atheists

[cordiolus]

If there is a God, which I believe there is, I don't think such a being would take the form of what Ive been told he is. In my eyes, God has to provide the means for destruction, if he is the creator, and therefore provider, of everything. Creation, sustenence, destruction. That's the circle of life.

We are born. We live. We die. Everything goes through that cycle.It's self evident.

To add to that, I always think that if humanity were immortal, then where would the value lie in a once-in-a-lifetime moment or experience? The laws of probability mean that those moments would happen an infinite number of times in our infinite existence. To put it simply, without death to end life, life would be one long, arduous, neverending journey of the same things over and over again. It would be utterly boring.

I take no offence to the idea that an everlasting creator must provide the means for death and decay along with life and the maintenence of that life. It makes sense and I can understand why.

Mortality is humanity's greatest strength. I remember reading a quote that was something like 'when you think about it, all of us wake each day on borrowed time. We accept our own mortality day in day out. Every person will die. That alone should allow humanity to see the value of another human life'.

 

[Chainhand]

If there is a God, which I believe there is, I don't think such a being would take the form of what Ive been told he is.

I appreciate your originality. Too many skeptical arguments are based off of trying to knock down some human's idea of what God consists of.


So, why not ask Him to reveal Himself to you? If He created you, as you and I believe, wouldn't it follow that He would appreciate you getting to know Him?


We live in what amounts to a simulation. A dream of sorts. A series of tests to evaluate our performance. You and I will wake up soon, perhaps sooner than we expect. I could beg you, as a friend, to at least make an attempt at seeking His will for you, from an honest and humble standpoint. I know beyond all doubt that He will give you the knowledge you are seeking if you are truly willing to listen to Him and want to know the truth.


~~ Chain

 

[danschance]

It is easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Quite frankly I think some rules in the NFL should be changed to what I think is best. Unfortunately the NFL makes rules without getting my input. So I must sit back as an armchair quarterback and accept their rules.

Many people have ideas on how God should behave. A nice God who would accept all into heaven and makes us happy ever after or at least only drop them into hell for a short time so they have paid the price and gained some remorse. As Chain has pointed out, God does not conform to our ideas. We must conform to His ideas. You might not think it is fair but He is running the game.

 

[danschance]

So as an atheist, explain to me how there is a remote possiblity of a ghost imptegnating a woman, a snake and a donkey that can talk, dead people coming back to life etc. In the atheists 'logical' and 'intellectual' way of thinking... How can you concede there's the slightest chance of any of those happening?

Oh dear...<sigh>... Just when I was starting to like you, you had to go there. Your question is a good one but you have already ruled out the supernatural. If God is real, then he can make snakes dance the samba and make donkeys perform hamlet. I know you do not believe this to be possible, but we as Christians never limit what God can do.

It was nice talking to you, while it lasted.

 

[danschance]

Surely you know that possiblity does not mean plausibility just as correlation does not mean causation. Conceding one does not mean conceding the other.

is it possible for humans to conceive without a male counterpart? Why not? Animals, although in very rare and specify circumstances can do this. An example of this animal is a bee when facing extinction levels. Do I think its plausible? No. It's far more plausible for a Jewish mynx to tell a lie than for the laws of nature to have been suspended.

Same concept for the talking donkey, snake, etcetera. Te reason the story is not credible is because the story is not an original. The virgin birth, died for 3 days, and rose from the dead (and sometimes on a cross) is repeated over and over. Same with stories of talking animals and floods. It is far more plausible that these stories were purely astrological and relating to sun worship than anything literal in one book of hundreds.


removed. edited

I guess someone should of read the rules.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Oh dear...<sigh>... Just when I was starting to like you, you had to go there. Your question is a good one but you have already ruled out the supernatural. If God is real, then he can make snakes dance the samba and make donkeys perform hamlet. I know you do not believe this to be possible, but we as Christians never limit what God can do.

It was nice talking to you, while it lasted.

Dan that question was aimed at the atheist who won't commit 100 percent to saying god doesn't exist. It wasn't a challenge for any Christian on here.

 

[danschance]

Dan that question was aimed at the atheist who won't commit 100 percent to saying god doesn't exist. It wasn't a challenge for any Christian on here.

That may be. I have not been following things here too closely. I guess one must chose their words carefully so others do not misconstrue them. I believe there is a way for a banned person to get their ban reviewed and sometimes even revoked. I assume you are refering to Cathym's post that got her banned?

In her case, she brought it on herself. Her arguments were very predictable (and I am being nice).

 

[my_adonai_]

First thing satan does to man, is to make sure they DO NOT BELIEVE in JESUS CHRIST and BELIEVE in what he has fashioned up or counterfeited. so basically he attacks our faith, so whether atheists want to accept or not, what really has happened is that they have had their FAITHS altered. and where we put our hearts, is exactly what we believe to be a "SAFE" place to be in.

Unbelief is basically belief something OTHER than JESUS CHRIST as a way to eternal life or GOD.

More to add on to that is that atheist are lost in a sea of knowledge without true guidance, leaning unto subjective knowledge ie because they do not believe in GOD, they would grab unto anything that is in particular to their choice of unbelief. So if they read on Christianity being evil due to certain Crusades they did, at times they would not care to follow up on it and rather just believe that. !! .

Point being if you hate something, no body can change your choice.!!. we can only explain to you the TRUTHS behind what you do not believe to be true . !! .
and to see a trademark work of satan is to look for CONFUSION, COUNTERFEITS, INCOMPLETENESS, EVIL DESIRES, LACK OF FRUITS and much more.
and with atheists? INCOMPLETENESS(their ape theory) and much more.

and we know what WE HAVE IN THE LORD, PEACE{Not as the world gives, or not as satan gives(false assurance that still makes us see that we have that void in our hearts but due to pride we think we are correct, basically called a comfort zone, the mindset of, everyone and their beliefs)}.

So there is much to consider when talking about atheists, but the works of satan are ALWAYS evident, and HIS fruits are always seenable to those in the Spirit..!!..

 

[cordiolus]

I appreciate your originality. Too many skeptical arguments are based off of trying to knock down some human's idea of what God consists of.


So, why not ask Him to reveal Himself to you? If He created you, as you and I believe, wouldn't it follow that He would appreciate you getting to know Him?


We live in what amounts to a simulation. A dream of sorts. A series of tests to evaluate our performance. You and I will wake up soon, perhaps sooner than we expect. I could beg you, as a friend, to at least make an attempt at seeking His will for you, from an honest and humble standpoint. I know beyond all doubt that He will give you the knowledge you are seeking if you are truly willing to listen to Him and want to know the truth.


~~ Chain

And I appreciate your sentiment. You are refreshing.

But let me ask you as a fellow human being, whose mortality is definite and whose mind might be open to an honest assessment of yourself without the robotic scripture quoting, can you bring yourself to truly put yourself in agreement with the modern day teachings of many Christian churches who say that people who do not believe in the bible and God as Christians do, will physically burn for an infinite period of time in unimaginable torment?

I understand the judicial logic, and at the risk of being a reductive thinker for the purposes of this post, it's the old adage 'good people get reward. Bad people get punished'. But I find there are too many loose ends. Too many questions that my analytic, inquisitive mind cannot answer if I am to accept the doctrine of eternal torture.

Questions that I have to ask. Like 'why, then, does God exist in almost every culture? What is the point? And alongside that, if all those doctrines teach a moral code of sorts, then why can all of them not be as valid as one another?

Is it only the Judean who goes the heaven then, and not the Samaritan who saved him? Surely their beliefs are different, and according to the hell doctrine of modern Christianity, surely they both cannot be right?

What purpose do all the moral codes serve if only one is right? Why can't enlightenment and heaven be the same thing? Why can't the New World and the rebirth have the same meaning?

As someone sitting outside Christianity looking in, I see so many similarities between world religions that it startles me to even entertain the idea that only one has any value. It seems so elitist and blindsighted. After all, isn't it the heart that will be judged?

Why can't a buddhist who acts selflessly be held in the same regard as a christian who does so? And here is my most troubling question.

A Buddhist should give selflessly to help suffering. That is the root of the buddhist mantra. To help end suffering, one instance at a time. I always got the impression that a lot, (not all) christian believers have the motive to give for rewards, rather than just because they want to help. I don't know if many others get the same vibe but my question is then, in the scenario above, who truly IS the more in tune with real love?

I don't set out to offend anyone, I'm just expressing my thoughts.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

That may be. I have not been following things here too closely. I guess one must chose their words carefully so others do not misconstrue them. I believe there is a way for a banned person to get their ban reviewed and sometimes even revoked. I assume you are refering to Cathym's post that got her banned?

In her case, she brought it on herself. Her arguments were very predictable (and I am being nice).

I know sir, there's a lot going on in this thread so I can see how it could be Mis-read.

Your right about the supernatural thing though, that's what causes the great divide

 

[zone]

I understand the judicial logic, and at the risk of being a reductive thinker for the purposes of this post, it's the old adage 'good people get reward.

it's not good people getting a reward.

it's ungodly people being given a free gift - a pardon for the penalty due for their ungodliness.

there are no good people (in God's eyes - He's Perfect and Holy).

Romans 5:7
Christ's Sacrifice for the Ungodly
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

so, anyone who rejects God's Love for them (in giving His Own Son to die for us; making payment) - they don't have any standing with Him but the condemnation that rests on everyone.

He is saving some...not because they deserve it - but for His Glory.
there's no other Name or Way by which anyone may be saved.

at all.

 

[Starcrash]

Point being if you hate something, no body can change your choice.!!. we can only explain to you the TRUTHS behind what you do not believe to be true . !! .

No, you can do more than "explain to [us] the TRUTHS behind what we don't believe"... you can offer evidence. And all you offered was assertions (mere statements, such as "Allah is the one true God").

Atheists don't "hate God", because that presupposes belief. You're not a non-Muslim because you "hate Allah", nor is it because you "want to violate the Qur'an". These myths about atheists come from ignorance and a lack of empathy. You could at least see our motives as similar to yours. I've never seen an atheist accuse of Christian of being a Christian because he or she "hates truth", because most of us are well-aware that such a concept is ridiculous.

Imagine that a Scientologist tried to convince you of his or her beliefs by simply stating what they are (often in ALL CAPS), and accused you of lacking "true guidance". Would that be enough to win you over to Scientology? No??? Then you can see why these arguments are useless to us.

 

[my_adonai_]

No, you can do more than "explain to [us] the TRUTHS behind what we don't believe"... you can offer evidence. And all you offered was assertions (mere statements, such as "Allah is the one true God").

Atheists don't "hate God", because that presupposes belief. You're not a non-Muslim because you "hate Allah", nor is it because you "want to violate the Qur'an". These myths about atheists come from ignorance and a lack of empathy. You could at least see our motives as similar to yours. I've never seen an atheist accuse of Christian of being a Christian because he or she "hates truth", because most of us are well-aware that such a concept is ridiculous.

Imagine that a Scientologist tried to convince you of his or her beliefs by simply stating what they are (often in ALL CAPS), and accused you of lacking "true guidance". Would that be enough to win you over to Scientology? No??? Then you can see why these arguments are useless to us.

Thanks for that, with discernment offer evidence. Not everyone wants to learn, some just want to argue.
those who hate truth are those who just want to argue for the sake of arguing. i have encountered many that love where they are, and chose so. even when you have told them much truth.!!..

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[Simona25]

And I appreciate your sentiment. You are refreshing.

But let me ask you as a fellow human being, whose mortality is definite and whose mind might be open to an honest assessment of yourself without the robotic scripture quoting, can you bring yourself to truly put yourself in agreement with the modern day teachings of many Christian churches who say that people who do not believe in the bible and God as Christians do, will physically burn for an infinite period of time in unimaginable torment?

I understand the judicial logic, and at the risk of being a reductive thinker for the purposes of this post, it's the old adage 'good people get reward. Bad people get punished'. But I find there are too many loose ends. Too many questions that my analytic, inquisitive mind cannot answer if I am to accept the doctrine of eternal torture.

Questions that I have to ask. Like 'why, then, does God exist in almost every culture? What is the point? And alongside that, if all those doctrines teach a moral code of sorts, then why can all of them not be as valid as one another?

Is it only the Judean who goes the heaven then, and not the Samaritan who saved him? Surely their beliefs are different, and according to the hell doctrine of modern Christianity, surely they both cannot be right?

What purpose do all the moral codes serve if only one is right? Why can't enlightenment and heaven be the same thing? Why can't the New World and the rebirth have the same meaning?

As someone sitting outside Christianity looking in, I see so many similarities between world religions that it startles me to even entertain the idea that only one has any value. It seems so elitist and blindsighted. After all, isn't it the heart that will be judged?

Why can't a buddhist who acts selflessly be held in the same regard as a christian who does so? And here is my most troubling question.

A Buddhist should give selflessly to help suffering. That is the root of the buddhist mantra. To help end suffering, one instance at a time. I always got the impression that a lot, (not all) christian believers have the motive to give for rewards, rather than just because they want to help. I don't know if many others get the same vibe but my question is then, in the scenario above, who truly IS the more in tune with real love?

I don't set out to offend anyone, I'm just expressing my thoughts.

When God forbade Adam and Eve from eating the fruit He said:"Don`t eat because you will die" (warning), He didn't say:"Don`t eat or else I will kill you"(threat). I believe that if we get Hell is because we chose it.


Christians seek the primordial communion with God. Until the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, people had the intuition of God and they tried to "acces" Him through religions. But christianity is not a religion since God revealed to the people and since He is very present in the church (the body of Christ) through sacraments. For a christian, the religious intention makes no sense (see the sermon of Saint Paul for the athenians in the Aeropagus).

I don`t see christianity as just a set of rules or a moral code (among other moral codes provided by other religions). If God only asked us to be moral than I suppose the ten commendements would have been sufficient. But christianity is about ressurection. Our ressurection. We believe we have a fallen nature, we are sinners from birth, we are death spiritually and we must reborn or resurrect. Being moral is only a basic level in christianity. We must become what we are ment to be. Jesus Christ was like a mirror for those who had eyes to see. The sinners suddenly saw themselves not only how ugly they were, but also how beautiful they could be. When Jesus Christ tell us to give up to our nature, he actually wants us to give up the fallen nature so he can help us to grow in His likeness and we can also become who we trully are.

I don`t know who is going to Heaven or who is going to Hell, I leave the judgement to God, but at the same time I believe that Jesus Christ is the path, the truth and the life. I admit that religions can reflect pieces of God, but since Jesus Christ (God Himself) is the fundament of the christian church, than yes, I want to be part of the church, not of the bhudist religion.

For a christian, the shakesperian question "To be or not to be" turns into "To become or not to become".

 

[Simona25]

And I appreciate your sentiment. You are refreshing.

But let me ask you as a fellow human being, whose mortality is definite and whose mind might be open to an honest assessment of yourself without the robotic scripture quoting, can you bring yourself to truly put yourself in agreement with the modern day teachings of many Christian churches who say that people who do not believe in the bible and God as Christians do, will physically burn for an infinite period of time in unimaginable torment?

I understand the judicial logic, and at the risk of being a reductive thinker for the purposes of this post, it's the old adage 'good people get reward. Bad people get punished'. But I find there are too many loose ends. Too many questions that my analytic, inquisitive mind cannot answer if I am to accept the doctrine of eternal torture.

Questions that I have to ask. Like 'why, then, does God exist in almost every culture? What is the point? And alongside that, if all those doctrines teach a moral code of sorts, then why can all of them not be as valid as one another?

Is it only the Judean who goes the heaven then, and not the Samaritan who saved him? Surely their beliefs are different, and according to the hell doctrine of modern Christianity, surely they both cannot be right?

What purpose do all the moral codes serve if only one is right? Why can't enlightenment and heaven be the same thing? Why can't the New World and the rebirth have the same meaning?

As someone sitting outside Christianity looking in, I see so many similarities between world religions that it startles me to even entertain the idea that only one has any value. It seems so elitist and blindsighted. After all, isn't it the heart that will be judged?

Why can't a buddhist who acts selflessly be held in the same regard as a christian who does so? And here is my most troubling question.

A Buddhist should give selflessly to help suffering. That is the root of the buddhist mantra. To help end suffering, one instance at a time. I always got the impression that a lot, (not all) christian believers have the motive to give for rewards, rather than just because they want to help. I don't know if many others get the same vibe but my question is then, in the scenario above, who truly IS the more in tune with real love?

I don't set out to offend anyone, I'm just expressing my thoughts.

When God forbade Adam and Eve from eating the fruit He said:"Don`t eat because you will die" (warning), He didn't say:"Don`t eat or else I will kill you"(threat). I believe that if we get Hell is because we chose it.


Christians seek the primordial communion with God. Until the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, people had the intuition of God and they tried to "acces" Him through religions. But christianity is not a religion since God revealed to the people and since He is very present in the church (the body of Christ) through sacraments. For a christian, the religious intention makes no sense (see the sermon of Saint Paul for the athenians in the Aeropagus).

I don`t see christianity as just a set of rules or a moral code (among other moral codes provided by other religions). If God only asked us to be moral than I suppose the ten commendements would have been sufficient. But christianity is about ressurection. Our ressurection. We believe we have a fallen nature, we are sinners from birth, we are death spiritually and we must reborn or resurrect. Being moral is only a basic level in christianity. We must become what we are ment to be. Jesus Christ was like a mirror for those who had eyes to see. The sinners suddenly saw themselves not only how ugly they were, but also how beautiful they could be. When Jesus Christ tell us to give up to our nature, he actually wants us to give up the fallen nature so he can help us to grow in His likeness and we can also become who we trully are.

I don`t know who is going to Heaven or who is going to Hell, I leave the judgement to God, but at the same time I believe that Jesus Christ is the path, the truth and the life. I admit that religions can reflect pieces of God, but since Jesus Christ (God Himself) is the fundament of the christian church, than yes, I want to be part of the church, not of the bhudist religion.

For a christian, the shakesperian question "To be or not to be" turns into "To become or not to become".

 

[Cycel]

You are so banned ^^^

<heavy sigh> My mother-in-law once told me, 'There are some questions we are not suppose to ask' (that's a paraphrase). I guess Cathy hit upon those questions. Yes?

My brother, after a number of years of marriage, converted to Catholicism for the benefit of the relationship with his wife, but before he did so he asked her how she knew Mary was a virgin. His wife wagged her finger in front of his nose and exclaimed, "You don't ask that question!"

Some people believe, for good reason, there should be no questions too sacred to ask. I stand with them.

 

[megaman125]

<heavy sigh> My mother-in-law once told me, 'There are some questions we are not suppose to ask' (that's a paraphrase). I guess Cathy hit upon those questions. Yes?

My brother, after a number of years of marriage, converted to Catholicism for the benefit of the relationship with his wife, but before he did so he asked her how she knew Mary was a virgin. His wife wagged her finger in front of his nose and exclaimed, "You don't ask that question!"

Some people believe, for good reason, there should be no questions too sacred to ask. I stand with them.

I don't think Cathy was banned for asking a question. From what I can see based off of other posts and that a mod edited/erased part of her post, she was banned for vulgarity.

 

[Cycel]

I don't think Cathy was banned for asking a question. From what I can see based off of other posts and that a mod edited/erased part of her post, she was banned for vulgarity.

I would have to see the part that was deleted to know that. In the forum I arrived from I had parts of posts and whole posts deleted, but it was never for vulgarity.

 

[NewEagle]

Cycel - If a post was deleted, it was because the content violated CC rules. The reason why a person is banned is not generally revealed.

 

[Chinekwu]

How childish...you just had to come back with a different name?!?? Seriously??
Way to prove you point!