be that the notion of causality does not apply to this question. The ask him why are all of the universal physical constants fine tuned exactly so that to admit the existence of life. His answer will be that this is by pure chance because our universe is only one of 10^100 other universes where these constants are not tuned correctly. Then ask him to prove the existence of the multiverse. He will not be able to do so by the scientific method of experiment. Even so, ask him where did the multiverse come from and why does the multiverse exist. By asserting the existence of a multiverse he has only kicked the can a bit further down the road, but offered no explanation. The ask him how does human consciousness come into existence by rearrangement of atoms. Can he create human consciousness in the laboratory of atomic particles alone? Where did human consciousness and human ability to understand and reflect upon the world around them come from? I don't see the explanation of human consciousness in a materialistic theory.

Dear Friend,

Your heart is in the right place, but you're walking on a perilous path. While it is true that the common atheist is badly educated and only indoctrinated into his cult, their leaders are intelligent and devious people who are not at all intimidated by our endeavors to defeat them on their own arena. That is the problem. If we only follow naturalistic methods and logic, we shall fail miserably and as a result the atheist is more and more convinced of his hypotheses. Let us see how the things you presented are exposed within the atheist mind frame and then assess how we should be answering them!

Why is there something? We know the answer but within the atheist delusion, so do they. In fact, the refuse to accept that something/nothing is a dichotomy unlike in the world of Jesus where things either are or are not (Matthew 12:30). The main problem when and if we try to pose this question is that the everyday concept of nothingness and the our experiences regarding the nature of reality are not valid in the scale of quantum physics and the secular concept of existence relies on that.

There are two atheist answers. 1. The Jocaxian nothingness. This is a nothingness that not only does not have physical elements but also 2. lacks logical rules. This is because if we impose rules upon it it ceases to be "nothing". This is different from our conception, the trivial nothingness that does not allow anything to happen without cause. In the Jocaxian nothingness with no rules any random thing can produce (or not) a natural law, and if the next random event produces a compatible law, they can coexist, otherwise the previous law (or the new one) will be damaged and disappear. Thus, the atheist physics have absolute no problem of producing a universe without any expenditure of mass, energy or consciousness. This is because their "void" and their "something" are not opposites but both contain the same possibility of existence, they are intertwined and even the "voidest" space is filled with energy. If we play their game (I advice against it), we can obviously say that it is God but that becomes a simple assertion, and they can retort by saying that it can be anything or not be anything, and a being that is superimposed (while not necessary as a logical universe comes out of the Jocaxian nothing by an initial random event) but not necessary violates Occam's razor.

What is the cause? They no longer need to contemplate on that as the nature of their void and anything it produces do not need a cause, a terrifying concept for us but the only logical outcome if we, once again, play their rules.

Fine-tuning? The secular universe is very hostile to our kind of life. We don't actually know if other kinds of alternative biochemistry based on, e.g., very cold temperatures and methane could exist or if silicon-based (AI) intelligence is feasible within the physical heresy. We also don't know if the universal constants are independent of each other or, in fact, just reflections of one single constant. In the 19th century the boiling points of water, etc., were taken as constants but we know that they are not. Only within the Truly™ Biblical and Real™ cosmology can the fine-tuning argument be used successfully, but many atheists fail to accept the fact that the Firmament (Genesis 1:6) and the four corners of the Earth (Revelation 7:1) are as real as Jesus's Miraculous Birth, temporary Death, and Resurrection. We'll bet back to this and logic in due course. In addition, the habit of allocating probabilities to events that have already taken place is stupid according to the naturalistic atheist, as there is no way of deciphering the prior probability of a unique event, such as Creation.

I'd be very careful with the multiverse hypothesis. As ridiculous as it is, it is no more ridiculous than the concept of billions of light-years, as both can be tested with similar observations. In fact, just a few days ago, a potential secular proof of many Creations emerged. My point is that the multiverse hypothesis is producing testable hypotheses (within the atheist community) and it is not at all improbable that they'll "prove" it.



Consciousness? In the naturalistic world it is a continuum. My dog (who'll never get into Heaven; Revelation 22:15) has a theory of mind as he knows very well when I am not watching and he can steal some treats. The chimp baby knows when her mother has died and grieves and can die of a broken heart. In the atheist world it is not a supernatural thing to be explained but just relatively advanced data processing.

To start off, many scientists are asking the wrong question. They’re asking, “What does it mean to have the magical inner feeling?” You start with the assumption that there’s magic and then you start experimenting. The better question is how and for what adaptive advantage do brains attribute that property to themselves? And right away that puts it into the domain of information processing, something that can, in principle, be understood.

Last but not least, the average atheist is still (fortunately) ignorant of their own theory of abiogenesis but the more cunning minds among them are not. They now know very well that the machinery required for copying biological information in RNA is something that not only can arise spontaneously but, in fact, consists of robust reactions that take place at a high probability. The building blocks (lipids, amino acids) are produced even on comets. The core the the ribosome is enough to do some simple copying. The amino acids have affinities to particular tRNAs for protein synthesis. A dipeptide (just two amino acids) can bring some advances to chemical reactions and there they have the beginning of catalysis, i.e., enzymes.

We can't win this way and you may seem desperate at this point.

But we have JESUS! WE don't have to rely on logic, as the whole concept of Jesus is illogical and violates natural rules! Glory!

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Our everyday experience and logic dictates that the dead do remain dead, that the wonderful tool of Prayer is just wishful thinking, that the earth is just a tiny speck within the vast universe that is extremely hostile to our life and mostly fine-tuned to different types of radiation and degenerate matter of the black holes, of protons ultimately degenerating and being replaced by the scant collection of photons and electrons and positrons that would be the masters of the Universe.

Only by refusing to accept the logic and painstakingly explaining to the sinner that his concept of the Universe and the observations by his tellyscopes are just Delusions sent by Jesus can we save a few.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Let us not play their game. By exposing our everyday experience against their intricate system of modern physics we only distance ourselves from our real tool, the Bible. It may be foolishness for the common atheist but it is all we have, because it promises Salvation. We know that only a few will listen to us (Matthew 7:14) and that most of the sinners will soon perish as Jesus will kill them (Revelation 19:21) but at least it will be our game. There is our chance.




Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The main problem when and if we try to pose this question is that the everyday concept of nothingness and the our experiences regarding the nature of reality are not valid in the scale of quantum physics and the secular concept of existence relies on that.

There are various interpretations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, with the standard interpretation being the Copenhagen interpretation. With reference to this interpretation Richard Feynman has said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." IMHO, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the Copenhagen interpretation, but it is the statistical or ensemble interpretation according to which the wave function is an abstract statistical quantity that only applies to an ensemble. As professor Albert Einstein has written: "The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems." In any case many scientists adhere to the participatory anthropic principle which says that consciousness plays some role in bringing the material universe into existence. In the near future, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory will be seen to be a small part of a much larger theory, string theory, which does not have the interpretative difficulties of quantum theory.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

There are two atheist answers. 1. The Jocaxian nothingness.

The Jocaxian nothingness is the universe in its minimal state and as such the atheist has only kicked the can down the road because he has no answer as to how this universe in its minimal state came to exist.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

There are various interpretations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, with the standard interpretation being the Copenhagen interpretation. With reference to this interpretation Richard Feynman has said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." IMHO, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the Copenhagen interpretation, but it is the statistical or ensemble interpretation according to which the wave function is an abstract statistical quantity that only applies to an ensemble. As professor Albert Einstein has written: "The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems." In any case many scientists adhere to the participatory anthropic principle which says that consciousness plays some role in bringing the material universe into existence. In the near future, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory will be seen to be a small part of a much larger theory, string theory, which does not have the interpretative difficulties of quantum theory.

Dear Friend,

Again, it is dangerous to play the game of the atheists on their own field. Your post above consists of testimonials, which is a valid way to prove the existence of Jesus (and all that we have in the form of the Gospels) but in the field of secular science it is pitifully inadequate. A quotation of a professor is simply an appeal to authority, again a valid argument when we refer to the Bible but an inappropriate fallacy as a naturalistic conclusion. It's the data that matter, not someone's opinion on it! Please, refrain from quoting Einstein with quantum mechanics, as he really did his work long before particle physics shed any light on it. Any secular physicist will tell you this, and I'm only trying to protect you! Whatever a person says about the incomprehensibility of quantum physics is just an assertion and the point is to discuss what the actual data say.

It is even more dangerous to use unknown authorities (again, within secular logic it is a fallacy) with the "many scientists". We of all people should know that the majority is not necessarily correct, as only a very small portion of the World's population believe in Jesus in the correct manner, and He knew it would be like this!

Luke 18:8
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

The game you're playing is unfortunately one of diminishing returns, and the Catholic Church is unfortunately the one that is succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy the most.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.

If you start to yield with this point of the Bible, the best you can ultimately achieve is a vague Deist Deity that is principally equivalent to no Deity at all.

It's the same with string theory. Brane cosmology is so-o-o attractive and may eventually be proven from the atheist viewpoint making our Jesus even more unnecessary than what the Pope does to Him.

Our weapon is the Bible. Within that frame testimonials and its authority are still valid. The same paradigm won't work if you fight the naturalists with the weapons they've designed. Please, trust Jesus and His Word and you won't need the ballast of branes of the Big Bang!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The Jocaxian nothingness. This is a nothingness that not only does not have physical elements but also 2. lacks logical rules.

The problem with Jocaxian nothingness is that the Jocaxian nothingness theory, the theory about the Jocaxian nothingness-object, uses logical rules to help us understand the Jocaxian nothingness-object. But the Jocaxian nothingness object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. A theory describing the Jocaxian nothingness should not use logic or rules since the Jocaxian nothingness object does not involve them.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The Jocaxian nothingness is the universe in its minimal state and as such the atheist has only kicked the can down the road because he has no answer as to how this universe in its minimal state came to exist.

Oh, they have the answer ready. If we say that God has always existed (and He has), they can as easily say that the Jocaxian void was there always, and based on their Occam's razor it requires less complexity, as our God is has to be more complex and detailed than the things He Created.

I've tried all this, I assure you, and while it works well with the atheist uneducated zealot, their chief strategists are much more intimidating. But they can never defeat pure Faith™ and its Revelation in the Bible!

Matthew 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

It's the same with string theory. Brane cosmology is so-o-o attractive and may eventually be proven from the atheist viewpoint making our Jesus even more unnecessary than what the Pope does to Him.

Perhaps some or even all aspects of brane cosmology or supersymmetric string theory will be shown to be true and correct even though as of yet scientists have not found supersymmetric particles. I don't see how evolution or brane cosmology would have any bearing on the truth of Christianity.