Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hey you athiests...

"That's where you are wrong. On the day of judgement there are only two groups, the saved who will spend eternity with God and the lost who will be cast out into darkness. There is no third group who are just on their own."

There's no doubt you truly believe exactly that. That doesn't make it a fact though.

I don't have to prove it. If billions of us are correct you will find out soon enough. If we are wrong it won't matter at all. If we are right though it is the most important statement you will ever hear.

It is a fact though that I don't want you to be in the wrong group.

MojoHand posted a heart rending photo and asked a good question. Here are some thoughts:

Broadly, there are two themes present in this thread. God or no God. The “No God” side is represented by many here.

Considering the question that MH posed;

“…if there is no God, then there is no difficulty reconciling nature and suffering. Nature (and this world we live in) is indifferent and unintelligent, and that leaves no one to stop the cruel deeds damaged minds or the devastation of natural disasters or disease.”

“The default position of the atheist is one of; ‘I do not believe due to the lack of evidence.” This is often followed by some declaration that a powerful God who lets these terrible things happen is not one to be believed in or worshipped anyway.

This is often followed by some statement that judges God to be not loving, not kind, vindictive and even cruel. The question is posed; “Why should I believe in such a God?”

One is not required to believe. If there is no God then what does it matter? “The suffering and death of children is just a cold fact of nature….nature is unthinking and indifferent.” Our emotional distress over this is simply some natural brain construct that causes temporary feelings of unease, or distress if the loss is close to some person; but that is of no consequence either. The suffering of a child does not really matter and death, of a child or loved one, is really nothing more than the winking off of a light that was no more than small ripple on the ocean of one planet in a universe of billions of planets.

If there is no God, then religion is at best a benign hoax. And who is to say that one religion or set of morals is better than another? We just have competing tribes bound together with some tragic set of common beliefs. It matters not to kill a child or an enemy if he is not one of “your tribe.”

But what if there is a God? I heard a thought on this: “God dwells in obscurity. There is enough light there that we can find Him if we look, but there is enough darkness there that we can miss Him if we want to.”

Alas, this is the internet and this is only one post in a thread of 16 pages. Cannot address all the issues in one post.
If God does exist, these are questions that one would seemingly ask:

Why have we been created? What does He want from us? What does He want for us? Has He indeed revealed Himself to us? How did He reveal Himself? Does He love us? If He answered our questions could we understand or have comprehension of the answers? Will God demand an accounting of our lives?

Yea....

Job 38:22, for example, says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses. Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle.

Ecclesiastes 1:7 does not describe the water cycle. It merely says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

Interpreting that passage literally completely rejects its context. The chapter says, briefly, that "there is nothing new under the sun," and gives several examples. If, in fact, knowledge of the water cycle were interpreted as a new bit of knowledge, it would contradict the chapter as a whole.

Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge to account for this verse assumes the ancient Hebrews were idiots. Knowledge of a spherical earth is ancient, and with it no edge for water to spill over. It is theologically reasonable to assume that God is not constantly creating new water (Gen. 2:3). It is easy to see mists rising from waters and rain coming from clouds. A water cycle would be difficult not to deduce.

All I have to do is let my kids read Ringman's post, and ask them what they think about them, and my work is essentially done.

There's nothing like the true beliefs of a YEC to lead a young inquiring mind down the road of non-belief.

They guy who uses the argument from ignorance, claims it's the other side that is ignorant. How rich!!

I think it was Christopher Hitchens that said indoctrinating children into an oppressive religion is child abuse.

Not true.

If you are wrong, you've lost every minute of your life you invested into a belief that is not true.

C Hitchens did not know how many hairs were on his head, when he would die or where he would go. He "knew" he was nothing but an animal but his knowledge of right and wrong disputed that erronious conclusion and he was too stupid to reconcile the truth he knew with the choice he elected.

This question was not directed at me, but I will take a shot at it anyway.

I can find nothing more ludicrous than the idea of an immortal soul. But the concept that there is an entity in the universe listening in on my every thought and giving a rat's behind one way or the other about my life runs a close second.

Now, if I am right, I end up dead and buried in he ground.

And, according to he Bible I have read, if I am wrong, I end up dead and buried in the ground.

I'll let him speak for himself:

Your God seems so obscure as to be irrelevant:

More threats via Pascals wager?

How Christian of you.

The 'logic' says if God is good, He would get rid of all pain, suffering, and injustice. The logic says if God could, He would get rid of all pain, suffering, and injustice. So the logic says either He lacks 'good', or He lacks 'could'...there is either a problem with His willingness or His ability...or...there is no God at all.

That's what some people's logic tells them. And I can understand some people thinking that way.

One more time then I will shut up for a while. At least a little while.

There is no proof, that is why they call it faith.

AS - maybe a good thing that you granted Hitchens permission to "speak for himself". Although adding nothing convincing to this discussion, those clips are a good reminder. Even a witty, learned and well-spoken person will take some personal view and generalize nastily to set up his premise and then use that to ridicule folks he neither knows nor seems to understand.

Yes - a smart man - but seemingly not smart enough to decipher that his take on life and Christianity, his experience and views, even when uttered in his final breaths are not at all compelling to other learned people who are as smart or smarter - but more humble in the face of the Creator whom they have come to know and in whom they place their faith.

You simply revealed more of why you do not succeed in these discussions.

I think that I can read the sign:

"Epicuris was logical and empirical - and he is long dead"

GOD

Those were actually some of his more mild clips, and they did address the previous statement regarding his knowledge of his destination. Of course you are probably not very enamored with the person who wrote the book, "god is not great", but like him or not, he certainly could turn a phrase.

The difference between Epicuris and God, is we have evidence Epicuris existed.

Who is making threats? I considered it a warning.