atheists

[megaman125]

"homosexuality seems to be a great example of this” --> I see nothing wrong with it as it is a natural phenomenon throughout the animal kingdom. Now Natural does not necessarily imply it is moral. If you can provide a reason for me to consider it immoral that goes beyond cultural taboos, personal opinion, etc. I’m all ears. Furthermore, Just because I see nothing wrong doesn’t mean I participate. I’m heterosexual.

Oh look, the reason I didn't want to bring up homosexuality. At least Cycel could grasp the point of my post instead of going off topic the way you are.

"Getting drunk” --> Waste of money, bad for your health, altogether an unpleasant experience. Save up, buy a nice single malt and enjoy it in moderation.

"having sex before marriage.” --> I see this as a personal choice. I know atheists who are celibate, I know some that are active and I know some who are waiting till marriage.

Those are facinating and completely irrelevant thoughts. I was not asking for people's opinions about homosexuality, getting drunk, or having sex before marriage. All I did was state those as 3 examples of sin according to the Bible. My post was never about starting a debate as to if those should be considered sins or not, so please stop trying to make a debate out of it.

 

[SweetSavour]

Oh if I had a dime for every time I've heard that...

Also, don't think that Christians only believe the Bible becuase they just hope heaven exists because it sounds nice. To think that's the only reason people believe the Bible is very ignorant.

Really? I wonder how many people would leave Christianity if the afterlife part
was declared tomorrow as not being true? What's the point in believing it then?
People are already moral without religion. The "eternal life" concept is religion's
biggest draw.

Would you still believe it if there were no heaven? Honestly?

 

[CoooCaw]

Really? I wonder how many people would leave Christianity if the afterlife part
was declared tomorrow as not being true? What's the point in believing it then?
People are already moral without religion. The "eternal life" concept is religion's
biggest draw.

Would you still believe it if there were no heaven? Honestly?

that is the point that 1 Cor 15 makes

 

[letti]

VanIsland did I not say some,I knew such people as these,I never said all were the same.

 

[megaman125]

Really? I wonder how many people would leave Christianity if the afterlife part
was declared tomorrow as not being true? What's the point in believing it then?
People are already moral without religion. The "eternal life" concept is religion's
biggest draw.

Would you still believe it if there were no heaven? Honestly?

Oh look, more nonsensical questions that twist what I said, how typical. All I need to do is just repost what I said.

Also, don't think that Christians only believe the Bible becuase they just hope heaven exists because it sounds nice. To think that's the only reason people believe the Bible is very ignorant.

Heaven is not the "only hope of evidence" Christians have for their beliefs.

 

[letti]

I have been taken out of context twice on this thread.I choose to let this issue go.

 

[SweetSavour]

Oh look, more nonsensical questions that twist what I said, how typical. All I need to do is just repost what I said.

Also, don't think that Christians only believe the Bible becuase they just hope heaven exists because it sounds nice. To think that's the only reason people believe the Bible is very ignorant.

Heaven is not the "only hope of evidence" Christians have for their beliefs.

Ok well what else is there? You have a bad habit of asserting things without backing
them up.

 

[letti]

GOD BLESS ALL THE ATHEISTS, in this thread even though they deny your very existence.

 

[megaman125]

Ok well what else is there? You have a bad habit of asserting things without backing
them up.

6 Reasons to Trust the Bible

Hey look, reasons to trust the Bible, all of which have nothing to do with "clinging to the hope that heaven is real and that's it."

 

[SweetSavour]

6 Reasons to Trust the Bible

Hey look, reasons to trust the Bible, all of which have nothing to do with "clinging to the hope that heaven is real and that's it."

Your first reason to trust the Bible starts with a verse....from the Bible?
That's the equivalent of saying "The Bible's true because it says so!"

I really don't mean to be rude but you do see why that's not very convincing
don't you?

Reason 1: Operates under the assumption that the Biblical God exists.

Reason 2: The Gospel authors are anonymous. Plus, how do we know
what they wrote down is actually what happened? There are plenty
of contradictions which I'm sure you will deny but oh well. This video
explains why the Gospels are not proof.
[video=youtube;NzDewSkzOYU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzDewSkzOYU[/video]

Reason 3: More proving the Bible with......the Bible

Reason 4: "Feel free to research these examples of archeology."
What? You couldn't provide any sources or footnotes? They have
been searching the desert for decades looking for evidence of the
Exodus and have come up with nothing. The other claims you
mention are either bogus or have very little evidence for them.
Of course, I'm always open to evidence but so far you have been
reluctant to provide any.

Reason 5: Biblical prophecy?
Sorry but whenever anyone brings up prophecy in the Bible
it's usually very vague and unimpressive. What most likely
happened is that the NT authors looked at the OT text and
wrote in the prophecies. If the Bible predicted 9/11 with
an actual date, time and description then I would consider
that a prophecy.
Prophecy - Iron Chariots Wiki

Reason 6: More asserting the Bible with Bible passages.
You're claiming to have knowledge that the majority of
the world's population doesn't have. When you have
knowledge you can demonstrate it. Still waiting on a
convincing demonstration. You also mention a near
death experience. The problem with those is the person
didn't actually die and people from all different faiths
have them. Is their heaven real too?

Oh, and this ad popped up on your site and scared me.

 

[megaman125]

Your first reason to trust the Bible starts with a verse....from the Bible?
That's the equivalent of saying "The Bible's true because it says so!"

I really don't mean to be rude but you do see why that's not very convincing
don't you?

And now I'll copy/paste the paragraph that makes you look incredibly foolish for saying this.

"Now certainly, I wouldn't expect anyone to trust the Bible solely for this reason alone. However, this self-proclamation does have its importance. If we had the other 5 reasons, but we didn't have self-proclamation, we could still be left wondering if this is really from God. The self-proclamation of 2 Timothy 3:16 eliminates any sort of in-between area. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it is not the Word of God. Now for some reasons to trust this self-proclamation."

Reason 2: The Gospel authors are anonymous. Plus, how do we know
what they wrote down is actually what happened? There are plenty
of contradictions which I'm sure you will deny but oh well. This video
explains why the Gospels are not proof.

1. The gospel authors are not anonymous.
2. It's talking about the Bible as a whole, meaning all 66 books, not just the 4 Gospels.
3. All contradiction claims have been shot down. Most of them are quite pathetic. Of course, you don't view it that way because you refuse to research and acknowledge any position other than your own.
4. Lol at thinking atheists are a reliable authority about the Bible.

Reason 3: More proving the Bible with......the Bible

No, it's not "proving the Bible with the Bible," it's verifying the Bible by matching it up with the real world.

Reason 4: "Feel free to research these examples of archeology."
What? You couldn't provide any sources or footnotes? They have
been searching the desert for decades looking for evidence of the
Exodus and have come up with nothing.

Searching the desert for the Exodus? Umm... lol. I mean seriously, who thinks that searching a desert and not finding the remains of something that happened with THE RED SEA proves that the Exodus didn't happen? This is almost as bad as the time a fundie atheist told me "The Atlantic Ocean didn't part when the Titanic sank, therefore the Red Sea didn't part in Exodus."

The other claims you
mention are either bogus or have very little evidence for them.
Of course, I'm always open to evidence but so far you have been
reluctant to provide any.

You've proven time and time again that you don't want to acknowledge anything other than your own perspective.

Reason 5: Biblical prophecy?
Sorry but whenever anyone brings up prophecy in the Bible
it's usually very vague and unimpressive.

Hey look, it's the typical willingly ignorant response to Bible prophecy.

Reason 6: More asserting the Bible with Bible passages.

Once again, no it's not, but you don't care to actually read and reason, you only care to deny.

Oh, and this ad popped up on your site and scared me.

Can't help you with the random ads they put on my site, unless of course, you want to pay for me to have a premium membership so they don't run those ads.

 

[Cycel]

Why would you worship something just because it exists? Honestly, requiring worship means that
one must have less than desirable personality traits like being very insecure or full of yourself.
Just like the dictator in North Korea.

Honestly, why does God need worship anyway? He's God.

So, Cycel, mere existence means worthy of worship? Huh?

I understand your objection, but Megaman proposed a thought experiment in which I would be persuaded of the existence of the deity he believes in. This deity exacts judgement on those who do not comply with his code. I am not so brave that I would consent to an eternity in Hell just to protect a principle.

Like you, I have to ask myself why God would demand worship. I don't think the god of the New Age Christians would care whether or not he is worshipped. Katharine Jefferts Schori, a bishop in the Episcopal Church has courted controversy on several occasions, once in an interview when she said Christianity was only one way to God. Schori's God would not send people to Hell, and perhaps would even admit atheists to Heaven – at least we could ponder the possibility. However, the God of the Old Testament is a very different matter. That one you worship or you are prepared a place in Hell.

 

[SweetSavour]

And now I'll copy/paste the paragraph that makes you look incredibly foolish for saying this.

"Now certainly, I wouldn't expect anyone to trust the Bible solely for this reason alone. However, this self-proclamation does have its importance. If we had the other 5 reasons, but we didn't have self-proclamation, we could still be left wondering if this is really from God. The self-proclamation of 2 Timothy 3:16 eliminates any sort of in-between area. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it is not the Word of God. Now for some reasons to trust this self-proclamation."



1. The gospel authors are not anonymous.
2. It's talking about the Bible as a whole, meaning all 66 books, not just the 4 Gospels.
3. All contradiction claims have been shot down. Most of them are quite pathetic. Of course, you don't view it that way because you refuse to research and acknowledge any position other than your own.
4. Lol at thinking atheists are a reliable authority about the Bible.



No, it's not "proving the Bible with the Bible," it's verifying the Bible by matching it up with the real world.



Searching the desert for the Exodus? Umm... lol. I mean seriously, who thinks that searching a desert and not finding the remains of something that happened with THE RED SEA proves that the Exodus didn't happen? This is almost as bad as the time a fundie atheist told me "The Atlantic Ocean didn't part when the Titanic sank, therefore the Red Sea didn't part in Exodus."



You've proven time and time again that you don't want to acknowledge anything other than your own perspective.



Hey look, it's the typical willingly ignorant response to Bible prophecy.




Once again, no it's not, but you don't care to actually read and reason, you only care to deny.



Can't help you with the random ads they put on my site, unless of course, you want to pay for me to have a premium membership so they don't run those ads.

You dodged 3 important parts of my post.

Your reason 1 operates under the presupposition that a god exists and that he is the
Christian God. You provide no evidence for this claim so we could just end there until
the burden of proof has been filled.

You made no reference to the video I posted on the Gospels. I'm curious to hear your
thought on it. The Biblical authors ARE anonymous and I challenge you to provide
any evidence otherwise. I will start
[video=youtube;rhM5lbVBgkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk[/video]

and another one that's very informative
Biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman on the Gospels - YouTube

You failed to address the NT authors filling in the OT "prophecies".
You failed to show how this isn't the case. If you're so sure that they
really are prophecies then explain why. Is the reason you can't because
you know that the way I explained makes too much sense for you to
counter?

Just be honest with me. At least, I'm doing you the courtesy!

 

[VanIsland]

@megaman125


"Oh look, the reason I didn't want to bring up homosexuality” --> If you don't want to talk about it you shouldn’t bring it up.

"Those are facinating and completely irrelevant thoughts.” --> not at all. This is a forum on atheists. You made an inaccurate and overgeneralized statement about sins that atheists love and don’t recognize as sinful. I provided examples as to where this overgeneralization failed and pointed out some of the reasons why specific ones (homosexuality) may not be considered immoral.

 

[megaman125]

I understand your objection, but Megaman proposed a thought experiment in which I would be persuaded of the existence of the deity he believes in. This deity exacts judgement on those who do not comply with his code. I am not so brave that I would consent to an eternity in Hell just to protect a principle.

Like you, I have to ask myself why God would demand worship. I don't think the god of the New Age Christians would care whether or not he is worshipped. Katharine Jefferts Schori, a bishop in the Episcopal Church has courted controversy on several occasions, once in an interview when she said Christianity was only one way to God. Schori's God would not send people to Hell, and perhaps would even admit atheists to Heaven – at least we could ponder the possibility. However, the God of the Old Testament is a very different matter. That one you worship or you are prepared a place in Hell.

Woah woah woah, back up a few steps. Uh... I'll just address this with a numbered list.

1. That thought experiement you're referring to is not about persauding someone in the existence of a diety.
2. God doesn't demand worship. You certainly aren't worshiping God. God gives you the choice of whether or not you want to follow Him. God isn't some tyrant that's going to force Himself on you.
3. There's no difference between the "God of the Old Testament" and the "God of the New Testament." They are the same. If you don't think God still judges sin, you should give the book of Revelation a read.
4. "not worshiping God" isn't why a person goes to hell. A person goes to hell for having unforgiven sins. Keep in mind that all have sinned and thus, all are deserving of hell. But God is merciful and loving to offer us something we don't deserve, and He offers it to everyone.

 

[SweetSavour]

Could Jesus be a legend?

[video=youtube;XKAHoYCWXF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAHoYCWXF8[/video]

 

[megaman125]

Is the reason you can't because
you know that the way I explained makes too much sense for you to
counter?

Just be honest with me. At least, I'm doing you the courtesy!

Oh look, still high and mighty as ever, always right in your own eyes. The reason isn't "because I can't do it" no matter how much you like to live in that fantasy world. I've already explained why, it's becuase you don't care to listen.

"Oh look, the reason I didn't want to bring up homosexuality” --> If you don't want to talk about it you shouldn’t bring it up.

Hurray, more reasons I don't like conversing with the typical atheists. Go back and read the conversation. Here, I'll even spell it out for you, yet again. I didn't bring up homosexuality to talk about the merits of homosexuality. I brought it up as AN EXAMPLE of what the Bible calls sin. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF A SIN THAT IS POPULAR AMONG PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO CONFESS IT AS A SIN. That is all. I did not bring it up to start a debate about homosexuality.

"Those are facinating and completely irrelevant thoughts.” --> not at all. This is a forum on atheists. You made an inaccurate and overgeneralized statement about sins that atheists love and don’t recognize as sinful. I provided examples as to where this overgeneralization failed and pointed out some of the reasons why specific ones (homosexuality) may not be considered immoral.

And like I said, I don't care whether you think X, Y, or Z is a sin or not. Your opinion on what's moral or immoral is irrelevant to what the Bible says is a sin. If you want to debate whether or not God should say X, Y, or Z should/shouldn't be a sin, take it up with someone else. That's not a debate I'm going to get into here and now, espeically not with typical atheists.

Well, at least Cycel was able to grasp the point and not atempt to go off topic with whether or not he thinks homosexuality should be considered a sin.

 

[VanIsland]

@megaman125

Your unfounded generalizations & condescending attitude are rather unbecoming.

"If you want to debate whether or not God should say X, Y, or Z should/shouldn't be a sin, take it up with someone else” --> perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my last post for you. you have made an inaccurate overgeneralization about atheists.

Ie. you provided three examples of ‘sins atheists love’. getting drunk was one of them. I attempted to show you that your statement was flawed by providing my views on getting drunk as an atheist. I don’t intend to debate whether these should be considered sin. I am pointing out that you generalization is flawed. Understand?

 

[SweetSavour]

Oh look, still high and mighty as ever, always right in your own eyes. The reason isn't "because I can't do it" no matter how much you like to live in that fantasy world. I've already explained why, it's becuase you don't care to listen.

No, It's because you don't provide any convincing evidence. I'm all ears!
Talk is cheap, maybe you should go to a thread that's not about atheism.

 

[megaman125]

Your unfounded generalizations & condescending attitude are rather unbecoming.

So how come you aren't calling out SweetSavour for the same thing? Oh I forgot, how dare I ask atheists to be consistent.

"If you want to debate whether or not God should say X, Y, or Z should/shouldn't be a sin, take it up with someone else” --> perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my last post for you. you have made an inaccurate overgeneralization about atheists.

Ie. you provided three examples of ‘sins atheists love’. getting drunk was one of them. I attempted to show you that your statement was flawed by providing my views on getting drunk as an atheist. I don’t intend to debate whether these should be considered sin. I am pointing out that you generalization is flawed. Understand?

Wonderful. Want to know something else? A generalization =/= 100%. You being an exception of a generalization doesn't disprove a generalization, it just means you're an exception. But hey, who needs rational thought when you can have the typical extremist attitude of "everything must be 100% or 0%, there is no in between." Tell me, are you one of those people that thinks either the Bible must be 100% literal or 100% metaphorical with no other possibilities?