If God did not exist we'd have to invent Him
Yes. He doesn't and we did.
One viewpoint I have is I cannot make the sea,the wind,the sun,this earth so much-even myself,so there is a higher intelligence at work coordinating everything its astounding.Then having seen -been one with God I believe there have been may humans who have come across God as well so the if is really IF.
a big one.
Well, I have experienced what I "think" people are referring to as G-d, and it is not G-d, therefore I know that G-d does not exist.
But your argument about needing to know everything that does exist before you can say something doesn't exist is rather silly. As usual it presupposes a god. Otherwise I could say that the Easter bunny is real and you cannot say that it is not real - because you can only say that if you know everything that exists. Which you don't. As I don't.
Atheist is the best label I can come up with, and as I have explained many times, I would not even need to say god does not exist if it wasn't for all the people telling me he does
I don't know if you believe in god, but let' say you do for a moment -
In which case, we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do.Very well stated Mark, well said.
I would also link to point out that Bertrand Russell defined himself as an Agnostic at one point, yet decades later people refer to him as an Atheist, so by and large it is semantics on some level or another.
Renegade is a good definition for what most Atheists are in my opinion, and that is because of the status quo of belief in some "God" or "gods" or "w/e".
As far as it concerns me I can say:
I surely believe in laws and powers higher (in the sense that I am helpless to stop them), than myself. Yet, I do not choose to humble my judgment before these powers in the same manner that people who are religious do, I do not give them names and worship them (as in seek intelligent discourse with them as if they were persons). They simply are, and they might very well be for a long long long time after I am gone.
I seek to >>understand<< them and then only at the level I am comfortable with, there is no moral end of the world that will come about if I don't take up some "moral obligation" to know everything there is about Alpha Centauri and it's neighboring cosmic bodies, and I won't go to hell if I don't know everything there is to know about microbiology.
Quite frankly, I could live my entire life not knowing a whole lot about either one of those two things, and I won't be rotting in hell for all eternity (although I may decompose for a time after I have assumed room temperature).
Big differences.That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. If what you "think" you experienced and believe to be what is refered to as God, then how can you say it was not God, if you aren't entirely certain if what you "think" other people "think" God is, is what you experienced? If what you think you saw is being refered to as God, then that was God, whatever it was.
You have your own interpretatin of God, that is fine by me, I don't really care, but you don't make sense, especially when you try to be all "hard core" about God not existing, when you have said a thousand times since I have been on Hubpages, that you cannot prove or disprove it.
So what are you trying to do? Conform people into believing that there is not a God, when by your own words, you said you cannot prove it or disprove it?lol
I have experienced something and it is not god.
I "think" this is what some people are referring to when they talk about god. I am not sure, because no one seems to be able to put into words what they think god is without throwing in a bunch of rules to follow. lol
Either that or they have not actually experienced what they are calling god.
There is no such thing as god.
Why should I have to disprove there is a god?
I cannot prove a negative.
Prove Santa Claus does not exist please.
Then we will talk about disproving god lol
I have not "interpreted" god.
Sorry you are too blinkered to understand what I am saying.
Of course you think I am talking crap - it doesn't agree with what you "believe" lol
How very christian of you, Sandra - you should open up that bible you wanted to burn again
You have never seen me say anyone is talking crap.
Read it again.Fair enough, but I think you missunderstood what I was trying to say. Which is that you are saying God does not exist, and no you don't need to prove or disporve anyting, what I was saying was, that if what you experienced what not God, then it wasn't God, but still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or exist. That is all I am trying to say.
So in the same way, you insist that God does not exist because you experienced something that was not God, then it was not God. But it sounds like you are saying that ( and I am being presumptious) that what happened to you, you want to equate to God knowing it was not.
With all respect Mark, it just doesn't make sense to say there is not God, when what you experienced was not God. Do you see what I am trying to say?
Thanks Zarm,
I must admit, it is rather interesting how often you are asked to prove something doesn't exist when the only reason you might need to try is because some one else makes it up and says it does lol
I would like to see a Christian "prove," Zeus or some other god doesn't exist
And if they cannot, which of course they cannot, why would they ask for proof that theirs doesn't? LOL
Quite right that there are powers beyond me. Once you understand that gravity and many other physical "powers," are there, why on earth would one believe they have some influence or usefulness in the scheme of things? Just sitting looking at the ocean is enough to persuade me I am an insignificant speck not worth considering.
Sand. Grain ofInteresting discussion
Not nearly good enough for nomination on the other thread, although it does demonstrate a complete lack of education and understanding about what atheists "believe" and how the earth came into being
Try harder - put a few spelling mistakes in or something?
Or maybe something about atheists believing we were created from dirt.That seems a popular one
Personally - I have trouble with the idea that the universe "began."
If it did, what was there before?
Although, if you want to talk about silly beliefs:
As opposed to your scintillating argument that atheists believe we came from nothing and call it science?
Oh, thats right - you are here to teach, not learn......
lol
I "believe" you are wrong because there is no evidence for a god.
Onus on you.
I do not know how the universe started, but I have been given several options:
1. A god did it.
2. The bb theory
I do not accept the first and I will be honest and say I do not really understand the second. I have tried to understand it and I just don't get it. Your simplistic version of atheist's beliefs:
Does not really do the bb theory justice, and I suspect that you do not understand it either. This way of saying it I do understand, but it makes no more sense than a god speaking it into existence.
So, I "believe" the universe has always been there. But I do not understand how.
I hold this belief because I cannot conceive any other option that makes any sense to me and it is more a case of "The best I can come up with." Much like, "A god did it."
i.e. not based on any facts.
I am not prepared to argue it though. I cannot prove it and it is not a strong belief. I accept I do not have enough knowledge or information to do better at the moment.
prophecy liar -
Where are all the young-earth, creation scientists when you need one?
You are certainly exhibiting all the values christians hold dear, i.e, "I know how offensive and annoying it will be to you if I quote the bible - but I am going to do it anyway because it serves my purpose and I don't really care what you think."
I am not sure what you are trying to do here, and it really is a pity you are not interested in learning what the word "atheist" means, but I suggest you read the thread I linked to earlier.
I understand that you think you have all the knowledge you need in your cult's book, but I am not impressed with you retroactively using scientific knowledge to twist the words in the bible to prove your case - whatever that is.
Really, you are just convincing me that the OP's opening statement is correct.
I also know you are a big fan of copying and pasting huge swaths of text, but instead, I will just leave a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Because your simplistic explanation of the big bang theory does not help me at all. I understand the theory just fine. What I do not understand is how they reached this conclusion. I do not currently understand how they measure the continuing expansion of the universe, which is what I believe they are basing the theory on.
And I will add this because it seems as though your parochial view of the world and blind faith has led you to jump to an awful lot of false conclusions:
My non-belief in your particular cult has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or the bb theory.
Which I realize will not fit with your mistaken understanding of the word atheist.
Every word you say here further convinces me you have no clue about the origin and nature of the universe.But if you want to keep up with the latest theory - this is the state of the art.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 062907.php
They think they have discovered how the Big Bang started. But when you read the new postulate, please - don't over look this line.
"""""""Bojowald's research also suggests that, although it is possible to learn about many properties of the earlier universe, we always will be uncertain about some of these properties because his calculations reveal a "cosmic forgetfulness" that results from the extreme quantum forces during the Big Bounce.""""""""""
********
I love it!!! Cosmic Forgetfulness. Whatever happened to Cosmic Consciousness?
ROFL
Of course it does not point to theism. How do you come to that conclusion?
I am quite prepared to say, "I don't know," how the universe came into being and I have trouble with there being a starting point at all, because I am apparently unable to visualize what is the "other side" of either the big bang, or creation.
I do not understand the theoretical physics behind the big bang and christianity makes no sense to me. Perhaps, if christians were able to actually practice what they preach I might have come to a different conclusion about it - I am not sure.
Or conversely, if a scientist could show me a quark or an anti-lepton in a way that made sense to me and I could some how grasp the notion that there were no rules of physics before the big bang and that the "nothing" that was there before was genuinely nothing - I might accept that.
What I do not believe is that I came from nothing. Even my rudimentary grasp of physics allows me to understand that this is not possible.
But - I do not need to believe that I was created by a thinking being with a purpose in mind -
and you know what that purpose is and what I must do to fulfill that purpose
I have seen the pantheist site you linked to - of course, and yes, this is an acceptable use of the word god to me. As I have said before - the only reason I need to say I do not believe is because people say there is a god.
I am not sure we will ever be able to answer the question of where we came from without having a starting point based on our own pre-conceptions.
You cannot imagine that there is not a god because you have already decided - based on nothing, that there is one.
I do not believe in god, but - I am open to persuasion. Whether this is proving your christian god in any of the ways that are open to true believers - go for it.
My personal preference would be moving the mountain, but bringing a dead person back to life, or walking on water would probably do it.
By the same token, if Zeus, or some other pre-christian god chose to make himself known to me, I would start building temples and sacrificing animals tomorrow.
got it.Mark,
Ok, so we have come full circle. Your post was very articulate and well spoken - you have laid out your thoughts concisely. Because there is no burden of proof for you - it is a lot easier to be conscise. In your statement....
""""Perhaps, if christians were able to actually practice what they preach I might have come to a different conclusion about it - I am not sure.""""
I understand this statement well. I aspire to practice the Christian religion as Jesus lived it. I fail routinely. But I endeavor. It is not about them other Christians - real or imagined - it is always and forever about me. There is only one example in Christianity and that is Jesus. Everyone else is just everyone else.
****
That's all I'm going to say about that.
But concerning where the physics leave us - it is either the Pantheistic Paradigm (or variation like Jenny's - Pan-e-theism)
Or Theism - a personal God.
I am not asking you to consider Theism from proof. Or from the personal religious practices of others; but from an alternative perspective about ORIGINS, One that explains the earth more naturally. That is where I was going before our detour. Origins. I don't like to think of myself as coming from nothing - and going to nothing. If that were my world view - I would attempt to find ANYTHING that made sense to me that would contradict it. I'm not talking about mindlessly believing, I'm talking about reason that takes you to a leap of faith.
Not perfect reason, but reasonable enough - like the reason used when marrying a woman.
Physics also, as we've seen, has no perfect reason - but we believe it based on reasonable enough.
The Bible - whether it is a Holy book or not - is clearly a very, very old book. It is the most comprehensive record of the ancient world in any language or history. Forget the stories for a second - and just look at the very, very, old book. Until 1947 - the oldest copies we had of any of the books was 1000 yrs old. Today, we have copies or fragments from all 66 - 2100 yrs old - and some older. What's that worth?
I don't know. But I do know what the worth of a 1000 year old copy of - other things is worth?
"""An ancient text by the Greek mathematical genius Archimedes sold for $2 million at Christie's... The rare 10th-century Byzantine Greek palimpsest manuscript is believed to be the oldest and most authentic copy of Archimedes' major works to survive, and contains transcriptions of his writing on geometry and physics.""""
http://www.omogenia.com/arch.htm
***
If people can place so much value on a 1000 year old copy of an ancient work - what value should we place on copies of 66 separate books - 1000 years older than that? I would suggest at the very least, an open mind.
As a history book, the Bible reports itself to go back at least 6000 years in time - in an unbroken genealogy. Plenty of other verifiable ancient History corresponds to the book.
There is no other book on the face of the earth with as much prediction about the future.
There is no other race as peculiar as the Jews - and here find them at the center of the world.
One can shrug - or one can say - alright, I'll look a little closer.
If you have never looked at the subject of Giants in the Old Testament - which discusses them in the 2500 BC period - I suggest you consider them. Even if it is only from a curious mind.
There was a universal belief in them - all over the secular world.
You have a great mind Mark. It shows in everything you say. That's why if you have never considered this subject - it bears at least a casual glance. The problem with Giants - is that if they were real - it destroys the theory of Macro-Evolution.
This definiton is from Talk Origins:
“””Macroevolution is between-species evolution. Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two, or the change of a species over time into another. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution. (End quote)
Giants – destroy that definition.
So does a multiplicity of new life in a relatively short period of time.
That is what I have been talking about.Well - it seems as though you are playing devils advocate here. If everything in the bible was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion
Worth. Value. Monetary value. I spend most of my working life discussing the "value" of things and it is fair to say, ancient art and artifacts are valued on their rarity and possible future value, rather than any intrinsic worth.
People do not pay millions for a Van Gogh because it is a fantastic piece of art - they buy them as an investment.
On top of that, our entire value system is completely screwed. How is a nurse "worth" less than a TV anchor girl?
As to the giants - I am a little lost here. Are you saying that you believe there were actually giants roaming the earth and this is factual - based on what you have read in the bible? the only one I remember clearly is Goliath, so let's take him for a moment.
Try this - instead of thinking the bible is a history book and the word of god. Just for a moment imagine that the bible is a political tool used to subjugate ignorant people in much the same way TV is used today (And don't worry - I get the muslim broadcasts here and they are just as bad as the christian ones)
So now look at the story of David and Goliath in that light. The small boy with faith and a slingshot against the huge murdering giant.
I cannot make the leap of faith you talk of - for many reasons, not least of which - it doesn't make any sense to me.
An all-powerful god, who spoke the world into existence and then created it in such a way that he had to send his only child to "save" us from ourselves and made the message so unclear millions of people have died fighting about it.
And millions more if what I also believe is going to happen comes to pass. And I don't need a 2,000 year old book to tell me it is coming.
Jenny, Jenny, Jenny. Girllll.
You paint a few strokes with a very broad brush - and call it a masterpiece. But who is mixing your paints?
Time is an illusion? You've solved the Big Bang dilemma!!!
Is that science fact? Or is that the new addition to your Panetheistic religion that makes it all come together? According to New Scientist - it's still guesswork.
"""The thermal time hypothesis is a very beautiful idea," says Pierre Martinetti, a physicist at the University of Rome in Italy. "But I believe its implementation is still limited. For the moment one has just checked that this hypothesis was not contradictory when a notion of time was already available. But it has not been used in quantum gravity."
Others also urge caution in interpreting what it all means for the nature of time. "It is wrong to say that time is an illusion," says Rickles. "It is just reducible or non-fundamental, in the same way that consciousness emerges from brain activity but is not illusory."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1612909/Time-Illusion
A great point counter point discussion is here at Physics and Physicists
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.co … usion.html
*************************************************************************************************
When you say what I wrote was not factually correct - you held for yourself that what you wrote was. But I didn't say they were fact based on African Eve - like you did.
I posted a quote showing how the pool of humans needed for a long development for humans - in order to EVEN GET AN EVE was unreasonable. And I gave dates of 6000-10,000 yrs ago which are more reasonable to assume from the human pool we seem to have.
You suggest that date is incorrect because of Eve being much older - 120,000 yrs old - some say 200,000.
But is it???
Eve being 120,000 years old is based "solely" on the supposition of setting a "molecular clock". But this date is based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago. When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicated that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ was ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. That is, it directly ‘challenges’ the evolutionary long age claim for humans.
If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 7.000 years ago. In any event, whoever gets to set the molecular clock assumptions - gets to make the number. As long as you quote evolutionary scientists - you will always be able to post old Eve numbers.
""""""""The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.""""""" (Wikipedia)
"""""Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.""""
Hmmmmm. At least as long - as the MRCA of all humanity. And how long is that? According to these HOT HOT guys 5000 - 8000 yrs.
I'm sure you're also familiar with - Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004) using a non-genetic model, estimated that the most recent common ancestor of all living humans may have lived within historical times. For conservative parameters, he pushes back the date for the MRCA to the 6000 BC area
That's 8000 yrs ago - (And they're not dreaded Fundamentlalists.)
I know, I know - I left out the part that said "but most likely much longer" - but that's the part based on the clock.
So if the Mito-most recent common ancestor, and the non genetic most recent common ancestor, can both be shown to be around 6000-8000 yrs ago that would leave you with two things. It would leave you with humans with a common ancestor and a common genetic link in the modern past - and it would leave other hominids of much older age - in the very remote past.
I was attempting to postulate a theory for this - young creatures/old creatures paradox - using the Bible. The onus is always on us right?
You equated rationality with language and writing - I did not. I said that if you take the population we see - and go back in time to where we see the written word - and back a little more for oral traditions to be passed down - we no where find the amount of man necessary to produce the rational man you claim must be - not even at that point -just 6-10,000 yrs ago. Let alone 60,000 yrs earlier.
You describe him ages further back using African Eve - like you used Time is Illusion. I am saying she was never there. It is unreasonable. And then I quoted a Geneticist - but evidently I should have quoted the Monkey that lost it's kitten - you would have believed it more willingly.
At the end of the day I don't want to debate this stuff. I am not a scientist. All I want to do is offer a couple of points about Giants in the Bible, evolution in Genesis - and go to the coffee shop.
Sandra - I will try and say it more clearly
I experienced something that I am almost certain is what other people refer to as god.
I am basing this on what other's whom I think have had a genuine experience that they have labeled "god," have described, and it sounds the same. I was certainly driven to my knees in the dirt.
This does get a little confusing because of all the people who claim to have had experience of god when they clearly have not. (See most religious zealots)
So, I have experienced what I think others call god.
But it wasn't a god with a personality and a purpose. And it certainly wasn't the god I see people talking about.
Therefore, there is no god.
Now, it may be that I experienced something totally different. But I do not think so.The experience of God is the same for all.The divine light.I dont thank you have a problem with god but you do have for fanatics propogating any one prophet or god in a particular way, all else are doomed..
I have agreed with you on spiritual truths so you are different,I wouldnt say a stauch atheist.Ok, but then I am saying that you experienced "our God". So for a person (and I mean no disrespect) who does not believe in God, you do not believe in what we call God even though you experienced it which indicates to me that you have your own idea of God. In anycase, our God does exist, and yours does not...??? Also, to be fair, maybe the purpose of your experience was to get you to believe?
So there must be, even just a little, piece of you that does to some extent believe there is a God. And I say that because you have said that if you saw the fiery chaiot, you would believe.
Long story short, you experienced "our God", but neither you or us has experienced yours.
Also from reading the Bible, the personality and purpose of God is to realize Love. And I know you love and are capable of loving, so you can experience God without realizing it is God because you are looking for something else.
But you are right, you don't have to believe in God or any God and I don't have to be right. But in some ways it is like saying to someone who thinks their wife is the most beautiful thing in the world, that his wife is not beautiful. You don't "feel" what you "see" through another persons eyes.
lol
This is why I rarely speak of it. You cannot conceive of an absence of god, therefore you think there must be a small part of me that believes in god
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What I have experienced showed me how minuscule and unimportant I am in the great scheme of things. It makes no difference whom I love, don't love or even if I am a mass murderer. None. I am not going to go to heaven or hell when I die. I am just going to stop existing - for me.
Other people need god and apparently this god tells them that "love," is all important and they should not kill etc......
We know how that goes.
I am not looking for anything. I already found it - I am jusyt seeking the correct language to express it, but I am coming to the conclusion that no matter what I say, people will twist it to suit their pre-existing beliefs. You are the second person to tell me I must believe in god on this thread.
That is why I never quote the bible.I think you may be right, Jenny.
I foolishly though I could create a vocabulary that was not based in the christian bible and make people understand, but I am beginning to think I cannot.
Honestly - it makes no difference anyway
Although my favorite insult recently is Mark Knowles is a DouchebagHello Mark, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that there are numerous recorded instances of Giants on all 7 continents, in most religions, secular instances and myths. We can leave Goliath out of the story and we would simply be minus 1 giant a boy killed.
I'm presenting the Bible as an old book with no intrinsic value except historical. I am in the antiques business - and understand well the relative value - of value. That wasn't my point. I am suggesting that if the Bible was any OTHER old relic, most people would at least see it in historical context.
When I, at the beginning of this thread, showed that the Bible has essentially the same order of Life Origins believed by evolutionists - I was showing early recorded history. But no one wanted to look at that - except to say something like I back dated history or something like that. Geez. Unbelievable. Great arguments
Show me another OLD book that at the very least - was back dating Evolutionary life theory's - 2500 years ago - in which we have numerous extant copies. Not just fragments. The world has hardly any extant copies of ANYTHING over 1000 yrs old - and yet we fawn over them like a new date.
My suggestion was that deserves a discussion. But many can not take their anti-thesis opinion about the Bible out of their head long enough to even consider it. See how strong the hypothetical evidence must be in order to overcome a no god - mindset?
They can't even look at the supposed God book - in order to see - no god stuff.
Again,
Heavens
Earth
Land
Water
Plants
Fish
Birds
Creeping things
Mammals
Man
That's the Bible order
It is also the Big Bang/Evolution order
Did God start it - or the Big Bounce
Is it Macro Evolution?
Spontaneous Evolution
or 7 day Creationism?
No need to answer, my intent is only to eliminate some of the possibilities - not PROVE any.
So, I'll talk a little about Giants.Thank you Jenny for keeping me EXACTLY CORRECT.
But I believe the operative phrase was at the beginning of the post. I used the word ESSENTIALLY.
There is no right order. Nothing is proven yet.
"""""the Bible has 'essentially' the same order of Life Origins believed by evolutionists""""
I apologize for not repeating it - it made the comment confusing.
But who's to say at this point - which view is accurate? In any regard a 9 out of 10 match rate could still be viewed as - I'm looking for a word here - Miraculous.
But you probably prefer the word - coincidence. If so, I accept that. It's a coincidence that the Bible proffered the same order of evolution as Darwinists 'essentially' discovered 2500 years later. And it's a coincidence that no other Holy Book or ancient literature does.I think it would probably be a good idea to go and do some research on evolution and abiogenesis. Darwin made no mention of the beginning of life or "Life Origins" that you are now telling me I believe.
I know you are here to teach rather than learn, but it might help your argument to have some idea of what others do actually "believe."
But you seem to now be saying that as well as the giants roaming the earth (which I am still waiting to hear your thoughts on), the bible says evolution is how life came into being and it was not created by god - is that correct?
You are confusing me by keep on telling me what I believe - especially when I didn't know I believed it.
This might be a good starting point for your research into what "Abiogenesis" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
As for the bible being the first to come up with a creation myth that just happens to be the same but different to what you think Darwin said -
This is a quote from the Bakuba people of Africa's creation myth which was "created" well before the bible.
Originally, the Earth was nothing but water and darkness. Mbombo, the white giant ruled over this chaos. One day, he felt a terrible pain in his stomach, and vomited the sun, the moon, and the stars. The sun shone fiercely and water steamed up in clouds. Gradually, the dry hills appeared. Mbombo vomited again, this time the trees came out of his stomach, and animals, and people, and many other things.
If you would like some more I can link to dozens. Oddly enough, they are all pretty much the same.
The bible as a historical book.
Yes, I agree that it is largely overlooked from that perspective. Mainly because of the uses it has been put to in the past, and the unlikely scenario that whoever is doing the translating has no axe to grind. But I am open to listening to what you have to say about it.
I am "slightly," more impressed by the pyramids and Stonehenge, both of which have been used as tools of prophecy and both of which were sensibly built to last
As for the "similarities" between bb and creation - I already explained why I have no particular interest in either of those.
I don't have a lot of time today, but I will respond to your thoughts on giants as soon as I get the chance.My pleasure
Although it is fairer to say you never were interested
I must admit to a certain level of frustration speaking to people such as yourself who insist on saying things about what atheists and evolutionists believe that are patently false.
And claiming that the bible is the first creation myth.
There are only two options here.
1. You are ignorant of the correct facts.
2. You are willfully twisting them to suit what you are saying.
The first is fixable - if you choose to do so.
I don't know what I can really say about the second other than it clearly goes against the teachings you are claiming to promote and follow.
Which is one of my main issues with your cult.
So it is also fair to say that people like you are one of the reasons I took a good hard look at the christian religion and decided it was wrong.
Thank you.Yip, I have to agree with Mark about the myth thing. The Bible was not the first book written about it. It goes way back.
Even if I chose to believe in bible moral principles mainly, actually really only, to love and forgive etc. PT, if you did read other books, (which you may have) then you would see that the legend of a man being raised from the dead was around oh, 3 thousand years before Christ. And it was not a prophecy.
Among other things.
Related Discussions
- 14
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so....
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
- 466
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of...
- 2394
Why do atheists say God doesn't exist because there is suffering?
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
- 289
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
- 143
Does God Exist? Why or Why not?
I had originally posted this as a question in the "Answers" section, but it was taken down because it "invoked a conversation rather than a Q&A.... So that's why I brought it here! I want you guys to sound off on what you think about this subject, does God exist? Why do / don't...
- 380
What do you think of this?
Truth? or not?