Atheism is a belief, theory and a philosophy arguably intending to explain man's origin, his core nature and his future.

This is religion, right?

Correct

What does atheism "worship"? What rituals does it have?

No. The definition of atheism is the disbelief of deities, god or gods.

From an "online dictionary" :

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

As an atheist, I attend no church and I subscribe to no dogma. I don't think there is a god or an afterlife, either as a reward or punishment. Religious faith requires you to believe without proof. Beliefs vary across cultures. What you believe has more to do with where you were born and what your parents believed than it does with any independent knowledge on the part of the believer. In lieu of proof or a universally consistent religious experience, I see no evidence of a god(s). I don't much care how the universe came to be or how we came to be. I understand facts and evidence. I know my parents and not god made me, that I will live some amount of time, and will die and cease to be. That doesn't scare me. I don't need to pretend that there is a "better place" after I die to deal with all that. For me, atheism means no proof - no belief - in anything. I'm ok just letting the mysteries be without having belief in stuff that was made up by man in some primitive culture as a way to control behavior. But I'm ok with everyone that needs to believe in a god or whatever that helps them get through the day or their life.

You are displaying as much faith as anyone else because you can't see past yourself.

It makes religious folk happy to call atheism a religion, so they do.

The Supreme Court declared it is.

Well, as long as the Supreme Court said so....

Not quite. More of an equivalent.

A position on divinity, the denial of such, is afforded the same protections as traditional religious beliefs.

But hey, if it makes you happy, by all means call it a religion!

Huh?? Boy, that needs translation. Kind of sounds like double speak. What faith have I displayed?? BTW none of us can see past what we ourselves see or experience. Everything else is just stories. I put more weight in those stories that can be substantiated by facts. Isn't this how we all stopped believing in things we once held as true? When facts displace myths or lies.

Exactly. That's what I said in fewer words. You apparently don't understand faith.

I cannot make sense of Ringman's post either.
I do understand that you cannot reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into.

PREACH IT, BROTHER!!!
...er, uh, I mean well said and I agree completely.

Themselves. A true personal god.

I once saw a group of atheist that were on their knees bowing before a large letter of "N". One asked another; "Is Nothing sacred"?

I think it is kind of fully for a thread on religion is using a SC ruling to make a point.

Faith and lack of any faith both are protected as they should be. The government should have nothing to say on the issue beyond that.

I understand faith. It is a belief not based on anything certain. Faith is a promise. I have faith that I will wake up tomorrow, but I know that tomorrow is not guaranteed to any of us. Faith is confidence and trust, but faith can be misplaced. You can have faith that a plane won't crash when you step onto one (or else why would you do it) but we also know that sometimes they crash. That particular faith is based on an expectation gleaned from past experience, that most planes don't crash. Faith, by definition, is not certain.

Religious faith is not based on past experiences, it is based on stories told to us. Some native americans believed the earth was created by a turtle, some people believe in reincarnation, some believe god spoke thru a burning bush, some believe there is one god and some have faith there are many gods. These beliefs are all based on stories told us, with no facts to back them up. Are they all correct? Why are you so sure the stories told you are more correct then a Hindu's, or a Muslim's or a Jew? They all have faith. If you believe that other religions can have it wrong, why is it so hard for some of you to understand that some of us think that all religions can have it wrong? There's no more evidence for one over another - is there?

Cooper, are you declaring that Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Peter, James, Paul, et. al. are liars?

Wow...a post on religion/nonreligion and only minor bashing. Who'd a thunk it.

Should be no bashing. I enjoy an open exchange of thoughts.

Yeah, well GFY.

OOPS!

No more than Buddah, Mohammad, King Tut, Solomon, Ghandi, Bob Marley, Brigham Young etc etc. How many times was the bible translated? I'm sure nothing ever gets lost in translation.

By definition Atheism is a religion, however Atheists don't want to say that because religion is often offensive to them.

Possibly some have reason to be offended. I probably would be offended by someone who spoke to me for 5 minuets and declared I was going to Hell because I didn't agree with them.

I'm a Christian but I don't mind Atheists as long as they don't attack or belittle me for my beliefs. I've met some that seem to want to go out of their way to be offensive but like I said Christians can be just as bad. I don't agree with Atheists but quickly playing the Hell card isn't going to lead to any discussion or conversion either.

The translation(s) you mentioned have been done over the years as new manuscripts were found and from better understandings of specific word meanings as intended and perceived. You are right about things lost but there's also the matter of things found.

How about a yes or no answer to my question about the disciples/apostles mentioned?

Can you supply us with the case, and the case # and date?


This isn't a dig....Im truly curious.

Well said! I do get tired of the few radical haters who say a cross offends them. They have a right to not believe just as you and I have a right to believe.

Both liberals and muslims claim to be tolerant, until you disagree with them.

Wonder where Ole Cooper ran off to? Was here just a few minutes ago.

Funny how that works.

I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone else. If they came to a wrong conclusion, which they believed, would they be liars, or just mistaken?

That brings up an interesting question. I always assumed that Atheists just took the Bible as fiction. Are you saying that you believe the Apostles lived but they were just mistaken when they saw blinded eyes opened, deaf people speak, lame walk, and the dead raised up?

[quote=Old_Toot]Cooper, are you declaring that Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Peter, James, Paul, et. al. are liars?[/quote

Not Cooper but I'll give it a shot. Where they liars? I don't know. I wouldn't think so. But how do I know what they wrote? How do I know who wrote what? When was it written? Was it 100% accurate?
Let's say the disciples did write the books with their names on them. Does that make it Gods word? The same disciples who couldn't seem to understand what was being told to them half the time? The ones who denied and doubted him? See I don't think that makes them bad people, just human. I don't expect them to be perfect, not their writings(if those even are their writings). Now as for Paul, I have major doubts about Paul. I see no reason to believe he was really a disciple or should be given the authority that he has been. It just doesn't make sense.
I don't think the Bible is the infallible word of God. It could be, but I don't think so. I also don't think it needs to be. If you knew suddenly with 100% certainty that the Bible was not 100% gods word, would it destroy your faith? Would you give up and stop believing in God altogether?
Is God big enough and apparent enough to exist for you without a book?

...."Live and let live" need not apply.

Do you believe every faith healer, or anyone who has revived someone from death's door is a god or a son of god? One can believe the apostles lived, but wrote fiction. Lots have been written about lots of gods over time. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

No not necessarily but the main theme in the Gospels is a truth that must be accepted to be saved. To believe that there is a God is not enough. The Gospels teach me that I can't just trust in a God that will either accept me or not based on how acceptable I am in this life. It's the written Gospels that show me the great revelation that I could never be good enough to be accepted on my own. Jesus took my place accepting my judgement as his own. To be saved I have to trust in His sacrifice of himself as having been made on my behalf.

Atheism is a faith in no God, therefore it's a faith and thusly a religion.
In my experience, active atheists are just as much rollers as recruitment-minded Christians.

There is no evidence that there is a god. One does not need faith to understand that. Does one need faith to think there is no such thing as a Sasquatch or is lack of evidence enough?

Atheism is the acknowledgement and understanding that there is no evidence of a god or gods. Religious faith is the belief in a god or gods, in lieu of evidence.

I'm an atheist that has no problem with religious symbols, god on our money, or having a prayer to open a mtg. I frankly don't care if one believes in a god or gods or doesn't. It's a personal thing either way and everyone should just be ok with that. I see no reason why it is important to try to label an idea that god does not exist to be religion. Some atheists may approach and advance their ideas with a religious-like fervor, but to try to say that not believing in a religion is a religion is kinda double speak. I don't believe in Santa Claus either. Is that a religion too?

I could claim the same thing about all of history since it all happened so long ago and I didn't personally witness it, but at some point you have to believe something.

To you there is no convincing evidence. To others there is. Both sides believe what they do, lacking conclusive evidence of their position. Perhaps one day something will happen that will make you believe, perhaps not. You might even see Bigfoot one day! Now if you saw Bigfoot, would you then also beleive in God....hmmm

Well - arguably - maybe so.

Not unless Bigfoot could turn water into bourbon (without that whole distilling process.)

I'm not an atheist, I believe in God, yet I still believe the bible is pretty much an Aesop's fable.

We're all just monkeys.

Deal with it people.

Oh yes, it certainly is. Like other religions, when it attains power, it seeks to eliminate the competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

I think the OP is confusing atheism with the theory of evolution. While virtually all atheists are evolutionists and look to science for evidence that may point to certain conclusions about man's origin, his nature and future, not every evolutionist is an atheist. An atheist is just someone who has concluded there is no god, due to a lack of evidence. Now the christian religions try to circumvent reasonable doubt by saying, "Blessed are those who believe, without seeing me." How has this blessing manifested itself? Do believers live longer? Are they healthier? Is there any measurable advantage for believers? Not that I've seen. I know, their reward is found in some place we are told exists again without any evidence. Described as this:

Biblical Descriptions of Heaven

There is a constant chant of holy angels that are continually proclaiming Holy, Holy, Holy over the throne of God. The Mercy Seat in heaven where God sits is surrounded by magnificent angels full of glory and power that proclaim and bless the holy name of God without ceasing. Some of these are described as beasts, full of eyes, with six wings and neither rest day or night in their proclaiming the holiness of God (Rev. 4:8-11).

Sounds kinda noisy. What happened to that RIP stuff. I don't see anywhere where we get to go hunting 12 pointers all day.

While Soviet Communism made atheism their official policy, they are not synonymous. There are plenty of religious communists. Actually, the Jesus character in the bible is a bit of a socialist.

Actually, as a Christian, I can see where some of the other religions are closer to being right than others.

As an Atheist, you have to believe that ALL of them are wrong.

FWIW... Spellcheck capitalizes Atheist just as it does Christian, Jew, etc.

I don't consider myself an atheist but your posts are very well stated.

my spell check doesn't capitalize anything.

Not really, as an Atheist I don't believe in a supreme being or god. I do however hold a belief system and morals mostly based on Christianity. I don't believe all religions are wrong, just that there is not a supreme being that created all. Religion is a lot more than just believing in god, a afterlife, and a savior. Religion to me is more about a moral and social set of rules and standards.

I have more than one Christian tell me I'm not trustworthy because I don't believe in a god, and moral values alone are not enough to hole oneself accountable.

Atheism is a belief based on positing nothing of deity/"god"exists that is not observable. As a faith system, it is a "religion" in the way black is a color -- complete absence of light.

Jesus likened God's working to how wind is observed. You can see it working but not what it is.

Agnosticism is a belief.

Atheism is a religion.

As an not a real religious person I find this thread interesting. I think 57M made some good points. More or less raised as a baptist the ideas of xx number of virgins waiting for a muslim man than did the right think sounds nuts, but so does being saved , sins, confessions, pergatory and other things that we have no physcial proof of. To me fighting over "religion" is the stupidest thing there is , I have a good friend that used to be a southern baptist preacher , we can talk for hours with no "winner"

Possibly whether it is a religion or not depends on how devoutly it is practiced.

To one person it may hardly be an issue at all, another may try to proselytize, defend, promote, and refute any other religion.

This is nicely written and based on what seems to be sincere thought - but it is weak on more than one level and does not show that you actually do understand faith.
Although faith does not base itself on established proof, it IS NOT in any way a promise. The only active agent in a faith relationship is the person who holds faith.
It is not at all true that all religious faith is based on "stories told to us" or that all religious systems require some abstract belief/faith. Those statements are stretched - at best - maybe conveniently stretched in order to support your notes that ensue. In this post and later, it seems that you equate "belief" with "faith". As activated within an individual, are those really equal and the same? I think not. Do you? A piece written and read long ago - "The Dynamics of Faith", by Paul Tillich - seemed very helpful.

>>As an Atheist, you have to believe that ALL of them are wrong.

FWIW... Spellcheck capitalizes Atheist just as it does Christian, Jew, etc.<<

No, as an atheist I think that all of them are wrong because there is no evidence that any of them are right. Since there is no dogma associated with atheism, there is no "have to". It's just free thought. You either believe in a god(s), or you don't, and if you don't you are an atheist. The term atheist does not require one to not believe, it's the not believing makes one an atheist.

Oh science can explain wind. Religion was developed as a way to answer questions in the absence of science. Guess what, wind has mass.

You sound like an agnostic, not an atheist.

That's simply illogical. Those with faith have already been satisfied with the evidence for God. You just don't accept the evidence others have. So, yes, there is no evidence of god for you, but you don't represent a majority, but a quite small minority.

Amen! I've never seen a more faithful group than Jihadists.

Agnostic doesn't care or is unsure while an Atheist believes there is no god. I'm sure there is no magical supreme being.

What does a majority or minority have to do with anything?

Amen again. My god can whip your god.

Ok, there is Faith (as in meaning faith in religion) and faith (as in belief in anything without proof or evidence). It was in response the idea that atheists have faith. Atheists don't have faith in god.

"Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.” The atheist says, “I don't have a belief that God exists.” You can say both things at the same time."

I have neither knowledge or belief that god exists.

Faith definition per Merriam-Webster

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Im still waiting for wrong man to cite the Supreme Court case that states atheism is a religion....

If there is such a case, then I guess Im a religious man.

Not needing Merriam-Webster thoughts here - waiting for yours.

Somebody cited it on a thread not long ago. But... the guy who made the claim to you should provide it again.

IMHO, his use of Merriam -Webster to assist his thought process is no different than Bible verses being utilized (sometimes our of context) with no supporting thoughts/facts to back up a similar argument.

George

I've expressed myself about as well as I can. Atheism is not a religion. Religions are based on a belief in a god or some other supernatural. Atheism is the opposite of religion. My personal belief is that some religious tenants have merit, but one doesn't need a belief in god to live a moral and worthwhile life. I believe religion in general is a concept developed by man to explain what he could not understand in a pre-science world and to control and make more predictable human behavior. I think it is illogical to believe in something in the total absence of proof. For those who say they have proof of god, well if that was the case there would be no need for faith. I would love to hear all about that proof though. Give it a try CCCC.

Well, to have a meaningful discussion we have to have some accepted definition of terms used. Without it, we are just urinating in the wind. It can get kinda messy.

so much stupidity and ignorance in the world....carry on

If a person wants to call Atheism a religion, hey, knock yourself out..

If a person wants to call Atheism a religion, hey, knock yourself out..

You're right, but that's a bit of a non-sequitur.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...rt-declares-secular-humanism-a-religion/


"A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.
On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group."

Some court calling a pig a dog, don't make it a dog for anything but for legal purposes. Since when is the law always right?

It's been a fun discussion. Thanks all. Tho still waiting for the proof of a god from CCCC or whomever.

You and I sure do agree on that!

TF

The blessing manifests itself in the fact that you don't live in a totally nihilistic, socialist consumer-based society. The blessing manifests itself in the fact that charities exist. If it weren't for God, human rights would be whatever the most powerful group says they are and no one would have an argument to counter that. The blessing manifests itself in the thought that there is a certain base-level of dignity that every person is entitled to.

Hospitals are a fruit of belief in God. If it weren't for the promise of an afterlife, why would anyone bother trying to extend life, to give themselves more time to perfect their spirituality? We'd be like deer that try to avoid the wolf, but is easily surrendered once caught. You never hear of heroic deer. Without God, there's no reason to be a hero beyond protecting your own offspring.

That's just a couple of things I see. But then, I see magic in a sunset too. To me, the spirit world is like water around a fish. The fish may not know it's wet, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

I'm waiting for proof there isn't.


Psalm 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.

I like sunsets too and northern lights and puppies.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim of the existence of something. A quote from a book is interesting and very poetic, but not proof.

Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Ok, still no proof of anything. Just more mental manipulation. Come on people, quotes from a book ain't proof.

One thing about being an atheist -- ya better hope you're right.

If not, she and I will have a helluva conversation before I join most of my buddies. Does god have internet access? Sorta like a super NSA maybe.

The question is whether, if presented with irrefutable proof, an atheist would believe in God. If the answer is yes, then they are not atheist, merely agnostic. Whether they are a god-seeking agnostic depends on the person.

I have many friends who are atheists, what I am, I'm not sure. Some atheists claim to be that, then live their lives in opposition to a religion versus simply living their lives based on their own other-than-religious beliefs. When an atheist lives their life in opposition to a religion (such as many atheist activists do), they in fact are dependent on religion to give themselves a shape - even if in a negative form. This idea is very similar to Julia Kresteva's notion of abjection. I respect the atheist who has no use for religion, but do not respect the atheist who feels the need to mock or belittle another person's belief system. Whether atheism is an actual religion doesn't matter, the fact that there is a sort of code (dogmatic or not) that shapes the way an atheist lives is close enough.

If there were irrefutable proof of God (say he/she appears to all of us), there would be no more Atheists. Maybe we would all become instant followers of Buddah. We are still atheists now though as beliefs can and should change with proof. If the Buddah appeared before us all, would there still be Christians? I never got the atheist code book. Dang!

The Soviet Religion was Marxism, and Leninism not atheism.

cooper57m,



Buddah died and stayed dead. Jesus died and then was later seen alive by as many as 500 people. Major difference.

That was worth saying twice.

I have yet to figure out why it is important.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, where Atheism is a belief, which is a subset of knowledge. As an example you can be a Gnostic atheist (I KNOW there is are no gods) or an Agnostic atheist (I believe there are no gods).

As for Atheism being a religion, as I explained in the last thread, you are just wrong. Atheism is a belief about a single logical proposition, the proposition that a specific god, or gods exist, where the Atheist position is the proposition has not met it's burden of proof. That's it.

As an example, YOU are an Atheist toward every God except the Christian God. You disbelief in Zeus is no more your religion then my disbelief in the Christian in my religion.

Sure and all the graves opened and the saints walked around. Of course that only show up in one of the Gospels, and I see no reason to believe that either.

Baxterb, many Atheist have a religion. These can be Humanism, Secularism, Unitarianism, Marxism, Global Climate Change, Maoism etc. In North Korean, the country if officially Atheist, but the state religion is one that required worship of the Dear Leader (gag). I think some American leftist belong to a derivation of the Dear Leader Cult.

Secular Humanism is not Atheism.

I'm guessing you've heard that Jesus was the only religious leader to enable people to believe that he came back from the dead.

Huge difference with other religions in that only Jesus got anyone to believe he came back from the dead.

TF

Atheism does not claim to explain the origins of man, or the universe, or anything else. That's Science.

"As an example, YOU are an Atheist toward every God except the Christian God."

Not exactly. You can't simultaneously be an atheist and NOT be one too. It's not a matter of choice, but a matter of total disbelief.


As far as God showing up and the atheists no longer being so, accepting that proof indicates a lack of atheistic belief in my mind - an openness to there being a god, as long as it is shown in a manner of proof that is agreeable.

No it's not. Atheism is just a belief that a specific definition of a god or gods has not met it's burden of proof. It's like "not guilty". You are not saying the guy didn't do it, just that the prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof. Since Atheism is a response to a logical proposition, you position can change as the evidence changes.

Hah! That's hilarious!

What are you going to do? Hedge your bets and follow every religion that turns up? Gonna be a Jew / Muslim / Christian / Buddhist / Taoist / Mormon / Pagan......? Sounds exhausting.

Better hope you don't miss the right one!

Once again you are wrong. Jesus is just the latest of the Rising and Dying Gods that include Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Ra, Osiris, Dionysus, Inanna/Ishtar, Persephone, and Bari among others.

I don't see how atheism is a response to a logical proposition.

It seems to me that the atheist's proposition is "there is no God" and the burden of proof is on the author of the proposition.

How in the world would one "know" there is no God? How can you prove that?

Think about it for a moment. This is what the atheist says: There is no God. Yet, the atheist cannot prove that at all. It is the atheist that fails in this burden of proof.

TF

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is just a person that doesn't care or give a rats ass to what a bunch of feel goods think is important. I don't listen,read,discuss,or waste my time on religion except as long as it took to peck this out,,,fini

[video:youtube]http://southpark.cc.com/clips/152270/abandon-all-hope[/video]

Dear lord.

TF- do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Tooth Fairy? Can you deliver proof they do not, and never did, exist?

Once again, you are just wrong.

"There is not God" is not Atheism, that's Anti-Theism. A true anti-theist position it typically directed toward a specific definition of a god or gods, because without of good definition of what you are disputing, it's probably impossible to prove it does not exist.

Atheism is not a religion.

Clearly, a lot of this thread is muddling around and much of that is because some folks refuse to apply directness and logic (and ownership) to their utterances, which prevents aspects of it from being a serious discussion. cooper57m, it is easy to seek and quote dictionary terms. It is quite something else to take responsibility for that which you write and defend it logically. You may be doing your best, but you failed here.

Your mis-statements, inconsistencies and stretches were clearly cited in my previous post. You refuse to revisit those and defend. Instead, you attempt shallow and decepetive deflection by pretending that I stated the existence of God and somehow inferred that I have and offer such proof. I did no such thing. Intellectual dishonesty smells poorly.
As a personal aside - not addressing Atheism here - I believe that those who cannot muster faith about certain things are missing some genuine and supreme beauty in life.

You also see no reason to believe in science. You call philosophy science and try to cram it down everyone's' throat.

Up until the 18th century, "Natural Philosophy" was considered a branch of philosophy, i.e. the love of Knowledge, but since then it's been separated out into it's own category. Now science is considered a method of perusing knowledge, and well as the knowledge itself. Of course as a presuppositionalist you have no real interest in Knowledge.

As for what I belive regarding science, I have no obligation to believe all of science as a monolithic dogma, like you do with the Christian Religion. As a rational thinker I'm free to follow the evidence. As an example, the evidence for the existence of Dark Matter is pretty good, even if we don't know exactly what it is, however the evidence for String Theory is much weaker, and in my evaluation, does not qualify as a Theory at this time, and I do not believe it has met it's burden of proof at this time.

antelope_sniper,



Is that why I know about novas and fossils?

The truth of the matter is all you've do is read some creationist tripe on the subject, and as a result, you know nothing regarding either subject.

No, believing in something despite irrefutable proof to the contrary is a trait of religion. Atheists deal in proof,or the lack of it. If irrefutable proof were presented, a real atheist would have to believe that proof and the conclusions that derive. I would expect other religions would have issue if the proof showed them to be wrong. You have got it backwards.

CCCC, please defend your belief that those who cannot muster faith are missing some genuine and supreme beauty in life. What specifically do you assume we are missing? Please expand and explain your vague and poorly developed statement. What's the basis of your beliefs; Evidence? Personal observation? Or is it just a "feeling". I don't need to revisit any previous post. I don't need to do anything I don't feel the need to do for you or anyone else. Just as you don't have to provide to me/us the irrefutable proof of an existence of any god. Pick one any one. All I need to do for the purposes of this discussion is to honestly present my view/thoughts on atheism to the best of my ability. I have done that. I see no proof of god, therefore I am an atheist. It's really no more complicated than that. If you have proof, again, please provide it.

However, for fun, I'll take on one of your statements presented as fact to which I disagree.

Your statement: "The only active agent in a faith relationship is the person who holds faith." is incorrect. The holder of the faith is an inactive agent. Like a lock-box, a person has to be instilled with faith and then asked to just hold and keep the faith. The active agents in faith are the ones who feel it is their job to instill faith: the preacher, the rabbi, the priest, the parent etc. The holder of the faith is asked not to be active; not to question that faith. No one is born with a knowledge of religion, religious faith, or the concept of god. It has to be actively taught to them, through stories. Take the 10 commandments, the first commandment is a command to have faith in THE god. A command is active. Writing down commandments and the stories of the bible,or koran are active attempts to instill faith. Preachers use all forms of manipulation such as guilt, promise of eternal life, threats of condemnation, threats of death etc to ensure that people keep and hold onto their faith and to keep coming and filling the plate with $.

"As for what I belive regarding science, I have no obligation to believe all of science as a monolithic dogma, like you do with the Christian Religion"....

One need not believe any monolithic dogma to be a Christian. Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.

I don't know anything about Ringman's relationship with Jesus, but I suspect he has one.

His fixation on the literal truth of biblical words is easy for non-believers to combat, so THAT'S what you zero in on.

A Christian need believe only ONE thing........... that a Risen Jesus offers all humans a path into a Spiritual Dimension while still being alive. Once inside that Spiritual Dimension, all sorts of good things are made available to us IN THIS EARTHLY LIFE.

If the Creator prized intelligence, He would have made it easier for really smart people to believe in Him, and hard for the less gifted in the area of the I.Q.

A just God would make Himself available to ALL on an equal basis, and THAT'S wat we find in the Christian God.

To level the playing field for everybody, His only requirement is a complete abandonment of the human SELF. THAT goes against our very nature,i.e. .... it ain't easy.

Pride of intellect, the most basic manifestation of SELF, is the only barrier to that Spiritual Dimension.[one example of "to whom much is given, much will be required"]

Once that pride is surrendered, and contact with the Almighty is made, the intelligence is transformed into WISDOM.

Yes.
Any atheist who really examined that emotion would conclude that it is without basis and is a useless emotion.

Atheists who feel that emotion and don't outright reject it are unknowingly answering a call from God to move beyond themselves.

Can you explain to me why an atheist would care about anyone beyond their own peer group? Animals have a biological need to survive and have surviving offspring. How/why would an atheist go beyond that? I mean, it would be useless.



And while your at that, tell me about the 500 year old atheist university and the atheist hospital system and all the atheist orphanages.


The reason people who believe in God don't want to die too soon is because only life offers the ability to change and, hopefully, get better. Once you die, you are frozen at what ever level of spiritual maturity you were at when you died. If you die in unrepentant sin, that's where you are frozen.

So, an atheist can justify abortion as simply the return to nothingness. But a Christian understands that a great injustice has been done, possibly condemning the aborted to a stunted eternity. We can only pray that God has other means for them.

TFF

If one claims to be an atheist and loves something, child, wife, brother, sister, mom, dad etc. .... where does that love come from?

Barry, what a crock of BS. Only a religious person can have empathy or emotions? I didn't get the atheist code book that says that I shouldn't care about my fellow man or that I shouldn't contribute to charities or volunteer my time. Think of all the money I could have saved for myself, and time that I'll never get back. I don't like to throw around insults or name call, but if you truly believe what you wrote, you are an idiot. There is just no nicer word for it.

Our brains. Scientists can actually identify the parts of our brains that generate those emotions.

>>If the Creator prized intelligence, He would have made it easier for really smart people to believe in Him, and hard for the less gifted in the area of the I.Q.<<

That's about the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Its called dopamine. Its in the vesicles of our neurons. It is released into the fluid filled synapses when stimulated.

There are simple, tangible answers to a lot of this stuff.

Except how does the Easter Bunny lay eggs?

Some scientist believe that .... they haven't got it figured out.

So emotions are proof of god? Man, that was easy. Thanks, in face of that irrefutable truth, I think I'll convert to a religion. The only question is: which one.

>>Except how does the Easter Bunny lay eggs?<<

You probably added that for a laugh but the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc are examples of just how we screw around with faith. A child is not born with a belief in these things, but parents actively instill a belief in these characters to them for our own amusements. At some time they come to question their belief in these characters. Most parents will at that time, clue them in that it's all made up. Now, if we had preachers out there threatening the children with eternal damnation if they stop believing in Santa Claus, or a promise of going to the North Pole upon our death where we can play with toys all day and eat candy. Well, if we went to that effort, we would have a new religion. If man can make children believe in a bunny hopping around with candy or a man sliding down chimneys with toys, making folks believe in a god to explain that which they couldn't otherwise understand, is a piece of cake.

antelope_sniper,



Is that why you didn't address the questions and addressed the questioner?

Well, all you said was that you know about fossils and novas. The fact that you know about them attests to some level of education, but what you left out is what do these things tell you about the history of the earth/universe. How do they fit in with your religious thoughts, say on creation? That would be interesting and may be worthy of comment or discussion.

A former colleague of mine (a chemist) was once talking about evolution/creationism with a creationist. When quizzed about the fossil evidence of past species and their age that can be determined scientifically, (the creationist was saying the earth was only several thousand years old as calculated somehow by the bible) he said, "The Lord created the world with a history." (I guess to screw around with us.) At that, my friend said he just threw his hands up in the air and walked away. It's hard to discuss facts with someone that lives in fantasy land. They can just make stuff up as they go.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

Mark Twain

Well I can honestly say that's the first time I've heard that. Is this a common belief among most Christians?

I have faith that there are some here who can tell the difference. Actually I don't think religious folk are fools or are intrinsically foolish. They have just been indoctrinated and manipulated by some masters of their trade.

This thread got better overnight!

We are blessed.

Indeed!

I was not born into an atheist family. I was a Catholic once (and even an alter boy) and then joined a Unitarian Universalist church. My journey for the truth, has led me to atheism. Actually, that happened at about the time that I bought my first Subaru. Hmmmm.

A little irreverent fun.

Hah! Rollin'!

The devil made me do it.

Waiting for the .270 win shoe to drop.

Is a .280 close enough?

Then you are easily amused..... and prone to quote out of context.

THAT'S not the mark of an honest debater.

Bye now...... and bless your little heart.

I have no idea whether there is or was a GOD. He has never been seen by me nor spoken to me that I am aware of. Since I was born in 1934 I wasn't alive when the BIBLE was written or Jesus lived. I really only look at the fact that the BIBLE exists today some 2000 years later and Jesus actually did live if you believe history. I have a conscience and have no real idea where it came from but I do know it is there and it more or less controls me and establishes what I am. So as a result of all this I am more or less forced to believe that there is something we don't know and never will know but I don't have a doubt there is a GOD. There are certain things man is just not meant to understand it's really simple when you look at it. You as a man cannot understand infinity ( if you say you do you are a liar pure and simple in my mind) because if infinity goes forever what is on the other side of it. Give me a definition of 'forever' that I can fully understand. You really can't as the human mind cannot comprehend such things. You believe because you believe it is just that simple.

I find most Atheists to be both smug and haughty.They feel the need to prove their intellectual superiority to the deluded believer. If God was really a non issue like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny they wouldn't be so adamantly vocal concerning God or Christians.

I don't believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny and I would never waste my time arguing their non existence on a talk forum. The fact is that God is alive and well and he has revealed himself to all of us through the material world as well as the spiritual. Atheists are like little children crying,"No! No"!, to an unchangeable truth that grownups simply accept.

Some folks who profess to be 'Christians' are pretty smug and haughty too. And some of them feel the need to prove their intellectual superiority, or just plain old superiority period, to the deluded non-believer.

Nothing like calling a whole group of people smug and haughty while at the same time being smug and haughty about it. Both groups have their share of azzhats and decent people, I'd say.

Absolutely!!

There are several non believers here that do not fall into that category.

It is however clear who is who when these threads get started. They quickly devolve into smug comments and name calling on both sides. Both sides think themselves right and the other deluded.I think however that the Atheists have the advantage as they inevitably poke fun at and belittle what the Christians consider Holy and above reproach.

I think a lotta people, and not just 'Atheists', find it humorous when some of the holy bunch insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old (despite overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary) and that dinosaurs went on the Ark with Noah and all of the other animals, and that Jonah literally spent 3 days in the belly of a large fish. Gimme a break...!

Look at it like this. The Christian has a mandate from Heaven to proclaim his position to any who will listen. To him, salvation of the listeners from eternal judgement and eternal damnation is at stake. Any talk of God is very important to the believer.

On the other hand, what is the purpose of the Atheists who wants to vehemently argue against the existence of God. Why does it even matter to him? Why does he need to prove the Christian wrong? What does he seek to gain and why does what should be a non issue for him even matter?

Whatever one states their 'motivation' is, fact is it's really no different than debating politics or any other issue that people feel strongly about. Both sides are simply attempting to defend or justify their position on an issue that they feel strongly about. Smug and haughty though, from either side, doesn't lend much credence to the position that one is attempting to defend or justify.

The quote was yours, and was there really any context?

Say it ain't so! A Subaru! Please tell me you don't go the Starbucks.

You no longer believe in the Easter Bunny because at some point the deception was revealed to you and you confirmed it to yourself by a lack of evidence to the contrary. I wasn't arguing their non-existence, just using them illustratively to make a point of how we acquire beliefs, taken on faith, without evidence.

If you have proof of your unchangeable truth, I'd like to see it our hear it. In lieu of that, it is just opinion isn't it? Which, of course, you are entitled to, as am I to mine. Without proof, both are equally weighted. Children believe what they are told without questioning (ala Santa Claus) adult thinking uses logic and weighs evidence.

No Grande's for me. I prefer to go a local diner, when I'm not making it myself. There is this small diner that we go to - religiously.

Thanks, That is a load off my mind.

Perhaps God created immunological reservoirs of atheist as a first/last line defense against the Jim Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggarts that Christian sheeples are seemingly defenseless against.

No mandate from Heaven but Atheist apparently like to save people too.

Selfish. That simply is dictation – you take no responsibility for engaging discussion, let alone defending previous nonsensical comments. Self-proclaimed and felt “honesty” does not equal rational and intelligent discussion.
Proclamation from a base of ignorance does not seem like much “fun”. Your above statements – despite your consultation with some dictionary - indicate that you have just about zero understanding of faith. No human can “instill” or coerce faith to take place in another; no request or demand by another person can induce faith on the part of another; no other person can force, or induce, or instill in me any belief that you understand discussion. It seems impossible to discuss faith with someone who has such a poor understanding of the concept.

Why does it matter to us? We have folks advocating teaching myths on the same level as scientific discovery and knowledge in public schools. That's just for starters. If religion could be proved, using the scientific method for proof, we would all be believers in the same god, with the same religious tenants to follow. We wouldn't have catholics, protestants, jews, muslims, hindus, buddists, scientologists, mormons, jehovah witnesses etc etc etc. Religious folk not only tell us atheists we are wrong, they tell other believers in god(s) they are wrong too. Where is this universal truth in god of which you religious folk speak?

And a dyslexic agnostic struggles with whether there really is a Dog, or not.

Please name one scientific "fact" that two "scientists" with opposing views can agree upon?

Cooper, you and other proclaimed atheist here put yourselves in some damned fine company. Namely; Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot , Mao, Castro, etc., etc. and a few others.

Admittedly, their Atheism wasn't quite as passive as you folks proffer it to be.

That the earth is roundish and not flat, maybe?
That liquids and gases are both fluids, maybe?

You make a lot of declarative statements without any examples or discussion of how you came to your conclusions, or, are you just regurgitating what you read somewhere. If faith is not instilled in someone thru indoctrination (which is how it was told to me when I was young and was taken to church every week and made my first communion and was confirmed, all as a child) then are babies born with it? Like the Catholic concept of original sin? If that is the case (which it isn't, but for the sake of discussion), why do some have different faiths? Why do some lose faith? Why do some change faiths? Why is there no universal faith? Why is so much time spent preaching faith? You say I have no understanding of faith. Easy enough to say. I can say the same about you. If you are all knowing about all things faith, it's your responsibility to enlighten us. How do you believe one acquires faith? How about you answer some questions.

Ah, guilt by association. How about: David Koresh, Jim Jones, Osama Bin Laden, Cromwell, Pope Urban II, all the numerous priests who molest children and all those in the Catholic church who covered it up etc etc and a few others.

False prophets, all. You forgot Jimmy Swaggert, Gorman, Mormons and a few others.

It's what happens when humans follow and put their faith in the mortal man and not the word.

You're referring to the word written by mortal men. Why hasn't god guided the hand of mortal man and written anything lately? One best seller and done? Oh wait, he wrote the Koran too.

On the other theosophy thread running, eyeball claimed that God was guiding his posting.

So apparently, God might not be done writing yet.

And what else does He need to say? Pretty much covered it all. You're right about one best seller and done.

That's my point. I know why I, as a Christian, feel strongly about the subject but why does the Atheist feel so strongly about something he says he doesn't even believe in?

My suspicion is that God is a lot more important to the Atheist than he will ever admit and he feels a need to justify his position as well as the desire for validation from others of a similar view. To me this elevates simple unbelief to the status of religion.

It's not an insult. It's just a cold, logical fact.
Are the full implications of your atheism not looking so good to you now? That's all on you, not me.

Thanks for the update. Should I go over and read it or wait for the movie.

Originally Posted By MadMooner
Damn....

GODSPEED


So, MM, is this post a joke or a Freudian slip?

I think that most atheism boils down to laziness plus a lack of any thoughtfulness as to what it really means. Really a state of depression.

You put the whole universe in front of a lot of these people and they are like "meh, is that all you got?".

Nope.

I believe in God. Just not necessarily the same one as everyone else and have little use for a bible, or religion in general for that matter, and find humor in people's struggles to convince the world their religion is the right one.

There's only one but you can always roll your own, I guess.

Where did you come up with this "fact"?

Please support the statement in bold.

You don't even believe in spirits. Nothing I can write would convince you.

Maybe you should tell me about the wonderful growth opportunities found in Hell.

You claim to be a smart boy, puzzle it out.

Another christian that makes things up as they go. Sounds so good in their minds.

I don't recall making that claim.

I've claimed to have questions/doubts.

You're the one making declarations.

This thread shows why atheists are generally perceived as being shallow.

You won't find much thought in an atheist "work" of philosophy beyond "it doesn't matter".

S200, do you believe in a God and that we have immortal souls? Do you understand that without God, there is no purpose in living?
Nothing can proceed without that.

OK - just for the "fun" of it, I will parse some of your stuff.

By who?

I still can't fathom why the "righteous" care what an atheist/humanist/agnostic etc. believes. I don't recall ever being preached at or bothered by any of the above. I have friends/coworkers that fit that mold and we've had some outstanding discussions and debates, but that's where it ends.

George

I do believe in "God" I believe the essence of "God" is in everything.

I believe our souls/spirits will transcend this "plane of
existence".
(I think there's too much to know/experience on this rock to be limited to "one and done".)

They are beliefs, not facts.

This.

CCCC, I understand it now. There is human faith which everyone has that allows us to be able to step into an airplane with a reasonable expectation of arriving safely at its destination.

There is also spiritual faith which requires one to believe in something that is esoteric, indefinable, unexplainable, made up stuff without any evidence.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Divine revelation wasn't revealed all at once - it's been a learning process over millennia. That's why it's easy to point out that the creation story of Genesis has it's roots in pre-Judaic Mesopotamian myth. The Bible takes us through that history of revelation in the Old Testament. Adam wasn't an Israelite, neither was Noah. It's easy to point out too, that no one man, born today into total ignorance and sheltered from an education, would possibly be able to just "know" all that we do about God.

Evil has had it's influence in misleading as well. But even with evil influence, how can anyone fail to see the basic enlightenment that God has revealed to every soul? Even most atheists get touched by it, whether they know it or not.

o god..................
not another one of these threads

the bible thumpers versus the rest of the worlds non beleivers and religons, cause theirs is the only true faith/religon in their little insulated sheltered from society church world mindset.

cooper - seems you are an OK guy - am regretting any perceived/felt pejoratives.

You can be nothing more than an animal, a being with no spirit, if

you so insist, by rejecting the spirit and choosing to live by the

flesh. He gave you the freedom to choose.

. Dang your good.

George - good - I understand. Although far from "righteous", I do look into such concepts and beliefs due to some intellectual curiosity. But, I too can't fathom why others would want to argue an "atheist/humanist/agnostic etc" away from his/her beliefs.

A very good teacher of mine - a long time ago - would write a message for the week on the classroom chalkboard. One week it said: "The ignorant tend to hate - even fear - that which they do not understand". If that is true, it may go some distance in explaining why some folks - of any "religious", or "non-religious", or "other" stripe - tend to engage such scuffles with those who believe differently. In a case where I might be able actually to do it, I sometimes can enjoy intelligent discourse. To observe and get definition of another's beliefs is one thing - to attack and try to undermine those beliefs off-the-cuff is another thing. It seems that such assaults do tend to come from all quarters - not just from those who might be perceived as "righteous".

you know what
I have been going a couple of rounds with coop here on another thread



but what gives you the f ukking right to basically call someone a animal
all cause of your faith and belief in one particular religion


typical bible thumper stuff judging people who don't believe in what they believe in again




go judge the fugging Mormons and their gold tablets and mulitiple wife crap







what a douche bag.....................................

Here is a rather standard definition of atheism:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

So, how is it that the atheist determines that there is no god?

Your response is not clever and it merely perpetuates that idea that the atheist "believes" there is no god because he wants to believe that. He has no proof that there is no god. If an atheist proposes that there is no god, the burden of proof is on the atheist.

So, I reiterate, how does the atheist know there is no god?

TF

That has always been my take on it, therefore I refer to myself as an agnostic. I don't know. I can't prove or have not been shown convincing evidence either way.

Curdog is absolutely correct in this. God recognizes and rewards those that seek him. High IQ is not required. Think about it for a moment, God created you and I and if we are pleased with our intelligence and our gifts, we should thank Him for that. We are created beings and the "IQ" given to us is given to us by Him. It is just as easy for a low IQ person to seek God as it is for a high IQ person to seek god.

If you are still with this thought, think about this: To a great extent our "IQs" are dependent upon how well functioning our brains are. Some of us may have "low IQ's" and a brain that does not function as well as others. Now, fast forward to some kid in a wheelchair that dies. Do we think God will give him that new body in heaven? Yep, and will his legs work? Yep... ok what about the "dummy" that dies and goes to heaven... will god - so-to-speak - "Fix his brain? Yep.

TF

Talking of genocidal maniac's, don't forget about God and the Flood...according to hi own word he drowned nearly every living thing including unborn babes, toddler's and children..

A few generations later he allowed his chosen people to be killed in their millions at the hands of Hitler..Again that included pregnant women and their unborn babies, toddler and children.

So if this biblical God does exist, he's not someone I would worship..

I'm guessing you've heard that Jesus was the only religious leader to enable people to believe that he came back from the dead.

Huge difference with other religions in that only Jesus got anyone to believe he came back from the dead.

TF[/quote]

Once again you are wrong. Jesus is just the latest of the Rising and Dying Gods that include Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Ra, Osiris, Dionysus, Inanna/Ishtar, Persephone, and Bari among others. [/quote]

Scraping the bottom of the internet search barrel? Where are the believers of of the abovementioned irrelevant entities?


To compare Christianity with these is absurd.

TF

btw... if you do not believe in god, I guess you would not believe in Satan or demons and the like.

AS posted:


Once again, you are just wrong.

"There is not God" is not Atheism, that's Anti-Theism. A true anti-theist position it typically directed toward a specific definition of a god or gods, because without of good definition of what you are disputing, it's probably impossible to prove it does not exist

Once again, No. You just obfuscated and created a straw man to knock down. Again, here is a very common, easily accessible description/defintion of atheism:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

So, tell my why an atheist believes that no god exists. Don't dodge like you did before. Why do YOU believe no god exists?

If you say, that God has no met "his burden of proof" you are simply admitting you are an agnostic. If you really believe that no god exists, why?

Do you have an "absence of the belief of god" or do you believe that "no deities exist?"

TF

There is a difference between animals and humans. What do you think that is? Even liberals who deny the presence of God refer to us as being the highest form of animal.

Do you feel you have a spirit with a sense of right and wrong or not? If you do, how do you explain a genetic mutation that gave you one? It's not rocket science.

Im sure your mother considered you much smarter than those guys who wrote:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pur...

But, I disagree. You havent the smarts to produce one of the greatest documents affecting the world in history, by the grace of the Creator. Never have mortal men produced such a document or nation, with out the Devine guidance of Him and it will never be so again. Thats why they referenced Him. One nation, under God.

Have a blessed day.

I don't think I've feeped any spirts lately. Lemme check my undies.

I read Greek, Norse, Chinese and Egyptian mythology when I was very young. They were all false presumably. Why should the anglo saxon mythology be any different? It's seems like arrogance to say all the others are crap, but mines not.

Plus he killed my rabbit when I was six. That was the deal killer. Happened the same year my parents told me Santa clause was a hoax.

Now I'm a lawyer. See a pattern?

Satan sure had a rough time seducing you and Eve, huh?

GITM,

Tharp it sob. Spirts are welcome.

TF

Can we start the liar er lawyer jokes now?

Oh wish that were the case! I was easy prey. Truth be known, still have many issues with the old man.

TF

Yep, I see the pattern but being a lawyer is no excuse, God loves them too.

Interesting though, I watched a couple of the "Ancient Aliens" shows and they seem to believe that many of the "myths" including a couple that you mentioned may have some basis for belief. They think "ancient aliens" with superior technology could bee responsible for these stories. Seems it is easy for those folks to believe in "AA" than in god, demons or angels.

Oh well.

TF

What makes you say its LESS likely that advanced alien races could be responsible for some of these things? Not saying I believe it, the show was pretty lame, but it goes to show how easy it is to write off someone else's beliefs as ridiculous because we don't see any evidence to support it.

I'm sure there are those who believe in aliens just as strongly as many religious people believe in God, and would offer up all manner of evidence that,to them, seems irrefutable. You might think they're crazy or dimwitted, but that's how some atheist's might look at believers. And vice versa. Point is, we all believe stuff that others probably find ridiculous. That's why its really doesn't make sense to denigrate someone for their beliefs, when none of us can really even prove our own.

I certainly agree with that.

Hey Ghost - that there is funny !

After reading through the thread again, I'm convinced atheism is not a religion, it is more of a mental disorder of some sort. Pete E's last gem was icing on the cake.

xxclaro posted:

“What makes you say its LESS likely that advanced alien races could be responsible for some of these things? Not saying I believe it, the show was pretty lame, but it goes to show how easy it is to write off someone else's beliefs as ridiculous because we don't see any evidence to support it.”



Well, I think you put your finger on it. I do not see any evidence to support it. However, concurrent with that I see evidence to support another, and in my opinion, more certain explanation. So, for me, it is choice between that which I see no evidence of and that of which I see an abundance of evidence for.



xxclaro also posted: “ …. That's why its really doesn't make sense to denigrate someone for their beliefs, when none of us can really even prove our own.”


If one is overly sensitive, any sort of denigration may be found to be distasteful. I’ve seen this to the point where folks choose not to confront or expose those that are “in error.” The society seems to place a premium on “not causing disturbance or embarrassment” to the point of silliness. There is truth and there is falsehood. They are enemies and where falsehood is not dealt with, truth struggles. Many do not want to have their beliefs challenged and prefer to live in “blissful ignorance.” That may be ok unless there some terrible consequence awaiting them if they knew not the truth. If you knew an otherwise able minded man in his twenties that still believed in Santa Claus, should you tell him truth or let him continue in error? Yes, one could say he was “denigrating his beliefs” by telling him the truth. Truth is more valuable than falsehood.

As far as not being able to “really prove our own” …. I go back to truth and error. One may expose truth to another but if the “other” chooses not to believe and in fact rejects the truth, he may suffer because of it. Most of us would warn someone who was not paying attention and headed into traffic, we would warn him. The question becomes, who has truth and who has false beliefs? The proving is really God’s job. He is the one who shows us the truth about sin, about Jesus and about Himself. If God Himself “proven” it to me, then I accept HIS truth as truth. Therefore, as “imperious” as it may sound, I have experience and knowledge that another may not have. It is not however any type of exclusive knowledge in that it is available to all. It is there for the seekers of God. If one is not honestly seeking God, “it will be as foolishness” to him.

Like the grandson says: “I can do my best to explain it to you, but you have to do your best to understand it”


TF

As if 5he US and GB wouldnt be better off if the same happened to we? How many will die if wr keep going down the path directed buy the current liberal philosiphy?

All of us, Eyeball. Regardless of philosophy.

This is a zero sum game. No one gets out alive.

No wonder this gets tossed out the window these days....a lot of people either don't believe in it or only think it applies to them only when the need arises.

Next thing you know, no one believes or has any faith that people should own their own guns, property or believing or not believing.

Jesus a socialist.....never knew Christ preached theft and distribution; that's a new one.

Quick reply used here so not directed at any one person,,,,

Some of you are gonig to be really bummed at the end of your lives.

There is no need for faith to believe in the benefits of private property and firearms ownership. Economics prove both quite nicely.

Yea, they are called theist.

Of course....

Do you believe in any supernatural being other then the Christian God?

Not at all! My life and the lives of many others have been greatly enriched by the knowledge of Christ. To be a Christian is to be a better person in every way.

I'm not saying that you can't be a good person unless you are a Christian but being a Christian makes you want to be a better person. I also must say that not everyone who calls themselves Christian is.

Christian means Christ like, to take on the nature of Christ. Christians should be known by their actions and nature, not by their proclamation.

I understand what your saying, and I actually agree with you on much of it. Its just the word "truth" that causes a few issue's. We often say we know things when we really can only claim to believe them. One guy says he knows for sure aliens exist. He's read accounts of them from different civilizations over thousands of years. He see's evidence of them manipulating life on earth. He's got video's of their craft doing things we can't do. Heck, he's even seen them. So, he "knows the truth" about them.
I've never seen them, the videos look suspect to me, ancient tests can be misinterpreted and I've never been abducted. All of his evidence seems to me more readily explained in more mundane ways. So if I say I know the truth is aliens do not exist, and he says he knows the truth is that they do, one of us must be wrong. Neither can prove his point conclusively, and both claim to have truth on their side. Thats kind of how I see this theist/atheist debate. We speak our piece and present our evidence(or lack thereof) to support it, and the other side does the same. Claiming to "know" or have truth on your side really does nothing for the discussion, as ultimately you can't prove your claim. It certainly doesn't mean a worthwhile discussion can't be had though, and I've enjoyed this one so far.

xxclaro:

I tend to agree with your statement: " ... ultimately you can't prove your claim..."

I don't personally know anyone who has been "argued" into becoming "saved." I have seen people enlightened by the Word and I have seen people respond with spiritual hunger when given information about Jesus. In each case, there was something else going on.... perhaps, AT THE SAME TIME... and that is God communicating to them, showing them the truth about Jesus and the truth about themselves. It is one thing to have me or someone else tell you about Jesus or to tell you about my experience with Jesus. It is entirely something else when GOD tells you the truth about yourself and the truth about Jesus.


TF


edited to add: It is not I that can prove the claim to you or anyone else, seemingly, that is only done by the Spirit.

So genocide is defendable just because it happened to be carried out by your God?

Personally, I don't believe in the bible as being the word of God...I guess I have no faith and that must be down to my Creator?

In the wider scope of things, I don't entirely discount the possibility of the presence of a higher being (or beings) but if it (or they) do exist, I simply don't believe it will be in the form of the biblical God..

I am sorry to be a late comer to this thread and I am not going to read all 23 pages, but to you atheists I ask the question, who are you trying to convince, us or yourself? You know there is a higher power. Something doesn't come from nothing. I know that I do not have the knowledge to explain, and neither do you. Jesus came as a representitive of that higher being and spoke the truth. His message was simple and easy to understand. Please read it. It has survived translations relatively intact. Please read and understand what your creator wishes.I suggest the book of Matthew. Please read and pray for guidance and understanding. I am Praying constantly myself for my edification and yours, I am writing in love and hope for this world. Please consider Jesus as a messenger from our creator.

I can't imagine what my life would be like if were an Atheist. One second and you are gone. No after life, just gone. Live it up, this is all you have.

Have you ever entertained the idea that God does exist and there is no afterlife?

At the very least, God's gift is life.

Personally, I do not. I don't just make up my own God. It seems to me that what many fail to comprehend is that the idea of Jehovah God is not just some new random concept to be acknowledged or rejected.

Personally, even if I'm wrong about God, which I'm not, I'll be wrong with a lot more people than the atheists will.

Would this change how you live your life?

I live with the knowlege that my actions, my family, and my work will live on after my light goes out.

Incorrect. The SCOTUS has declared "atheism" as "equivalent to a religion" and thus subject to protection equivalent thereto under the First Amendment.

I'm not surprised Ringman got it wrong, and likely intentionally.

Have you entertained the thought that god is really just a word we made up for the forces of nature and that this is it?

Shouldn't every believer in god be a devotee and rabid environmentalist to stop imperfect man from mucking up god's most beautiful and perfect creation?

If there is a god that loves us, what's up with Onchocerca volvulus which is a nematode that causes blindness mostly in Africa where humans are the only definitive host. Would you subject your loved ones to such a thing? If a human purposely subjected their child or even their dog to something like that, we would put them in jail. I know, I know we aren't supposed to understand the ways of god. blah, blah, blah. If you created the world, why would you also create asteroids that go swirling around our planet, akin to god taking pot-shots at the planet? I know, blah blah blah. Why create the ability of mutation of our pathogens? Once we figure out how to treat a disease from a pathogen, many of them mutate to cause more misery. More of god's fun and games and fuggin' around with us? I know, blah, blah. God is supposed to have sent us his perfect son because he loves us. What are we to conclude when he sends us a Hitler? I know blah, blah.

The thing is: If you had a neighbor who screwed around with you and your property liked this, or subjected you to this much misery, you would hate his guts. And rightfully so.

I don't think there is a god because I've seen no evidence of one. I don't believe in god, cause I can't put faith into anything that would behave in such a way toward his children that he says he loves. I can deal with the randomness of nature and the need for other completing organisms to use us as a host and it's actions just happening to make innocent children blind or killing them. What I can not believe is that this would be done by design by any god and certainly not a loving one that is worthy of any kind of praise or worship. I know, blah, blah, blah.

Oh good! More atheist philosophy on suffering!

We can add that to the World's Smallest Book.

+1

Maybe there is a god and he intentionally acts like a dick as a test to see which of us will be stupid enough to praise such behavior and which ones are moral enough and wise enough to not worship such a dick. Wouldn't that be a twist of fate!

You really don't have a clue. You need to learn a few things before you make your judgement.

Let me ask you this. If I rent you a beautiful home and you crap in the floor instead of in the toilet, is it my fault that it stinks?

Is it insecurity that causes this animosity?

>>Let me ask you this. If I rent you a beautiful home and you crap in the floor instead of in the toilet, is it my fault that it stinks?<<

Only if the landlord knew the renter would crap on the floor. What I do know, is that the person who cleans it up and who educates or tries to prevent someone from crapping on the floor again would be doing the right and good thing. Many here would criticize that person for preventing you from exercising your right to crap on the floor.

Now, if the landlord intentionally introduced an agent into the well that would cause the renter that drank the water to have uncontrollable, explosive diarrhea, then not only would he be responsible for it, he would be a big dick.

>>Oh good! More atheist philosophy on suffering!

We can add that to the World's Smallest Book.<<

Thanks for your well thought out input. You could have just said, "Blah, Blah, Blah". It would have been just as worthwhile.

This is the closest I've read here to my concept of the God of the Bible. The problem with the folks here is they anthropomorphize God. I read in the Bible "for God loved the world" but I have not read where God loves each individual. In fact I have read the exact opposite: God hates certain individuals. The universe is His toy. I am fascinated by the creativity of God: The things we see as good and the things we see as bad seem to be the same to Him.

Another thing that fascinates me is the arrogance of so many here. They seem to think more highly of themselves than they should, based on the grand scheme of things. They reject the very basic tenant of science which is cause and effect. The effect is always less than the cause. This universe is running down. Why?

Now this is getting interesting. I think the thought of not existing is very frightening to most people. I don't know why, it doesn't make sense but never the less it does seem to be the case. I wonder if that's the reason man has been looking to religion for so long, in the hope that he will find something after this life?

I've always thought it's a big part of the reason people have children too. You die, but you leave a part of you behind to carry on, so it's not quite so bad. I don't know why we should fear death so much. Dying I can understand fearing, as there are many unpleasant ways to go. But simply not being, why is it frightening? I don't know, it just is to probably the vast majority of people.

You all do realize our sun will go red giant?

Yep, "wired" that way by the Creator.

TF

Or "wired" by the biology of natural selection.

This begs for the question, why is there an instinct for survival? Even bacteria move away from perceived threat.

Maybe the way that bacteria move away from danger and mutate every time we develop a new anti-biotic means that, just maybe, bacteria are actually the chosen organism that was created in god's imagine? He does seems to like them better.

It's not they mutate, it's that there are certain ones that are resistant to certain dangers. The rest die off and the small group becomes the dominant group.

There were three bodies discovered in the premafrost. Some clever person decided to check for bacterial strains. Many were already resistant to several antibacterials.

RM- I get why you don't want to say bacteria mutate, but they do, readily.

Has anybody changed their mind yet on any ecumenical matters?

RM's GED is showing and not in a good way.


Takes a special kind of intellectual stink to believe that permafrost predates ancient natural selection and fungal antibacterial molecule families.

I have. I think I'll hedge my bets, just in case I'm wrong, and join a church again. I'm thinking the Church of Scientology. They sound like a fun group.

Well,,,at least you got your history portion right Pete. That's a step up for you.

Nice dodge Toot, but Religious types never like it when its pointed out that according to their own Bible their God has committed acts of Genocide and has promised to commits further acts in the future..

No dodge at all, Pete. Them that don't listen to Him most certainly put themselves in harms way. You might want to read up on that. Then, again, you might not.

That sounds like a threat? I guess he is not so different to Allah after all...

I mean why create man with a free will, but then punishes those that choose to exercise it in a certain manner?

A woman has an abortion and the religious zealots work themselves into a frenzy..Their God "terminates" 99.9% of mankind with a flood, and that's ok!

Free will can get you in deep schitt and there are consequences as you've just noted. Good point.

According to that line of thought, God commits murder every day. After all, people die every day, right?

Totally vacuous and lazy.

And using the blanket, cover all the bases, answer "it's Gods will" to explain the unexplainable isn't vacuous and lazy?

You have to admit God can leave us with many questions.

True. Seek and ye shall find. Maybe.

What you fail to understand is that God isn't condemning people to Hell. They are already headed to Hell of their own accord. God has done everything possible to save them from Hell, including dying on a cross.

I've given up seeking. When God wants me, God will know where I am.

It's not a threat, it's a promise. And if you do some math, you will see your number 99.9% is off by several decimals. Eight people survived the Flood. Figure people, according to the Book you are referencing, lived to be about 900 years old. They could have children to at least 500 years of age. If they only had a kid every twenty years and the Flood happened in the year 1656 after creation, you have lots more than 99.9% dead.

Never said that at all..

However you slice it, the Bible recounts numerous instances of God committing what amounts to Genocide..If you believe the Bible, and worship God, all you can really do is attempt to offer justification for that Genocide..

Stupid obviously knows no bounds.

No wonder someone got you to work for free for years.

True. Seek and ye shall find. Maybe. [/quote]

I've given up seeking. When God wants me, God will know where I am. [/quote]


Well, Sauer, may the force be with you in your futility and you're all too right about Him being able to find you.

Wow, just wow.

No mortal being is asked to justify it only to heed it.

Okay...

8 people survived the flood.

People lived to be 900 years old.

They could have children to at least 500 years of age.



Seriously?




And you wonder why some of us question these things....






Things might have gone better if the original man, and the woman he made out of one of his ribs hadn't listened to what a talking snake had to say....



Seriously?

Hells bells, Ingwe. I'm 108 and just knocked up my neighbor's 89 year old daughter. Take that!

Im wayyyyy behind the curve...

Im only 62...plumbing is in question as to working.


Even young women in their 70s wont look at me...

By your reckoning, how many years has it been since the flood and how long since the lifespan was 900 years?

If only god was able to write his own "book" instead of pawning it of on humans to write.

thirdbite if and as Scripture says that one day is like 1000 unto the L*rd and a 1000 days is like a single one unto the L*rd then J*sus has been gone close to 2 days, maybe.

Just for reference only as to time frames. ymmv, though.

He has. It's called the Book of Life. Just hope we're in it.

He would never get it passed the Catholic Church!

Not being able to write his own book sure raises another question about omniscience....

It's called "Delegation".

so that's two thousand of our days?

But somehow he can write on a wall. Go figure?

Delegation perhaps...but the follow-up is lacking....

That would be Puerto Ricans, I think.

I said nothing about our days.

Man needs faith in order to be saved. It takes the force of faith to recreate the human heart.God could prove himself beyond any doubt and rob everyone of faith, thus condemning the human race.

I thought you said scripture says one day is like a thousand days unto the Lord and vice versa. Can you please explain the two day(?)statement and calculation? I really don't understand

Try reading it for yourself and make up your own mind. If you can't find it in The Book, google will get you to it.

Are Lord and Jesus now words that get bleeped?

Serious question for you sir.

Why do you think god performed miracles for the masses when he was on earth? They had no faith and therefore aren't saved? Do you feel we (the human race) are condemned because of it?

Why does he selectively prove himself in the bible but clearly declares to NOT test him in other books of the bible? Thank you.

Apologies if that bothers you. Don't get too hung up on semantics and you'll have a more harmonious outcome.

I just wanted to know why those words were edited.

Because it is His call to do so not ours to command and challenge him to do. You're welcome.

Kinda like the Muslims don't like images of Allah..

I read what you wrote. I interpret it as one earth day is the same as a thousand of the Lord's days. You apparently interpret it differently. That's why I asked what it means. Could you please explain to me how Jesus has been gone 2 days, maybe.

In bold and underlined for you.

Apparently the actual reference is one day is like a thousand years. I would think one shouldn't make up their own mind about things like this - it either says it or doesn't and it either means what it says or doesn't. Shouldn't need a key to the code to decipher it. You still haven't explained how long it's been since humans lived 900 years and could reproduce for 500 years.

The part underlined is a bit sad. Hopefully you will eventually develop a mind of your own. I mean no disrespect. Also, I am not a Priest, Minister, Reverend, Deacon nor Talmudic Scholar.

The part in bold, I never said and you might want to poll the OP on it.

I very much appreciate your demeanor, thank you. I think Jesus performed miracles, not as God in human form but as a prophet sent from God. Remember he always referred to himself as the son of man though he also revealed himself as the son of God at times. Jesus didn't deny that he was the son of God but he did want the people to know that he was a man. Remember that prophets performed miracles as testimony that they were sent from God. Elijah declared twice that if he be sent from God fire would consume a troupe of solders, and Elisha raised a woman's dead son.

The faith that saves is faith in Jesus as salvation for us. Many have different views about what needs to be said or done but it all boils down to believing that Jesus is your salvation. The miracles that Jesus performed may have proved that he was sent from God but the people still needed to have faith that he was their salvation. Besides that, even if miracles were performed today, as I believe they are, many will not believe. They will attribute it as tricks or lies. I suspect people haven't changed much. Remember that Pharaoh's wise men also turned staves into serpents. I don't see miracles as robbing people of faith at all.

As far as testing God, the Bible tells us to prove God in some ways but not to test him in others. It all depends on the context. Jesus said that he should not throw himself off a high temple to tempt God to have the angles raise him up but Malachi tells us to tithe and prove that God will do what he says he will do. I think it all comes down to God wanting us to do what he tells us to do. When we obey, God is happy to prove that he will uphold his end of the bargain but he doesn't want us to act like imbeciles just so he can save us from ourselves. People take things out of context.Mark says that we will take up serpents and if we drink any deadly thing it will not harm us.This doesn't mean that we should pass around rattlesnakes and drink poison to test God. The example of this verse concerning divine protection is found in Acts when Paul is bitten by a deadly serpent and suffered no harm. He didn't however go looking for it.

"The part underlined is a bit sad. Hopefully you will eventually develop a mind of your own. I mean no disrespect. Also, I am not a Priest, Minister, Reverend, Deacon nor Talmudic Scholar.

The part in bold, I never said and you might want to poll the OP on it."

Sorry, you're correct. Ringman wrote it. I was confused with all the quotes.. I'm pleased you meant no disrespect tho I certainly don't find it sad. I'm still confused whether you think each person should "develop a mind of their own" and arrive at their own meaning for everything in the Bible.

In my view that pertains to all in life and not just biblical interpretation but that aside;

If you've not read it, get Mark Taylor's book, The History of the Bible. It's an excellent read, explains much and can give one a historical perspective as to what they are reading in the context of the times (over 1400 yrs.) and of the peoples of those times. So much of taking things literally from The Book can be downright dangerous. We've all seen of late what literal interpretations of the Koran has yielded.
There are something like +100, so called "commandments" in the Bible (1st 5 books of the Mosaic Laws), 10 of which most of us are very familiar with. Of the 10 Commandments, the 1st 4 deal with our commanded relationship with The Almighty and the last 6 deal with our commanded relationships with our fellow man. Go to the New Testament and see that J*sus summed them all up in just 2 Commandments.
Keep searching and reading as it is a never ending process of enlightenment. That's all.

No problem with me taking things literally from the bible - just trying to figure out where some of the ideas expressed come from.

Thank you for your reply.


What miracles specifically are you speaking of? Performed today?

If god truly knows our every thought and numbers the hairs on our head, he'd know how many have searched for him and come up empty. He'd know exactly how to convince the mind of that person. Yet he doesn't.



Sorry. I don't see anything out of context there. I can see how some would read that and want to have "faith" that the lord will protect them from these things. Not surprisingly, christians die of snake bites & poisoning too. With or without them going looking for it.

thirdbite,



Abraham was born about 250 years after the Flood. He is considered, more or less, to be a modern figure; as far as world history goes. I think we can date him about 2,000 to maybe 2,100 years ago. That puts the Flood about 4,300 years ago.



Noah was 600 years old when the Flood hit and he lived another 350 years. He was the last of the 900 year olds. According to the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of to Genome, written by a guy who was an evolutionist and taught the graduate students at Cornell University for twenty-five years and has seventy patents on gene splicing, wrote the exponential decay rate of human ages, recorded in
Genesis 11 matches the accumulation rate of human mutations.

This was not addressed to me, but I figure I will answer it anyway. It says something like a day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. The quote comes from Saint Peter and refers to God's patience waiting for us to turn to Him.

In the Psalms God tells us a thousand years to Him is like a watch in the night. In other words He is not locked into time like we are.

Some confused folks try to shoe horn Genesis' creation narrative into Saint Peter's encouragement about God's patience. God, Who is the Creator, established what a day is on Day One. He said, "There was evening and morning, Day One. Every time evening and morning used with a numerical modifier shows up in the Old Testament it refers to......one day! Why would it be any different in the place where a day is established? God told us in That First Chaper the sun and moon and stars are for "days and years and signs and seasons."

If someone doesn't believe it, why don't they just reject it up front and move on? I don't understand why they try to change it.

What am I missing? 2,100 plus 250 doesn't equal 4,300. How long did the flood last?

thin_man,



Do you have any idea how heavy a book written with letters that large would be?

What miracles specifically are you speaking of? Performed today?

You can hear about them from credible people and sometimes see them if you run in the right circles. They aren't usually on CNN though.

If god truly knows our every thought and numbers the hairs on our head, he'd know how many have searched for him and come up empty. He'd know exactly how to convince the mind of that person. Yet he doesn't.

I don't have all the answers, but I want my children to love me all on their own,not because I make them.I think God wants us to desire him enough to seek him out,seek him with our whole heart. When I've done that, God has made himself known to me in a wonderful and convincing way.

Sorry. I don't see anything out of context there. I can see how some would read that and want to have "faith" that the lord will protect them from these things. Not surprisingly, christians die of snake bites & poisoning too. With or without them going looking for it.

Yes they do, as I already said ,I don't have all the answers but I also have heard many astounding things from people that I believe concerning God protecting them. Maybe those scriptures speak more of our battle against evil as I've heard before and are more figurative than literal. I can't say for sure as I've not studied them in depth from the original languages with the mind set of the time period. For me however they are no less true because some Christian has died from snakebite.

thin_man,



God says Jews, the people to whom he appeared, seek signs and Gentiles (mostly you and me) seek for wisdom. Gentile Christian's searchings sorta established science and took us out of the Dark Ages.

Here's an unfun thought. Dispite showing them signs, including raising at least four people from the dead including Himself, many did not believe. Here's another unfun thought. Dispite modern scientific discoveries showing how finely tuned the universe is and how complex a cell is, most Gentiles don't believe.

As you well know, you can't MAKE someone love you or even respect you. You can prove you exist.
You however have a big advantage over your god as you are very real and present for your children.






That will suffice sir. Thanks for your honesty & thank you for your time.

No problem.

Just like the guy that gives me a job can take it away, the one who gives life is also entitled to take it away. Life is a gift, not an entitlement.

By that reasoning it is morally acceptable for you to murder you own kids.

You are certainly special. The dad and mom don't give life. They merely pass on genetics. That's why when their number of days is up, they can't keep on living.

AS,

Nah, not at all. Equating God creating Man to a human father/mother procreation is not what he meant. Pretty obvious.

TF

Additional thought:

Imagine a gardener. He tills the soil, he plants the seeds as cares to, he waters and tends to that garden. It is his garden. He has the right to into the garden and manage as he sees fit. He may pull weeds, he may thin some areas, he may tear out what is no longer desired and put something else in, he may replant, he may harvest. It is his garden and it is right for him to do these things.

It is not right for someone else to come in to his garden and take or destroy. Not the intruder's garden.

We are not talking about plants. We are talking about human beings, so your example is not morally equivalent. It's interesting how you didn't like my parent analogy, but somehow you think you gardener analogy would hold.

If you are a Christian and the serpent (Satan) which can take your life FOREVER bites you, you will not die (His definition of death, not ours).

The death of the flesh we fear is of no consequince to Him. His concern is that we not REALLY DIE, the death He can not save one from, well, at least not and be just.

antelope_sniper,



You don't get it. You are not God. There is a larger gap between the plants and you and you and God. You are closer to the plants by a universe.

But if you evolved, it is fine for you to kill kids. Lions kill the cubs of other males if they get a chance. Bears kill cubs and even eat them. Morality cannot be justified in an evoloving world. Why? Well, who decides what's moral? The guy with the most followers or the biggest gun? Who?

I look at things a little differently my friend. What I see is that much of how God has dealt with us is our own fault. I even see the flood as an act of grace and kindness. There is evidence when languages are studied in depth to believe that God allowed the flood to save mankind from what would have otherwise been total destruction of the human race. Remember that Noah warned the people for 100 years.

Even when dealing with his own Covenant people,God did not want to judge harshly and did not until the people demanded law. God wanted to deal directly with his people but they instructed Moses to speak with God instead and boastfully declared that whatever God said to do, they would do. At that point God gave man the law, not to teach them how to live and punish them when they failed, but to show them that they couldn't attain righteousness on their own.

At that point God was obligated to uphold the law, but even then God created the levitical priesthood to give man a way to avoid punishment and wrath. All those sacrifices were only a shadow of the true way and sacrifice to come through Jesus. You see, God has never wanted wrath for man. God wanted mercy so much for man that he gave his only son to die for us.

God allowed!?

Genesis6:13
"Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.'"

Read it in the original language and then get back to me.

AS,

Sorry, it slipped by you and that is not your fault. GOD is the gardener, we are HIS garden, HIS creation. We are created by HIM and he is sovereign. I know that is a tough thing for an atheist to stomach but that is the way it is. God is sovereign and you are not. Goes against the grain doesn't it?

TF

Its time to crucify this thread and roll the stone over the tomb.

No way. It is just getting interesting.

Nutjobs collaborating on morally justifying their homicidal/genocidal God just because some ancient poets took some literary license.

Should be epic.

Sláinte

I didn't create my kids. Only God creates.

Sounds like Obama's "you didn't build that" speech!

>>I didn't create my kids. Only God creates.<<

Is that what your wife told ya?

An atheist most reverent holiday is April 1. A time for them to worship themselves.

(Not too many atheists in a fox hole.)

Ooooookay. Hey, I never heard the fox hole thing before. Lemme ponder that. So, the way to convert an atheist is to shoot at them? Hey, are you member of ISIS?

As carbon12 said, it may be time to kill the thread, for by now it does not seem to be getting more interesting. Except - maybe when a poster contends that terrible human acts (homo and geno) upon fellow humans are the work of a God who, somehow, might be made just by nutjobs applying literary license. Now, that may be convoluted enough to spark some interest.

judge not
yet ye be judged........................................

and your attempts at personal slights are petty.
espically for a "righteous" person as yourself.

Do your remember Joshua? He and his crew, in the name of the Most High, killed everyone and everything in more than one town.

please show us a "captain cut and paste" pic or link of this calendar since creation you reference


some of us need a good chuckle

Did we ever decide if atheism was a religion or not?

I think I understand what you are asking, but I don't know of a "captain cut and paste" pic or link. Many years ago I did a time line. Anyone can do the same math I did to get to the year 1656 by checking Genesis 5. I read in a history book about Abraham living about 2,000 years ago.

I hope this answer will suffice.



Some of the post here almost make me cry from a broken heart. Does that give you a good chuckle?

Yes, it is. Also no, it isn't. That's the consensus. If you need any more answers just ask, I got em. Since I know I'm right, you can trust whatever I say. Your welcome.

Too good. Heh.

Right on bro.

Consider: Even though God's armamentarium for mass destruction/annihilation include floods, microbial pestilence, drought, earthquake, climate change , and a bunch of other God mediated killings, sometimes, the right tools for targeted, localize human irradication are ancient Israelites, Slobodan Milošević and Joseph Kony.

Amen.

ETA: Can include slaughtering Jesus amongst God's doings via human surrogates.

As long as we're on the "Ism's" of religion, try on Deism and see how that fits.

Mass destruction by the Almighty ended in and with the Old Testament..... For the time being, that is.

History does tend to repeat.

That's BS. According to your dogma after you die you either go to heaven forever, or burn in hell forever.

Time is an artifice of our existence, not God's.

The blood thirsty, woman rape advocating, abortion promoting God of the OT is the same NT God you worship now.

Praise be.

You are the one who doesn't get it. Being a dick, is being a dick, regardless of if you are human or a deity.

Of course Morality can be justified in a world that evolved. We have empathy. We are very capable of evaluating the affects of our actions on others. We understand that when those around us thrive, it benefits us as well.

What you fail to understand is that Divine Command Theory is not a moral system. It is an immoral system, especially when you follow a god as blood thirst and maniacal as the Christian God.

God has to exist before he can be sovereign.

Again you are wrong. Should get out more and actually meet some atheist some time.

My favorite holidays are Christmas, 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Halloween, and Easter.

I guess you never finished reading your Bible. You must have skipped the last book of the New Testament.

Chit O'dear. The kind of speech one expects from baby daddies.

You intentially missed "for the time being" of you were in such a hurry to post you didn't get that far in the post?

Malachi 3:6 I the lord do not change.

There are likely many folks who do believe in God, but live as if He doesn’t exist...
'Christian' Atheists...so to speak.

And there are many athiest who live a very moral life devoted to kindness, duty and charity.

How long do you burn while consumed in fire before you are history and feel nothing? Though God tells us you burn forever in the everlasting fire, show me in scripture where you stay alive and suffer forever. The flesh you choose doesnt live forever. Stop assuming.

Curious:

Say that there was this God. How much of a sacrifice was it for this God to slaughter his son as a blood sacrifice so that he could then forgive Christian sinners?

This was the same God that created the conditions so that sin even existed. Moreover, this was the same God that mandated a blood sacrifice so that sin could be forgiven.

This was the same God that resurrected his son immediately after the son was sacrificed.


At the end of the day, did this God give up anything?


Was there a sacrifice at all?

Here are some. You will have to put Revelation 19:20 together with Revelation 20:10 to get the message we are addressing. When you read the Matthew Passage you will notice the same adjetive for eternal life and eternal punishment. Which "eternal" does not mean eternal?

Revelation 19:20
“And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.”

Revelation 20:10
“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

2 Peter 2:9-10
“The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.”

Luke 16:22-24
Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’

Mark 9:42-48
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.”

Matthew 25:41-46
“’Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.” When they themselves also will answer, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?” Then He will answer them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”’”

AS,

OK, do you know that no god exists?

TF

Thanks for that Ringman. I had forgotten that, i guess after having listened to Shephards Chapel.

An atheist can no more 'disprove' the existance of God than can a believer 'prove' the existance of God.

carbon 12 posted:

Say that there was this God. How much of a sacrifice was it for this God to slaughter his son as a blood sacrifice so that he could then forgive Christian sinners?

This was the same God that created the conditions so that sin even existed. Moreover, this was the same God that mandated a blood sacrifice so that sin could be forgiven.

This was the same God that resurrected his son immediately after the son was sacrificed.

At the end of the day, did this God give up anything?

Was there a sacrifice at all?

...............................................


This is a great question. Here is my response. I posted similarly before - Years ago, I was pressured to go to a small church in Missouri. I went and heard things I had never heard before in my life. Being born again, Jesus death on the cross etc...my wife and I went off and on for a few months and then I bought a bible and started to read to check up on what the preacher was saying. I remember one night when I was reading about the crucifixion and was wondering almost exactly what carbon12 had posted. Jesus died a horrible death on the cross, but many other people have died horrible deaths and after all, he was dying that horrible death for literally millions of people so was it as much of a deal as “they” were making it out to be. I was laying on the couch and pondering this and then two things happened; The first was like a soft blow to the back of my neck, very light but very noticeable and secondly, a voice “spoke” in my mind.

The voice said “Dave, if you were the only one, I would have died for you.” I also knew immediately that it was Jesus doing the talking. Made a believer out of me.

That statement to me was of course huge. He called me by name “Dave” and then He enlightened me. I am forever thankful.

The other point is that Jesus is of the Trinity. He had never been separated from the Father. The Word says he “was made sin for us.” I believe Jesus was separated from the Father at the moment he was made “sin” for us. Now, I cannot imagine anything worse that being separated from the Father.

So, yes, the death was for each one of us as individuals and it was very costly for the Son.

TF

I did not ask about proof. I asked if he "knew" there was no god. There is an abundance of atheist literature and even "doctrine" that flatly states "There is no god."

How about you? Do you "know" there is no god?

TF

Your alternative is....?

How is that alternative not also responsible for human deaths?
People died, they should have been saved, right?

And there is also an abundance of Christian literature and even 'doctrine' that flatly states "There is a God."

Russell's teapot.

Jesus spoke openly about what would happen to him: crucifixion and then resurrection from the dead. "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22)

If you know the whole while you'll be good as new in 3 days, no, there is no real sacrifice other than pain.

If I came across a stranger that I felt tried to live a good life....to the best of his/her ability yet was destined for eternal punishment and all I had to do was endure pain, ridicule, and I KNEW I would be as new in a few days, I'd do it. That's for one person. But I'm not the one who created that eternal punishment. The one that did is trying to sell you the cure.

^^ I've never whispered that to anyone though.

The issue is not the sacrifice of the Son. The issue is what was the sacrifice of God. What did he give up? Since God is not temporal, he cannot start with something and end up with something less.

Moreover, 'Trinity' is not of the Bible.

You're dodging the question.

So, how do you know there is no god?

The answer is, you don't. Actually, I suspect most folks that claim to atheists are actually fearful agnostics.

Any atheists out there that want to tell us how they "know" there is no god?

TF

No one "knows" one way or the other. That, is fact. Many have beliefs, one way or the other, but no one "knows".

Uh, 4th grade teacher?

Apologies.

Dang clever and I missed it.

I think.

The issue is not the sacrifice of the Son. The issue is what was the sacrifice of God. What did he give up? Since God is not temporal, he cannot start with something and end up with something less.

Moreover, 'Trinity' is not of the Bible.

.............................................


Well, you are flat out wrong about the Trinity. This a laugher, another non-christian telling us what Christians believe.

Your statement: "Since God is not temporal, he cannot start with something and end up with something less." is obtuse at best.

Care to explain that?

TF

Trinity is an extrapolation. Where in the Bible is "Trinity" explicitly referred to?

Even RM knows that God created time. The Christian God is defined to exist outside of the restraint of time . Gain and loss only has meaning if there is chronology.

Intentially or unintentially he came to infinite. Infinity minus ten is still infinity.

c12,


"Gain and loss only has meaning if there is chronology"

"Trinity is an extrapolation"

What?

TF

RM,

Still not sure about his statement. Jesus was indeed "temporal."

Prolly makes no difference to this thread.

TF

OK.

Back up to the original question.

What did God sacrifice?

He made a son to save sinners

Slaughtered his son so sinners could have salvation.

Resurrected his son after the sacrifice.

God still has his son.

All this happens in chronological time for us.

But not for God.

His dead son is his live son because God is not constrained by time.

What did God sacrifice?

Philippians 2:5-10

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [d]on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,"

c12,

Do you understand that Jesus is the third part of the Trinity and is in fact God?

If you do, please re-read my statement. If you do not, there is little I can do to assist you in your understanding.

TF

Ok. Let's go with that.

God makes a son that is himself to be a blood sacrifice to himself.

God sacrifices his son/himself to himself as a condition he also made up so sinners don't have to kill lambs and/or (goat)kids anymore for salvation.

After the sacrifice to himself, God resurrects his son/himself LNIB knowing all along that was what he was going to do in the first place.

Keeping in mind the putative suffering was entirely self-induced, where was the sacrifice?




Apologies to thin_man for paraphrasing his earlier post without permission.

Back up to the original question.

What did God sacrifice?

He made a son to save sinners

Slaughtered his son so sinners could have salvation.

Resurrected his son after the sacrifice.

God still has his son.

All this happens in chronological time for us.

But not for God.

His dead son is his live son because God is not constrained by time.

What did God sacrifice?
[/quote]

Here's a great mystery and hard to understand , yet nevertheless true.
Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus and God are one. At the same time Jesus is also a man.

You and I do not know what Jesus suffered. We think of death as the ultimate loss, yet death is not ultimate loss. Our spirits will live forever. Whether we spend that eternity in Heaven or Hell is up to us.

The loss that Jesus suffered from the most was separation from God. From God's view point, separation from Him is ultimate loss, not the death of a temporary physical body.God turned his back on Jesus on the cross. Jesus cried out," My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!"

I wondered why God turned his back on Jesus for a long time and just recently while studying grace, God told me. God turned his back on Jesus because of sin. because Jesus took that punishment, God will never leave us nor forsake us, even in our worst sin. That price was also paid by Jesus on the cross.

You ask what God suffered. The better question is what did Jesus suffer. Jesus suffered everything a sinner can suffer who has no standing with God and is utterly lost. That's the price Jesus paid. Jesus paid our debt, every last part of it. All he asks of us is to accept his sacrifice as payment for our sins.

Pls see RH Clark reply. He said it better than I could have.

TF

Every sacrifice of animals was only a representation and substitute until the real sacrifice could be made. You must understand that it was never the blood of animals that atoned for sin. It was faith in the sacrifice. We are saved by faith in the sacrifice and always have been.

Man sinned and lost his connection with God. Man could not regain that connection because He could not rid himself of that sin nature. It took a sacrifice of one without the sin nature. That one was Jesus, born not by the seed of man which was imbued with the sin nature but born by the incorruptible word of God. Jesus who had never sinned , paid the full price of a sinner. Because Jesus never sinned,the price he paid was not for himself. That payment is available for anyone who will accept it.

Kind words my friend, but we all need each other and every part is valuable.

The Crucifixion/salvation story is the original 'reality' show. The drama is contrived, scripted and prearranged.

A sacrifice made by an entity to itself really just means all the goodies remain with the same holding company. Likewise, Jesus is just God's dummy corporation.

God's forsakening Jesus was temporary. It was business as usual immediately after. And since Jesus is God, he most probably knew how the story ended too.

A demonstration of sacrifice is not supported by the text.

Now if the ancient story tellers had God send Jesus to Hell for eternity, that would have made a demonstration of sacrifice.

So, you are attacking a story and a religion that you believe is false. You do not believe in Jesus. OK, I get that.

I do not know your religious beliefs but ask you: Do you believe you have an immortal soul?

If so, why do you believe that?

TF

What I believe is irrelevant to logical analysis of Biblical text.

Shooting the messenger's Innanet persona only bloodies the mud.

I choose to leave it at that.

a. laffin'...no more than you are.
b. So, how do you know there is a God...?
c. The answer is, you don't.