Nerdfighters

We've reached the end of the replies for Nerdfighters again: So here's my response:

 

No, the answer is that they have no need to be mentioned because they have nothing to do with our salvation, which is the central thrust of what the Bible talks about

 

Huh? Have you actually read the Bible. There is an entire first half called the old testament! There is nothing to so with our salvation in there at all. The central thrust of what the Bible talks about.? Seriously? Read the Old Testament. Where is there salvation in there??

 

1. This organisation is limited to the US

2. This "census" was a very limited in time periods

3. This is a survey, not a census. It only covered a fragment of the NAS and then used it as a representative sample. Given the number of Christian scientific organisations (not creationist btw) with large membership numbers, I'd still dispute your findings

 

You can dispute all you want because it fits your narrow world view. And that’s fine, the fact is most scientists today are atheists either prior to entering the sciences or because of them. These are U.S. findings, but guess what? FACT: The U.S. is the most religious country of ALL the western world! So if most of our scientists are atheists than surely most of the other western world’s scientific and obviously non-scientific people are too.

 

Sorry, but that's exactly what you did say. See here "but the evidence they seek and find, by default, continues to prove out the concept that God just doesn’t need to have existed or currently exist for all the explanations of how the Universe functions or came into being."

 

Perhaps English is not your first language. Please re-read the sentence of mine you quoted. Of course there are scientists who believe in God without the evidence to support it (obviously since, as I also said, but you failed to quote, that religious scientist do exist, God does not. So how could I possibly claim there are no religious scientists. I think, as other atheists, that there is a strange dichotomy to be sure, but they do exist as I’ve stated.) The sentence you quoted does not claim that religious scientists do not exist, it claims the truth; that no matter how hard religious scientists look to science to find God they never will because he’s not there. Perhaps you really do need to retake remedial English.

 

He could be, but he doesn't have to be. Examining the walls and the bricks, examining the building itself, means you won't find the builder, because the builder is not the building. Much the same way that if you examine the universe physically, you won't find God because he built the physical universe. He isn't himself part of it

 

Oh, I see. You are now claiming knowledge of the numena. How very interesting. Then explain to me, not using any physical analogies whatsoever any evidence for God’s existence. You have just negated your entire argument. You continously claim the Bible is the word of God, but just said he is not part of the physical universe. So how does an entity (that must be (by your “logic”) outside of the universe forever, have men create a book describing it, let alone talking to, for example Moses. In your failed analogy the builder is not part of the building, but yet using a Biblical analogy the walls would be able to talk to and interact with its inhabitants. And this is what you are claiming? A God that is totally outside of all physical existence, and according to you is not a part of it, can somehow communicate with others within the physical universe? How does that work? It is a call to magic. It’s Cartesian dualism all over again. Let’s not bring this up, since Cartesian dualism is rejected by every sane, rational, intelligent philosopher alive today.

 

I would have thought it was obvious. If you take the scientific principle of "nothing can be said to exist until there is empirical evidence justifying its existence" then you have to ask, where is the empirical evidence in support of that statement. If science says that nothing is true until it is tested by experiment, how did it reach that conclusion? Using science? That's circular logic. How did we know to examine the universe scientifically to find truth? Because of science. Etc. It's circular and illogical.

 

No, that is your understanding of it. Or perhaps I should say your misunderstanding of it. The scientific method (used by ALL reasonable scientist by the way, not pseudoscientists) was developed to put into practice the laws of logic and reason. For example: People used to think that the stars were static holes in the sky that were illuminated from the other side. Hence Astrology was developed. Science however proved this to be false, utterly. In fact the starts exist in the four dimension space/time; and aren’t even on the same plane as other stars they appear close to in the night sky. Hence science rightly claimed that astrology is false. While it was for a time considered a science it obviously no longer is; it is utterly false. That is how the scientific method works, there is nothing circular about it. It begins with a hypothesis, and if the testing is conclusive, i.e. verifiable, it becomes a theory. Then after a period of time if nothing counters it’s claim and there is no refuting it, it becomes a law (this is an oversimplification of how it really works for your benefit. It doesn’t really work that way, but to keep it simple for you I broke it down.) Basically the scientific method (used worldwide by the way) is in place not only for its own sake, but to stop people from making erroneous claims that something works or exists that really doesn’t. For example anyone can claim that if you by X medication it will cure cancer. Should everyone with cancer run out and purchase this $500,000 pill? Or should we allow it to be studied until it is proven to work as proclaimed? Likewise should we all believe in an invisible being that created everything yet doesn’t live within his/her own creation, or the science that says there is no need to posit God to explain universal phenomena. Personally, I’ll go with science.

 

As I have said many times, Faith is not based on a lack of evidence. Rather it is based on different evidence to science. Just because it is different, doesn't mean it isn't there

 

You can say it as many times as you like. Faith is based on lack of evidence. Why would you claim you have faith that you had breakfast this morning. That sentence would make no sense. One does not claim to have faith in something they know to have existed or happened, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to do so. One would simply claim that it happened, not that they have faith that they had breakfast this morning. Your use of the English language seems to suggest that it is not your native tongue.

Of what kind of evidence do you offer then, if you continue to claim there is other evidence then scientific, empirical evidence. Please tell me what other kind of evidence you have, I’m sure the world would greatly benefit from the knowledge of another type of evidence that has no recourse to empirical, scientific evidence. Please share. And yet again, the question remains: If you do indeed have this evidence as you so claim, then again there would be no need to mention faith. If you have the evidence, you don’t need faith. And where is religion without faith. Why does God not simply speak to everyone simultaneously at this very moment to convince them of his existence? Because this wouldn’t give us a choice right? No freewill, correct? Well, I put it to you that with this evidence you claim to have of God’s existence, this also leaves one with no choice, and no freewill. And where does that leave you? Explain.

 

You are misunderstanding what I mean by interpreted truths. You earlier asked "is all of the Bible true" and I answered "yes, but not in the same way" because there are verses in the Pslams that are meant poetically etc. Because not all the literature is the same style, it will not all be true in the same way. It will all be true, but it will refer to things differently

 

Wait. So now you are claiming to be God? You and you alone know which verses are intended to have actually happened and which are poetical or allegorical? How do you know which ones, while no one else does? Do you have some special insight that no one else on Earth has? And if they are (as you claim) written in different styles in different times, this is consistent with the idea that it is all a fairy-tale, and not factual. Note I didnt’ claim it proves, merely is consistent with...

 

I havn't answered because the example you gave was intended as a mockery of religion. If you want a discussion, don't mock. It doesn't get you anywhere. You it seems have not read the article I gave in support of the notion of being able to prove a negative

 

You have not answered because on this issue I have found the one area that religion cannot dance it’s way around. Not this time. You have not answered because you cannot. Like I said (after having read the article) you cannot prove a negative! I finally found the one area which you cannot touch, I’ve used the circular pseudologic of religion against itself in argument form, and you cannot give any evidence to contradict my claim because there is none. That is how religion works, see. It tells you something exists that you can never hope to prove or disprove, because it’s impossible (like my garden fairies), and you must simply lay down like a good sheep and except it, because your mind has no way of fighting it. Well as an atheist who can think outside the proverbial religious box, I and others like me, have made it out of the box using the scientific method, logic, freethinking, and reason. Things that you unfortunately do not use to your advantage.

Do not hide behind the pretend idea that you haven’t answered because I’m making a mockery of religion, religion makes a mockery of itself, and needs no help from me. You haven’t answered my question, simply because you cannot. Yet will not admit to it (at least on page).

 

Views: 816

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Again, Allah did not reach out to his followers, he simply told them what they had to do to reach God, IE do lots of good things. The Bible is different. The Bible says that no matter how many good things we do, that won't be enough for us to get to heaven. That's why Jesus came and did what he had to do

 

I wish you could understand how ridiculous that sounds. No matter how many good things we do it doesn’t matter. That is truly the most childish, unreasonable declaration I’ve ever read. Good deeds are all that matter in this life, and it is because of people like you who claim otherwise that religion becomes very dangerous. Jesus didn’t have to do anything for me. I didn’t sin. If you claim that I was born unto a world in a fallen state, then please explain to me how this fallen state is supposed to affect me. So far life seems fine. So you need to tell me how this so-called fallen state is a bad thing. Killing: that went on long before Jesus. Rape: long before Jesus. Why did God chose to wait so long before introducing Jesus as a saviour? That is the question you must ask yourself if you are to carry on this ridiculous charade of Christianity: Why did God wait (since we know the earth is well over 6,000 years old) at least 100,000 years since humanities arrival to intervene in its affairs. What a sadistic, nasty God that is. Sitting back all those years watching humanity slaughter and rape itself before deciding he’d help out a bit. That is what you must reconcile in order to continue your pathetic religion.

And again over and over. Allah gave the word to Mohammed to pass to the people--it is the same thing! Not in the exact same way, but in the same direction that you claimed no other religion did. But of course you are saying that we were created by God, future generations were taken off the list to get into heaven and no matter how hard they tried with good deeds that could not gain entrance. The only thing that would allow them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven was to kneel down before the creator and pay homage to him by way of his son (who is also known as him). And this does not sound like a human totalitarian dictatorship to you. I’m sorry then, you must be utterly blind. What kind of construction is this. Most certainly not a loving one. It is full of only worship and paying homage not with good deeds. That is the very definition of a totalitarian government.

 

I'm glad you asked. In his death, Jesus was not dying because of his own sin, because he had none. So in his death, he took on all the sin of the world. Thus, we have the option of having his death in our place, paying for the cost of our sin.

 

Well I choose to take my own death thank you. I have no sin to be absolved from. If you think the world does and are willing to lay it all on one fictional man as a scapegoat for the atrocities and evil of the world then you are a small minded, scared, pitiful creature. I am willing, as an atheist to accept my death, and not place it onto someone else’s shoulders to bear. Whatever I do in this life is my responsibility and to claim otherwise, as you do (being born of sin) is to claim the position of total cowardice. What a shame it must be for you to live a life that is filled with self-loathing, believing that you must place your personal sins onto someone else, because they are so bad that you could not possibly take them upon yourself.

 

I have said to you before, God is not all powerful, and the perfection you refer to depends on the context you are meaning it from. Jesus suffered. That is cost. He didn't have to. He suffered, not only in terms of the physical abuse of the event, but the spiritual desperation from God. Because that's what he had to go through.

 

Wait, God is now not all powerful. Then what is he? He can create an entire universe at will, but is not all powerful. Jesus suffered? You really believe that? Read the Bible, Jesus was God, he didn’t suffer a single bit of it. A deity upon this Earth would not suffer at all, you know that. In this fiction of yours in which All three are one, then Jesus must also be God, in which case he would not have suffered any separation, and if you say when he came to Earth he was human, then tell me how he performed miracles as a human. I can’t perform miracles can you? Either he was divine or not, whether here on Earth or in Heaven (according to the fiction). There is the self-contradiction you’ve been asking for right there. He is claimed to be both divine and human simultaneously...that is just not possible. Hence now that I’ve proven the Bible to be self-contradictory I can claim that it is false. Since you seem to believe proving a negative is possible from that logic.

 

How do you know hell not to exist? How do you know heaven not to exist. Personally, I'll listen to the evidence of the one person who went there and came back. You may believe it's not there, but that has no affect on whether it is or not.

 

You may believe Heaven does exist but it has no bearing on the fact that it does not.

You actually know somebody that went to hell and came back that was human? Does this person actually speak to you? Are you delusional? I’ve never heard any testimony of someone visiting Hell and returning. I would like to hear from them personally, not read a fictional story about it. Then maybe...

 

I have proof of my beliefs, and have demonstrated it and defended it. You may not believe you have sinned, but as I have said, that has no bearing on whether or not you have. Jesus died for you, whether you asked or not, because your beliefs do not change the reality of your situation.

 

You have no proof whatsoever. You have not demonstrated anything at all. And unfortunately for you, your beliefs do not change the fact that none of what you believe actually happened. If there was a Jesus and he did die for my sins then more fool him. I didn’t ask him to, for there is no reason.

 

No, my choice of religion is based on the available evidence. I see no other religion with the wide amounts of evidence that Christianity has

 

Fail! There is no evidence at all. It’s all a fairytale, and no, you didn’t chose any more than someone born in India might be born into a Hindu family and claim they know the truth based on all the evidence around them. It is all arbitrary. You believe you have evidence, the Hindu’s believe they have the evidence, the Muslims believe they have all the evidence...need I go on?The problem is, atheists like myself are the only ones who don’t claim to have the ultimate truth. Science has so much more to discover yet, and I’m certainly not going to be frightened enough to believe that some deity created me just to worship him out of fear of being tortured for eternity. That would be irrational.

And that is what your religion teaches. That you must submit to a dictator that will have you placed in a pit of eternal damnation unless you accept his supposed sacrifice and bow down to him for all of eternity. That is all your religion teaches. And to indoctrinate children into that kind of thinking should be illegal and subject to imprisonment. No, wait. We as humans developed the right to free speech and do not punish one for thinking a certain way. I was confusing your God and your religion with what I was saying.

 

However, I know that even if I didn't believe, I would feel that I do things wrong on a regular basis. We all feel that, and while society encorages us to just bury it, there clearly has to be more to it than that.

 

OK. So I was right about the indoctrination. It didn’t just occur to you spontaneously one day, someone brought it to your attention. Which is the only way it could have happened since no God was about to speak to you personally, since no God exists.

Society does not encourage us to bury our mistakes at all. You have it wrong. It is your religion that conspires to keep things hidden away and not confronted. You believe that you sinned or made a mistake, your religion teaches you to let it go and God will forgive you if you ask for it (again God portrayed as the Universal Dictator in charge of his minions). Society, on the other hand, will be very confrontational about it. Depending upon the severity of the mistake society will make sure one is either reprimanded or incarcerated. That is how we survived as human animals throughout our evolutionary process, by rewarding decent behaviour and, as social creatures, eschewing indecent behaviour.

 

There are some religious people who cause bad things, of course, but not enough for it to be considered a causal correlation

 

Catholic ministries go to Africa and preach that the use of condoms will condemn them all to Hell for eternity. Therefore, when millions of people die from AIDS in that part of the world because of the lack of the use of condoms who is to blame? The Catholics, which is just a form of Christianity. There is a demonstrable 1:1 correlation between the two.

 

you would need to prove that religion universally causes bad, which is not the case

 

It very much is the case. It teaches that people are not responsible for their actions. As long as they can absolve themselves through Jesus, everything is forgiven; murder, incest, the rape of children. Every single one of these, wiped clean by the blood of your Christ. It sickens me to see what people do because they believe they will be forgiven for their actions as long as they accept Christ into their hearts. That is an abomination. See above for other examples already expounded upon. How it creates a total cowardice among the population, etc. Religion is most definitely responsible for evil in the world.

 

No. I said if you attempt to find with a sincere heart. That doesn't mean believe he is there. It means believe in the posibility sincerely. IE Genuinely want to know the answer. If you just want to be proved right/wrong for your own gratification, you'll get nowhere.

 

Now you are just simply playing word games. I refuse to be drawn into that infinite regress of ineptitude on your part. It amounts to the same thing, you are still presupposing (believe in the possibility) the conclusion which is an utter logical fallacy.

 

No, I am saying one must be willing to accept the possibility of his existence and genuinely want to hear from him if he is there. That isn't the same as accepting he's there.

Yet again, mere world play, and poorly played at that. I don’t accept the possibility of someone standing behind me with a gun, do I still feel the shot when fired or die after it penetrates my skull and brain? Of course I do. My believing it or accepting the possibility of believing it, or whatever other kind of bullshit phraseology you wish to use, does not change reality. Either you believe he is there (presupposing the conclusion) or you don’t.

 

A scientist who believes in the posibility of life form A living in a cave will go in with a torch and look. Someone who already believes has already seen, and someone who doesn't, won't look.

 

This makes no sense at all. But I will comment nonetheless. Someone who believes is diametrically opposed to someone who has already seen. Yet you are combining them in your sentence and by your syntax presenting them as exactly the same. They are not.

 

I'm going to guess from your attitude talking to me, that you're not being like Thomas. Thomas was prepared to accept the truth. You have already decided. You think yourself to be right and believe that your reasoning is infaliable. If however, you want to genuinely find out if your right or wrong, you need to drop the belief that you know best all the time. If you genuinely want to know, you need to be prepared to be suprised and to not understand. Your attitude thus far says to me "I know everything and I cannot be proven wrong". But what you need to learn is the possibility of things that you cannot understand. Not just you don't understand at the moment but with enough time and resources etc you could understand. But things you just won't ever be able to understand fully

 

If I’m not mistaken (and that’s a possibility I’ll admit), you are the one who believes he knows the answer. That is: God created everything. That does not leave wiggle room for doubt. I readily admit that neither I nor scientists have explained fully the entirety of the universe, and they possibly never will. This is a concession to the fact that at least science is working towards an understanding of the universe rather than simply claiming it was created by a deity and stopping there.

By positing the “will never understand” you are yet again giving recourse to the myths of everything being possible; dragons, fairies, honest lawyers, etc. It is a muddled and illogical mind that claims that we should simply lay down and accept that we shall never fully know something. And yet again, this is my point about your beliefs. If these beliefs are taught to children, what are you teaching them? You are teaching them to give up. You are saying unto the impressionable mind that some things we will never have an answer for (hubris) and there is no point in even attempted to comprehend it. By this claim your religion shows it’s precise form of enslaving the minds of others. Therefore religion is very dangerous.

I think this is worth repeating here. Reality does not work the way you believe it too or that your religion teaches you that it does. If a sniper has me in his sites and I am completely unaware, and therefore am unwilling to accept the fact that he is even there, it makes no nevermind when he shoots me and fells me right there. Whether I believe or am open to believing makes no difference whatsoever.

Jesus come into my heart now. Show me you exist...

Nothing.

 

What I am saying is that Christianity is the only one capable of making those mean anything. IE What is love in the face of infinity? It will be as nothing when the Earth is dust

 

Well, you are right about that. All will be as nothing when the Earth is scorched by our dying sun in about five billion or so years. At least we agree on that.

However, I am sincerely compassionate about a number of things that I know only exist for the short time they have on this Earth. It is absolutely not through the lens of a flawed and misguided religion that I find my morals, but from the love I have within that I share with those that are here with me for this short time. In fact, everything, love, hate, anger, jealously, art, literature, beauty, kindness, altruism, and all of the other things that humans like myself are capable of only make sense in a finite world. What is the beauty of a rose worth if it lasts forever? Nothing. It’s beauty is only derived from the fact that it is transient.

 

Since the Bible itself was written by people who questioned God and valued questioning techniques (Luke, David, Jonah, Gideon, Abraham, Moses...the list goes on) I'm going to doubt that. Question God, but don't be disapointed when you get an answer you don't like

 

I’ve doubted God my entire life, and have yet to be disappointed in the answer which is always a resounding disbelief in his existence. Let me ask you this simple question to resolve this issue once and for all; completely and utterly. According to your religion what is the only unforgivable sin for which there is no compassion? A sin so abhorrent so as to be worthy of an eternity in Hell? Not sure? Read the Bible. The only unforgivable sin is to, gasp, doubt God. To claim he doesn’t exist. That does not sound like the Bible promotes questioning and certainly not a Socratic methodology that would disprove its teachings out of hand. The only unforgivable sin is to doubt His existence. For this doubting, you are subjected to an eternity in Hell. Proof right there that the Bible does not support doubt or freethinking.

 

Of course meditation means test it emperically. You read it, you consider how its applied, and you apply it. If it doesn't work, you consider a differnt way. You look again. The whole point of meditation on the word is to test it to find it's meaning, and how best it is to be applied. It's not emepricism in the normal way, but it is empericism

 

Unfortunately your mind dwells within the same zeitgeist as when the Bible was written by men to enslave the minds of others. You cannot meditate upon something to find its truth value. All you will find is your opinion. It is not empiricism. One can change one’s way of thinking by meditating about something, and that is a good thing. One should continously think about things all the time. However, I could sit in front of a rock for eternity and meditate on it, and this will never bring me even the tiniest bit closer to knowing what it is made of or what is inside if I were to break it open. Meditation in the sense of considering something is always good, but don’t confuse it with finding the truth.

 

As I said, I don't deny Christians have been bad in the past. But if you want to judge Christianity, judge the Bible. See what it has to say. People always have the capacity to let you down. God doesn't.

 

I have judged the Bible and in every way it is self-contradictory and admitting to all manner of atrocities that should be judged as improper at every turn.

1) The Bible claims that Jesus was human on Earth, yet he performed miracles like a God (of which the Bible teaches he is). Self-contradiction. He is either human or not.

2) The Bible teaches that to doubt God’s existence is not only to be sentenced to a regular death, but one that one has to suffer through all eternity.

3) The Bible teaches that natural occurrences like homosexuality are an abhorrent behaviour not to be tolerated by anyone.

These are found directly from the Bible itself. It’s all in there. And this is why, amongst other obvious reasons religion, the Bible, and the people who disseminate the ideas contained within the Bible are generally mindless drones who repeat what they have been taught to the detriment of all mankind. It is because of this nauseating thinking that schools are continously having to stave off the teaching of creationism in real science classes; that doctors are murdered because people who believe their interpretation of the Bible tells them that killing an abortion doctor is better than having a zygote removed from the uterus. This type of thinking creates all sorts of hate crimes and thought crimes against the humanity it is supposed to protect. The reason for this is obvious. It is only partly due to interpretation, but if the Bible itself did not contain a seed of evilness within (as sited above) there would not and could not be any misinterpretation of its meaning as there continuously is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish you could understand how ridiculous that sounds. No matter how many good things we do it doesn’t matter. That is truly the most childish, unreasonable declaration I’ve ever read. Good deeds are all that matter in this life, and it is because of people like you who claim otherwise that religion becomes very dangerous.

 

You are still misunderstanding. Good deeds do matter in this life, I'm not disagreeing with that, but by themselves, they do not send you to heaven. Just being good doesn't cut it, because no matter how much good you do, it cannot make you perfect. Hence why Jesus came, so that he could be perfect for us 

 

Jesus didn’t have to do anything for me. I didn’t sin.

 

Sin is defined as rebellion against God. What exactly God wants is defined in the Bible. In order to say you haven't sinned, you have to say you've never done anything that the Bible defines as wrong. Whether or not you believe in the Bible doesn't change the logic of it.  

 

If you claim that I was born unto a world in a fallen state, then please explain to me how this fallen state is supposed to affect me. So far life seems fine. So you need to tell me how this so-called fallen state is a bad thing. Killing: that went on long before Jesus. Rape: long before Jesus.

 

The fallen state leaves us with a predisposition to sin. Also, the world was fallen before Jesus. The world fell at the very begining. So of course there would be killing etc before Jesus. 

 

Why did God chose to wait so long before introducing Jesus as a saviour? That is the question you must ask yourself if you are to carry on this ridiculous charade of Christianity: Why did God wait (since we know the earth is well over 6,000 years old) at least 100,000 years since humanities arrival to intervene in its affairs. What a sadistic, nasty God that is. Sitting back all those years watching humanity slaughter and rape itself before deciding he’d help out a bit. That is what you must reconcile in order to continue your pathetic religion.

 

Firstly, I'd apreciate it if you dispensed with the name calling. I havn't been calling you any names, so I'd apreciate it if you did not recipricate. More to the point, it isn't making your argument any more impressive, and its certianly not helping your position that people can be moral without God.

Secondly, please read the OT. God intervenes regularly.

 

Thirdly, you still misunderstand the purpose of Jesus's coming to Earth. Jesus did not come to magically end all suffering here, but to prevent a far greater, eternal suffering later.

 

And again over and over. Allah gave the word to Mohammed to pass to the people--it is the same thing! Not in the exact same way, but in the same direction that you claimed no other religion did.

 

The difference with Islam, as I said, is that Allah speaks to Muhammad, but gives him a simple list of demands, as it were. He doesn't offer them forgiveness. The Islamic concept of salvation is not one of forgiveness, but one of number crunching. IE if you have done more bad than good you go to hell, if you've done more good than bad, you go to heaven. Christianity says that it doesn't work like that. God loves his children unconditionally. He doesn't need them to earn his favour. He gives Jesus as an offering of salvation to us all. We don't have to work for it, we don't have to struggle. We just have to accept.

 

But of course you are saying that we were created by God, future generations were taken off the list to get into heaven and no matter how hard they tried with good deeds that could not gain entrance. The only thing that would allow them entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven was to kneel down before the creator and pay homage to him by way of his son (who is also known as him). And this does not sound like a human totalitarian dictatorship to you. I’m sorry then, you must be utterly blind. What kind of construction is this. Most certainly not a loving one. It is full of only worship and paying homage not with good deeds. That is the very definition of a totalitarian government.

 

A totalitarian government does not give you freedom. That's what Jesus does. A totalitarian government says that you must work for the state and obey the rules all the time and only then will you not be arrested. Jesus says that he was the one who made it possible that you would never be arrested, or imprisoned by his power, but that you would be free.  

 

I have no sin to be absolved from.

 

So you claim to be perfect then? You've never done a bad thing? Never had a selfish thought? A lustful thought? An evil thought? Never been jealous of someone elses possessions etc. Claiming you havn't sinned, when you examine what the definition of sin is, is arrogent in the extreme. Not believing in the existance of God changes nothing. 

 

I am willing, as an atheist to accept my death, and not place it onto someone else’s shoulders to bear. Whatever I do in this life is my responsibility and to claim otherwise, as you do (being born of sin) is to claim the position of total cowardice.

 

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to evade my responsbailty by claiming "I'm born into sin, I couldn't help it". Rather, I accept responsablity. That's what repentance is. You can't repent to God sincerely if you do not accept responsability for what you've done.

 

Wait, God is now not all powerful. Then what is he? He can create an entire universe at will, but is not all powerful.

 

If he created a universe, he just needs to be powerful enough to create a universe. 

 

Jesus suffered? You really believe that? Read the Bible, Jesus was God, he didn’t suffer a single bit of it.

 

He was also human. He suffered.

 

In this fiction of yours in which All three are one, then Jesus must also be God, in which case he would not have suffered any separation

 

That was why the seperation was so horrible. They had been un-seperated beyond time, but when it came to the moment of Jesus's death, the universe shook as the bond was broken. They are all one, but that does not mean they are not indivdual parts as well. That's the strangness of the trinity.

 

I can’t perform miracles can you? Either he was divine or not, whether here on Earth or in Heaven (according to the fiction). There is the self-contradiction you’ve been asking for right there. He is claimed to be both divine and human simultaneously...that is just not possible. Hence now that I’ve proven the Bible to be self-contradictory I can claim that it is false. Since you seem to believe proving a negative is possible from that logic.

 

In order to prove that Jesus cannot be divine and human simultaneously, you would need to be sure that being divine and human are nessecarly contradictory. I don't see that to be the case. I don't understand it exactly, but the evidence speaks for itself.   

 

You actually know somebody that went to hell and came back that was human? Does this person actually speak to you? Are you delusional? I’ve never heard any testimony of someone visiting Hell and returning. I would like to hear from them personally, not read a fictional story about it. Then maybe...

 

You have yet to provide proof that the Gospels are fictional. You continue to claim it, but I have yet to see evidence. 

 

Fail! There is no evidence at all. It’s all a fairytale, and no, you didn’t chose any more than someone born in India might be born into a Hindu family and claim they know the truth based on all the evidence around them. It is all arbitrary. You believe you have evidence, the Hindu’s believe they have the evidence, the Muslims believe they have all the evidence...need I go on?

 

The thing is, the Hindus and Muslims do not have the quality of evidence Christians have. Hinduism does not have evidence relating to anything that happened on Earth, thus there can be no human witnesses. Islam only has the evidence on one man, on his own, in a cave, where he claimed to have visions of God.

 

The problem is, atheists like myself are the only ones who don’t claim to have the ultimate truth. Science has so much more to discover yet, and I’m certainly not going to be frightened enough to believe that some deity created me just to worship him out of fear of being tortured for eternity. That would be irrational.

 

Atheists do claim to have the absolute truth. They claim that science is the only method for demonstrating that something exists.  

 

And that is what your religion teaches. That you must submit to a dictator that will have you placed in a pit of eternal damnation unless you accept his supposed sacrifice and bow down to him for all of eternity. That is all your religion teaches.

 

No, it claims we've all done things wrong, and we have to say sorry. Something pretty much self evident. No one claims to be perfect, and we know from a young age that it's right and proper to say sorry.  

 

OK. So I was right about the indoctrination. It didn’t just occur to you spontaneously one day, someone brought it to your attention. Which is the only way it could have happened since no God was about to speak to you personally, since no God exists.

 

Again, you are listing your beliefs. I am listing my experiance and trying to demonstrate the intenral consistancy of my beliefs, along with the evidence thereof.

 

Society does not encourage us to bury our mistakes at all. You have it wrong.

 

I really don't think I do. Society doesn't want much more of us than to be happy consumers all the time.

 

Society, on the other hand, will be very confrontational about it. Depending upon the severity of the mistake society will make sure one is either reprimanded or incarcerated. That is how we survived as human animals throughout our evolutionary process, by rewarding decent behaviour and, as social creatures, eschewing indecent behaviour.

 

Christianity isn't against the idea of punishment for crimes. That's the fundamental nature of Hell. However, Christianity has, at it's heart, a loving God, and he doesn't want us to go there. Hence forgiveness.

 

Catholic ministries go to Africa and preach that the use of condoms will condemn them all to Hell for eternity. Therefore, when millions of people die from AIDS in that part of the world because of the lack of the use of condoms who is to blame? The Catholics, which is just a form of Christianity. There is a demonstrable 1:1 correlation between the two.

 

That's a correlatation between catholicism and the AIDS problem. If you re-read the dialogue we are having, I did not deny that. Rather, what I denied was the idea that religion is evil. You then provided the catholic example, and I explained that's one example. A big one, but only one. In order to prove religion is evil, you would have to find a correlation with all religion and evil. 

 

It very much is the case. It teaches that people are not responsible for their actions. As long as they can absolve themselves through Jesus, everything is forgiven; murder, incest, the rape of children. Every single one of these, wiped clean by the blood of your Christ. It sickens me to see what people do because they believe they will be forgiven for their actions as long as they accept Christ into their hearts. That is an abomination. See above for other examples already expounded upon. How it creates a total cowardice among the population, etc. Religion is most definitely responsible for evil in the world.

 

I'll provide two examples that prove you wrong. One anchint and one modern. The argument you suggest is that by being absolved by Jesus, you no longer take responsability. Whereas I would argue that upon encountering Jesus, you would change and see the problem of what you did, and that would encourage you to take even more responsability. See for example Zacheaus. When he encountered Jesus, and realised how evil he'd been as a tax collector stealing peoples money (back then, tax collectors would ask for an ammount larger than the Roman taxes and then pocket the difference) not only did he give all the money back, he gave extra to everyone he had swindled. Then there was Norway's most prolific serial killer, who, after seeing Passion of the Christ at the cinema, turned himself in. Jesus's absolution doesn't make you think "few, I'm ok now" it make you think "wow, he did that for me! That's what all my bad things meant had to happen? I better do better."

 

Now you are just simply playing word games. I refuse to be drawn into that infinite regress of ineptitude on your part. It amounts to the same thing, you are still presupposing (believe in the possibility) the conclusion which is an utter logical fallacy.

 

I am arguing that someone has to be prepared for the posibity of God's existance. They do not have to accept him, just be open to the idea of him and genuinely try and seek him.



I readily admit that neither I nor scientists have explained fully the entirety of the universe, and they possibly never will. This is a concession to the fact that at least science is working towards an understanding of the universe rather than simply claiming it was created by a deity and stopping there.

 

Believing in God doesn't mean I don't want to know how he built things. I'd love to know how he created the universe. Believing in God isn't intellectual surrender in the way you seem to suggest it is.

 

By positing the “will never understand” you are yet again giving recourse to the myths of everything being possible; dragons, fairies, honest lawyers, etc. It is a muddled and illogical mind that claims that we should simply lay down and accept that we shall never fully know something. And yet again, this is my point about your beliefs. If these beliefs are taught to children, what are you teaching them? You are teaching them to give up. You are saying unto the impressionable mind that some things we will never have an answer for (hubris) and there is no point in even attempted to comprehend it. By this claim your religion shows it’s precise form of enslaving the minds of others. Therefore religion is very dangerous.

 

On the contrary. I am saying that we may never know God in his entirity, but working to be closer to him, in turn makes us better people and enstrengthens us. I am not suggesting that because we will never entirely know something there is no point in examining it, to find out how much we can know. On the contary, something we cannot know entirely suggests there must be an infinite ammount of what we can know, but still infinitely more that we don't. What a brilliant thing to study and look into.

 

I think this is worth repeating here. Reality does not work the way you believe it too or that your religion teaches you that it does. If a sniper has me in his sites and I am completely unaware, and therefore am unwilling to accept the fact that he is even there, it makes no nevermind when he shoots me and fells me right there. Whether I believe or am open to believing makes no difference whatsoever.

 

You're making a mistake. You are acting as if I believe that beliefs alter Gods existance or otherwise. I don't. Rather I believe that having an open mind and allowing for the possibility of God changes your perceptions and allows you to see him. When you are open to believing, it changes the situation. It means you are being humble

 

Jesus come into my heart now. Show me you exist...

Nothing.

 

You do know God knows enough to know when you have a genuine spirit of humility and when you do not. Just randomly asking him won't get you anywhere. You need to geninely want to know. Not for the sake of proof, but for the sake of the fact.

 

However, I am sincerely compassionate about a number of things that I know only exist for the short time they have on this Earth. It is absolutely not through the lens of a flawed and misguided religion that I find my morals, but from the love I have within that I share with those that are here with me for this short time. In fact, everything, love, hate, anger, jealously, art, literature, beauty, kindness, altruism, and all of the other things that humans like myself are capable of only make sense in a finite world. What is the beauty of a rose worth if it lasts forever? Nothing. It’s beauty is only derived from the fact that it is transient.

 

I disagree. You need to break it down. It's beauty is transient. What is beauty? In a world without God, it is nothing. It is simply the subjective perceptions of a piece of randomly organised matter with an ability to detect cetiain frequencies of light.

 

I was going to say "highly developed species" etc in that, but in a universe without God, there is no such thing. "High" and "Low" are reletive terms with no meaning. Nothing has any meaning unless you are prepared to hold it up to something external. Some objective standard by which everything makes sense.

 

I’ve doubted God my entire life, and have yet to be disappointed in the answer which is always a resounding disbelief in his existence. Let me ask you this simple question to resolve this issue once and for all; completely and utterly. According to your religion what is the only unforgivable sin for which there is no compassion? A sin so abhorrent so as to be worthy of an eternity in Hell? Not sure? Read the Bible. The only unforgivable sin is to, gasp, doubt God. To claim he doesn’t exist. That does not sound like the Bible promotes questioning and certainly not a Socratic methodology that would disprove its teachings out of hand. The only unforgivable sin is to doubt His existence. For this doubting, you are subjected to an eternity in Hell. Proof right there that the Bible does not support doubt or freethinking.

 

Please read the Bible more carefully. The Bible says that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the holy spirit. That is not to doubt God. To doubt God means to simply not accept him. That isn't in itself sin. It is just that you will not have access to the means of forgiveness. It's unforgivable in the sense that after you die, you can no longer believe in God in the way you did on the Earth, and thus you have no oppotunity to ask for forgiveness, but that isn't the same as being a sin you have done on the Earth. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit =/= unbelief. There are plenty of examples of people in the Bible who doubted God and yet were saved.

 

Unfortunately your mind dwells within the same zeitgeist as when the Bible was written by men to enslave the minds of others. You cannot meditate upon something to find its truth value. All you will find is your opinion. It is not empiricism.

 

I disagree. By examining something in detail, by considering it, by meditating upon it, you can find more of what it means, more of its truth. The whole point of meditation is to put your previously considered notions aside, including your opinion.

 

However, I could sit in front of a rock for eternity and meditate on it, and this will never bring me even the tiniest bit closer to knowing what it is made of or what is inside if I were to break it open.

 

A rock isn't text. That's not a reasonable comparison. A rock does not have anything in it you can read. Meditating upon a text is a good way to delve deeper into what it means. It isn't a good way to examine what a rock is made of. Your comparison is flawed.  

 

The Bible claims that Jesus was human on Earth, yet he performed miracles like a God (of which the Bible teaches he is). Self-contradiction. He is either human or not.

 

Please demonstrate to me where God lacks the power to be both human and God.

 

The Bible teaches that to doubt God’s existence is not only to be sentenced to a regular death, but one that one has to suffer through all eternity.

 

You arn't sent to hell for doubting God, you are sent there for your sin. But by doubting God, you loose your opportunity to be forgiven for said sins. You are not being punished for doubting God though.  

 

The Bible teaches that natural occurrences like homosexuality are an abhorrent behaviour not to be tolerated by anyone.

 

There are plenty of "natural" occurances that we should not tolerate. In the animal kingdom, we see animals steal, we see them kill over sexual partners etc. And if we were to let ourselves, we could very well do the same sorts of things. What is and is not natural is not a good way of examining what is and is not right.

 

It is because of this nauseating thinking that schools are continously having to stave off the teaching of creationism in real science classes

 

There is nowhere in the Bible any verse that makes it nessecary to believe in the way creationists do. 

 

that doctors are murdered because people who believe their interpretation of the Bible tells them that killing an abortion doctor is better than having a zygote removed from the uterus.

 

That only proves that people's understanding of religion is poor. IE the command "do not murder" doesn't only mean "do not murder zygotes" but also means "do not murder those who are killing zygotes", and in fact basiclly "do not murder" 

 

if the Bible itself did not contain a seed of evilness within (as sited above) there would not and could not be any misinterpretation of its meaning as there continuously is.

 

The Bible is God's word on Earth. It is the biggest threat to Satan there is apart from God himself. So it's quite natural to think that Satan would want people to misintepret the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible, when taking the whole book in its propper context (IE the context it itself creates) that can be said to be Evil.

Fine I'll try to reformat on this site if you find it too difficult to see that there is a double space between what I've written and what you've written..still waiting for a response to my previous post.

 

In the meantime you can answer this question put forth originally by Christopher Hitchens: Can you name one single thing that a religious person has ever done that can not be done by a non-religious person? You cannot answer that, because non-religious people are capable of doing all the things that religious people do. However, can you name a single instance in which a person commited a abhorent act in the name of religion? There are too many to name.

I have yet to see someone give their entire life over to the cause of the needy or other such endangered group in a comparable way to someone like Mother Terresa without a religious inspiriation. However, since my religion is founded on belief in God, and not the actions of religious people, I am not as actively concerned by that question.

This is a tactic I have often seen athiests use in debates such as these. Attempt to discredit the religious rather than the religion. The truth is however that

A) Most of histories atrocities that are "in the name of religion" when examined have an underlying cause that is far more universal

B) If you put your faith in human beings alone, of course you will be disappointed sometimes. But being a Christian doesn't mean that you have to believe that everything every Christian ever does is always good.

A) Many non-theists have given their life over to helping the needy. And you need to read Chritopher Hitchens' account of Mother Terresa, she wasn't a wonderful as you may think. And he was there with her, you and I werre not, so I'd be more willing to accept his side of the story.

As I thought. You cannot answer the question.

Also, there have been plenty of acts committed with

A) Either no reference to religion at all

B) Explicitly in the name of an ideology that rejects religion

Both of these are far larger in number than any supposed religious atrocity.

If you're suggesting that more atrocities are commited without religious cause, on the whole it may be true, but the point is that organized religion is dangerous. I wont go into the details again. But will leave this, since you'll only say your ideolgoy has nothing to do with organized religion (which is sketchy at best).

I agree that a human claiming to speak directly for God without authority to do so is exceptionally dangerous. Hence, as Paul says, we should limit our speech to that which is Biblical alone. God gives no mandates for human government to act in his stead on Earth.

Actually God according to the Bible told people what to do for quite some time, well that is until scientists began questioning the authority of those like Moses who claim to speak for God, and oddly enough there hasn't been a single peep out of Him since then.

Please re-read what I said

I agree that a human claiming to speak directly for God without authority to do so is exceptionally dangerous

And furthermore, I've known many people whom God has spoken into the lives of.

what authority?

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service