There are no various types of atheism. Atheism IS the EXTREME: "God does not exist." This is a positive declaration, which requires proof, and there is as much of that as there is for the statement, "God exists".
Atheist (extreme: god doesn't exist, period)
Agnostic (everything in the middle from really really really improbable to really really really likely)
Theist (extreme: god exists, period)
The notion that you have strong atheists and weak atheists is ignoring the definition of atheist. We are not going to change the definition of a word to suit people who wish they were something they are not.
I find most people who describe themselves as atheists really have the following attitude: "I wish not to believe in god because I have witnessed absurdity (young-earth creationists, Pentecostal snake handlers), hypocrisy (sponsored war, lavish clergy), and evil (pedophilia, female repression) in religion; people who believe in god are clearly insane." Many such claim a background in scientific principles simply because they were educated in a liberal environment, so they often see religion as an impediment to scientific and cultural progress. They are not however, atheists. Not wishing to believe some is not the same as having a reason (evidence) not to believe. Those who think they have evidence against are only making the same blunder as those claiming evidence for.
At any rate, atheism always makes a positive assertion, and we're not going to change the definition of a word because you don't like it.
It's the beleif in the things unseen, or events not yet beheld. Well, that's how it's defined in the Bible.
No, sir.
I believe certain books deal in some kind of historical record, but given numerous revisions and translations I believe little of what's in that book resembles anything that ever actually happened.
It'd be like if 2000 years from now people picked up the collected works of Jon Bon Jovi and tried to divine what we were doing now. The legends of the steel horses would grow and grow! We lived on prayers!
But you are the one putting forth that the bible is just chock full of facts, so if you could provide just a short list that would be great. Thanks!
Of course, but we can't "see" tomorrow's events. That's the difference.
It is not a unique event. It has happened the same for as long as we have been able to communicate. We even understand Why it occurs. To try to make it a point of Faith is ridiculous.
Yeah, you're right. But the point of faith is beleif in things so sure to happen you can liken them to the Sun rising.
What is your Evidence of these things Happening? That is the point of contention. That is why Faith and Belief differ. Faith doesn't require Evidence, Belief often does.
To me, faith and belief as always been synonymous... to me, anyway.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim (ie the Bible). "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic (ie the Atheist), the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#cite_note-2
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is faith belief without proof now? The most inaccurate definition I've ever heard.
Honestly I would like to see some more open mindedness in this thread. Some more common sense too. It's discussions like this that make me think religious people are stupid and I would prefer to not come away from a thread in this section thinking that.
No faith, whatsoever, is required.
We know why, how, and where the sun is going to rise from ancient times until 5 billion years into the future when it dies. We then know how it will die and what the final result of our solar system will be.
Well, there probably is actual evidence of when he was king. There is absolutely none establishing when those passages in the book of Isaiah were written.
You consider it a "heavy charge" because you believe it to be true.
I see holy books as serving the primary purpose of legitimizing a religion, and the insertion of "guaranteed true" prophecies is entirely consistent with that.
Regardless, the point remains that you can't argue for the validity of a book by using something that presupposes that same validity. It's circular.
I didn't make up the terms I am using; they are commonplace. This is a good overview, using slightly different but similar terminology.
There is indeed a difference between saying "I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence they exist" and saying "I believe gods do not exist".
Funny thing, religious people think the same thing about you.
The thing is, there isn't much agreement,.. both sides presupposes they're right and the other side is wrong. It's a problem among human beings whether they be religious, atheists, scientists, black, white, etc.
As long as you don't make a positive claim, you're free from burden.
Most of us have been polite to you this entire thread but enough. If you refuse to debate in good honest faith then just stop. You are being intellectually dishonest and utterly close minded. If you can't debate in good faith then ask to have this thread closed. I think most of us would agree that you are in essence trolling all the atheists in this thread. So please for the sake of preserving this thread before it gets out of control just stop.
... As an illustration let me detail the prophecy about the city of Tyre in Ezekiel 26 and its fulfillment. Tyre was no small, obscure village. It was a great Phoenician city and a world capital for over 2,000 years. It was to the sea what mighty Babylon was to the land. Yet, in the heyday of its power, the prophet Ezekiel had the audacity to predict for it a violent future and ultimate destruction. This downfall would be due to Tyres flagrant wickedness and arrogance, traits that were personified in its ruler, Ittobal II, who claimed to be God.
Ezekiel predicted that many nations would come up against Tyre (Ezek. 26:3); that Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar would be the first to attack it (v. 7); that Tyres walls and towers would be broken down (vv. 4,9); that the stones, timbers, and debris of that great city would be thrown into the sea (v. 12); that its location would become a bare rock and a place for the drying of fishermens nets (vv. 4-5,14); and finally, that the city of Tyre would never be rebuilt (v.14).
History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that all this is precisely what happened. Many nations did come up against Tyre the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Muslims, and the Crusaders, to name a few. And Nebuchadnezzar was indeed the first of these invaders, who after a thirteen year siege broke down the walls and towers of mainland Tyre, thus fulfilling the first of Ezekiels prophecies. Nebuchadnezzar massacred all of Tyres inhabitants except for those who escaped to an island fortress a half mile out in the Mediterranean Sea.
Centuries after Ezekiels body had decomposed in his grave, Alexander the Great fulfilled a major portion of the prophecy. In order to conquer the island fortress of Tyre (without the luxury of a navy), he and his celebrated architect Diades devised one of the most brilliant engineering feats of ancient warfare. They built a causeway from Tyres mainland to the island fortress, using the millions of cubic feet of rubble left over on mainland Tyre. Thus Tyre was scraped bare as a rock, just as Ezekiel predicted.
The most astonishing of Ezekiels predictions was that Tyre would never be rebuilt. This is singularly incredible because Tyre is strategically located on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It also contains the Springs of Reselain, which pump ten million gallons of fresh water daily enough to take care of the needs of a modern city. Yet, history records that after a succession of invasions, Tyre finally and irrevocably fell in A.D. 1291 never to be rebuilt again. Today Tyre has been humbled to the point of becoming a place for the drying of fishermens nets just as Ezekiel prophesied two-and-one-half millennia ago.
Finally, I have already pointed out that you are arguing against atheists when there are numerous theist groups we could list that would argue against the validity of the Bible, so clearly either atheists are not your problem, or your problem with them is not limited to their arguments against the Bible.
Hey guys, I hate that this thread is passing me by but topics like these move pretty far in a 20 hour window. I just thought I would drop this off for you as a great example of testable prophecy fulfillment in the Bible. It covers the basics. The date of the prophecy is well established to be many hundreds of years before the events, it isn't vague at all so there is no language/interpretation barrier to deal with. It's just easy to read and easy to test. You couldn't ask for a better example. I'm sure it'll spawn many google searches to disprove it, and I hope it does- I do that will all of my own personal beliefs.
Here is the link and I'll put the core of it below.
Sounds like it was rebuilt numerous times.
Funny thing, religious people think the same thing about you.
The thing is, there isn't much agreement,.. both sides presupposes they're right and the other side is wrong. It's a problem among human beings whether they be religious, atheists, scientists, black, white, etc.
As long as you don't make a positive claim, you're free from burden.
Not to mention that Christian research institute sounds like such a valid and intellectually honest source of data. Especially given the content of their website.
And the fact that the city in that prophecy still exists to this day. Prophecy fail.
no, it pretty much goes against science to presuppose anything, and it is the scientific minded atheist that would be willing to admit to ignorance before trying to claim knowledge without evidence; whereas it is the theist who claims to know the answers based on faith so much so that they're willing to challenge science and go against reason when it conflicts with their predetermined answers
no, it pretty much goes against science to presuppose anything, and it is the scientific minded atheist that would be willing to admit to ignorance before trying to claim knowledge without evidence; whereas it is the theist who claims to know the answers based on faith so much so that they're willing to challenge science and go against reason when it conflicts with their predetermined answers