jump to last post 1-50 of 116 discussions (1589 posts)

Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?

  1. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 4 years ago

    I have just seen a post by a well known Atheist on the Hubpages.
    I shall keep him anonymous, out of what little respect I have for this person.

    "Dear me - you Liars For Jesus don't care how many lies you tell do you? If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said. Wot eberlushun got ter do wiv abiogenesis which cannot be true becoz no one woz there to video it like wot proof u got that goddunnit becoz adam woz there n he sed so."

    Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?

    1. secularist10 profile image91
      secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?"

      Um... no.

      I put out respectful, substantive comments all the time. Doesn't mean that any theists actually respond, but hey, I'm out there. smile

      1. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I've seen Christians post worst about athiests. But as for this guy who wrote you that personal email, I'll admit that my spelling isn't the greatest, but God did create spellcheck.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently he's good enough to become hub-famous.  Enough threads have been started about him.

      He pisses you off and get under your skin, obviously.  Since that is his intent, there IS a certain amount of intelligence involved.  At least enough intelligence to completely manipulate you.

      Just sayin...

      1. secularist10 profile image91
        secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hahaha... True.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yea ..like the kid who chants "I know you are " You said you are " in the school yard.

          Doesnt make them intelligent-just noticed wink

          1. secularist10 profile image91
            secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ... huh?

            I'm pretty sure that was a pointless barb, but I guess I'm not intelligent enough to grasp it. hmm

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Umm...thought I was agreeing with your comment,but now Im not so sure lol

              Wasnt meant to be a pointless barb at all more an observation of 'said' hubber who likes to speak in pre-school jargon from time to time wink

              1. georgethegent profile image60
                georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously you are much more intelligent, Eaglekiwi. You know that apostrophes are out of use in a decades time, you're well ahead there, aren't you! Spaces between commas and the next word, ha, just a waste of space you say.

                What was that you said about "Pre-school jargon", I must have missed it?

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  OOOaaa shall I stay in after school and write some lines as well lol

                  I guess you are judging me on the Queens english. England means very little to me,actually less than that.

                  Also, you have grabbed that post from many pages back,the response was not in reply to anything you had said how-ever.

                  Have a good day ole chap wink

                  1. georgethegent profile image60
                    georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm Scottish and at the moment we're heading into a vote regarding leaving the U.K so, no, I'm not English but I do know the language that they use.

                    Peep peep!

      2. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry to say, your assessment of me is wrong, in this instance.

        He does not get under my skin, however, I recon I got under his a time or two.

        I just find it both amazing and extremely funny, how this type of response ( see OP) is the level he now posts, on a regular basis.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, you guys always think you win every argument. I can't tell you how many times I have been told that I was "destroyed" by some babble I barely even noticed.


          Most of the time we just get tired of responding, so we quit out of boredom.

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image62
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There is a lot of that going around, "get over it".

    3. autumn18 profile image67
      autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because all atheists think the same way? No I don't think this one atheists words are indicative of all atheists.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you ,and thank God for that wink



        I guess his condescending attitude is seen to be clever by some,infantile by others.

        Different strokes for different folks.

        1. Pearldiver profile image87
          Pearldiverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi there EK.. smile

          What is your opinion on Maui... was he really gay or not? yikes

          I voted Not in the polls.. smile

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Howdy

            Maui ha,think the colonials promoted that story for the urban crew lol them white boys gave the natives a lot of things,probably even brokeback mountain wink

            What polls?  lol

    4. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Depends on how frustrated an atheist gets. They say arguing with a Creationist is like arguing with a brick wall, only the person arguing with a brick wall makes more progress. As a former Creationist myself I have to generally agree with that idea.

      This is, of course, ruling out that this particular atheist is just a bit of a jerk. Why would you want to generalize all atheists based on this one's quote?

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He/She might be a bit of a jerk, but Laughter Really is The Best Medicine.

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That does not produce a laughter either.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But you certainly do

        2. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In all fairness, most creationists would say the same, re arguing with a brick wall.

          That's why the discussions deteriorate to this level with some.

          Evolution is as much faith based as creation.
          Neither can be proven nor disproven, as so much time has passed.

          Both sides have to take someone's word for it. (Hence the faith aspect).

          I have never seen a creationist use such infantile, derogatory language as the one I quoted in the OP.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution is evidence based.

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So is creation.

              It's the interpretation of the evidenece which differs!

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There is no evidence at all of a creator.  That's not interpretation, it's fabrication.

                There is evidence of evolution and it goes beyond fossils - we actually see it in living examples now.

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image62
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How did you get here? Those amino acids are clever, aren't they?

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your argument from sarcasm won an amen from the choir but didn't win any debate points.

                2. Mark Pitts profile image60
                  Mark Pittsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agre that there is evidence of evolution. But why can't evolution simply be the manifestation of how God accomplished His creations? Do the two terms have to be seen as mutually exclusive?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Because, that's not what's written in scriptures. smile

                    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I get where you are coming from Mark ,sounds like no brainer to me smile

                      I like your thinking.



                      side note: When did the word evolution come into existance I wonder wink

                    2. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      There are many who would not agree with you TM,myself included.

                      God made everything-period.

                3. Max Shelley profile image60
                  Max Shelleyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm an evolutionist but can you tell me where the missing link is, if not then you cant prove evolution as a fact...

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Missing link" is a misnomer and is not used when discussing evolution.

                    1. aguasilver profile image88
                      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Too touchy huh!

                  2. artblack01 profile image82
                    artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no "missing" link, it's not missing...  it was found.

                    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Was it on Craigslist lol

              2. skyfire profile image74
                skyfireposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nope. Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, creationism does. Creationism is basically a word salad that preaches concept of earth formation over a period of 6k years with proofs taken from evolution and idea of abiogenesis replaced with creator. You call that evidence, yeah right must be church approved evidence.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you need a science professor to teach you about a beautiful sunset, or millions of stars like diamonds in the heavens ,the rushing ocean ,who controls the tides? who controls the gravity, who controls anything?

                  Science cannot ,because science did not create it.

                  Do we need it explained in scientific terms when we see a baby being born,complete with every living organ to survive for the next 70 years.

                  Or is there not enough evidence proven by the works of intelligent and gifted human minds (not animals)to at least ask ourselves - Who designed us? in such a way that we are creative and amazing people?

                  1. skyfire profile image74
                    skyfireposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes. Your assumptions in all these questions expect creator but in reality, that is not the case. What you consider as beautiful sunset is just another rotation of earth, as for tides moon gravity and wind is responsible for it. When you want to skip details in every natural event, you have to make it beautiful or horrible in order to avoid stress in your subconscious mind. That's how theists maintain their sanity and assume others insane who point out the exact cause of things. No entity controls anything, it never was the case, theists have hard time assuming the fact that we as an intelligent species who manipulate a lot of natural and man-mad objects on earth are alone atleast on this planet. In order to fill the gap that this loneliness creates in mind, some people need to have creator in their life or else they're more likely to act irrational. That's how  gods were created. If you think any entity controls it, prove it, don't just throw bunch of emotional assumptions to justify it.


                    Science is not an entity, it is our way to explain universe and modify some parts of it. Assuming science as an entity that explains or creates universe shows your inability to understand universe and science.


                    Yes. Sexual intercourse and 9 months of growth pretty much explains it in short. For more details you need to digg into biology, you need to digg it with help of science in order to control disease, miscarriage during pregnancy, weight gain or loss, increase in sugar and  and any other variables that are necessary for healthy living for over 70 years of living.

                    It is funny how you ask questions and ignore the  depth of explanation and yet use "intelligent gifted humans" at the end to throw the credit of formation of life on some entity. Nobody designed us, we're still evolving. Not all humans are creative and amazing, some just live their life in this world by passing the burden of unanswered questions onto creator and enjoy their time. Some take the burden of those questions and solve the problems, yet get slapped from people who do nothing creative and amazing to understand universe.

                    1. sarahmkirkpatrick profile image77
                      sarahmkirkpatrickposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I would just like to point out that you are a great writer. Keeping cool and keeping to facts is what won me over. I have been an atheist for a while now, but it was this kind of writing (and conversation) that initially ended my protestant views; it just makes more sense. Now I am a strong atheist activist. :p

                  2. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    (Do you need a science professor to teach you about a beautiful sunset, or millions of stars like diamonds in the heavens ,the rushing ocean ,who controls the tides?)

                    Instead of fantasizing about some imagined perfection in nature, I suggest you get out into nature and observe firsthand the genetically malformed human babies that are born, the millions of cats and dogs that are slaughtered daily because of overpopulation, the innocents of all species that are eaten by stronger, more cunning creatures, the evidence of life-changing collisions that have occured between planet earth and large meteors, and the history of changes on earth in atmosphere and climate that have driven entire populations into extinction.

                    After you have taken off the rose-colored glasses, only then come back and explain tell us about godly (read Disney-like) perfection of nature.

                    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      It is all relevant to the circle of life, not fantasy at all-reality wink

                      If man had not been so greedy, driven by an accelerated appetite for progress, perhaps this planet would be healthier today.

                      Either way, my view of the world is fairly balanced,I just choose to celebrate the positives wink

                2. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Would you care to address it?

                  "Word salad" ? What is that?
                  If anything, evolution is the real salad.
                  How many types of evolution are there?
                  Not one word covers it, does it?No! Evidence is evidence.

                  1. skyfire profile image74
                    skyfireposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Only if you learn to ask question of abiogenesis by not relating it with evolution vs creationism context, sure. That work is always there, unless ofcourse you play with same 6k year creationism word salad by bending it with bible just because of your faith says so.


                    That shows your understanding of science, it shows in all your threads so far against evolution and in general scientific query. Trust me, religious people are not aware of world salad that they spew while preaching creationism.


                    That's my point, and creationism has no evidence for 6k year old earth and list goes on.

              3. georgethegent profile image60
                georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                People believing the "creation" evidence will believe anything, won't they!!!

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Dear, o dear.
                  Another one!

                  Welcome to the circus.

                  Did you read the OP?

                  Perhaps you ought to start there. hmm

          2. Titen-Sxull profile image93
            Titen-Sxullposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution isn't faith based. It makes testable and falsifiable claims. Evolution has been put through the rigor of science, it's stood the test of time even in the face of competing theories and ideas. The weight of the evidence supporting evolution, as a process, is as strong as the weight of evidence supporting Gravity.

            As a former Creationist I never recall using any infantile language but I do recall the irrational scoffing, anger, ridicule and fear I felt toward Evolution. The main reason I argued against evolution wasn't because I thought it was scientifically inaccurate, it was because I felt it was taking something away from me. I didn't want to believe I was just an animal related to monkeys by a common ancestor, I wanted to believe human beings were better, that life was truly special.

            Now, from an atheistic perspective, I can see that life is special even without a God or a creator being necessary. If anything it makes the existence of life even more fascinating and beautiful.

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting that you say that.  Read this:

              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 133926.htm

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ("Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins," he says.)

                Pcunix,

                Above quote from the article, and it expresses the conflict that represents the basis of human conflict from the Dark Ages until now - reason can surpass emotion, but it takes effort, too much effort for most, it seems.

          3. 67
            paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is not the point; evolution or no evolution, creationism or no creationism; one should be a respecting human being to talk with reason.

          4. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (Evolution is as much faith based as creation.  Neither can be proven nor disproven, as so much time has passed)

            aka-dj,

            You have repeated this claim often, but I wonder, as proof is subjective, exactly what proof would be necessary for you to accept evolution as valid?

            Or are you simply repeating a personal position that you won't allow yourself to be convinced, regardless of evidence?

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              EXACTLY!
              That's my point all along.

              Evidence is evidence, the interpretation of that evidence is subjective. Conclusions are not always proof.


              I don't need any proof that is a mere conclusion of another person's interpretation, which is open to falsification.
              I may not know all there is to know about evolution, but I have more than enough doubt in what I HAVE seen, to not adopt it as my own belief system.

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (I have more than enough doubt in what I HAVE seen, to not adopt it as my own belief system.)

                aka-dj,

                So, what you are saying is that irrespective of any evidence that could be presented, you would not alter your opinion?  In other words, regardless of the facts, you would not change your mind?

                Does that about sum it up?

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not at all!

                  I have not seen ANY compelling evidence!
                  I am open to new evidence! Sure!

                  My position is, that if there is ANOTHER interpretation of the evidence, it will not be acceptable.

                  Please, bring it on. big_smile

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    (I am open to new evidence! Sure!  My position is, that if there is ANOTHER interpretation of the evidence, it will not be acceptable)

                    aka-dj,

                    O.K., as there will always be another interpretation of any evidence presented, you are saying you will never accept evolution as a valid answer because you are too openminded?

                    Is that about it?

        3. 67
          paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe

      2. melbel profile image92
        melbelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your sweeping generalization of the behavior of [all] Atheists leads me to believe that any argument I make to the contrary will fall on deaf ears.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you notice, I was asking a question, not making a blanket statement.

          Please, argue away.

          That was the whole point of starting the thread.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Quite the veteran at addressing the invalid statement aren't we dj..

            Glad to see your posts.. I enjoy the reads.

            smile

      3. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think they are intelligent most of the time.  However, in general, I find them very arrogant and close-minded.  Agnostics are more reasonable and humble.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is that because they don't believe in and accept the lies that are being told?

          I would suspect that is arrogant and close-minded to be the one who is lying as opposed to those who point out the lies as such.

          1. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What is your obsession with calling everyone who disagrees with you liars? I consider you to be extremely arrogant, not thinking for one moment that Christians may be right.

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Claire Evans,

              Do you ever for one moment think Muslims may be right?

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, they are not.   I don't know if you know the origin of Allah.  He is a moon god and Satan is often depicted as a moon god or goddess, like Baphomet and Artemis.

                1. mischeviousme profile image61
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's another way of saying that all gods are conceptual. Correct?

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nah, gods are not conceptual.  They just reveal themselves in a certain way.  I'm busy watching a lecture by someone who has made a literal translation of the Old Testament and it is way different to what the OT says.  It's staggering.  It was not God who spoke to Moses, but physical gods.  Gods did roam the earth in physical form.

                    1. mischeviousme profile image61
                      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      These are things that were carried down from oral tradition, so I'm sure there were all sorts of additions. Before it was written down, religion was subject to change.

                    2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      lol There you go again making false statements. lol

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So what? There are similar origins to the Christian faith, too. Do you deny them?

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    See my comment above.  The Old Testament in its majority is a fraud.

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I'm not talking about the OT, but it is interesting that you find it to be a fraud. That is hilarious. lol

                  2. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I deny that that the origins of Judaism should have any bearing on the Christian religion, except for certain writings by prophets and the prophecies.  For example,  Jesus said there would be a huge punishment for those who harm children, but God in the OT slays the first born kids.  Mega bipolar God.

                    There's a conspiracy when the Bible read literally is altered to mean something else.  The whole of Genesis is a summarised version of the pagan earlier text, The Sumerian Tablets. 

                    I'm going to give you a brief summary: God is made in the Elohim's image: Let US make man in OUR image.  The literal translation and ST actually say that Moses made a pact with one of the Elohim.  They were in physical form.  They demanded that the Jews make temples for them and burn animals and got high on the smell because when fat substances are burnt, they assume the same molecular form of endorphins. 

                    Think I'm talking nonsense?

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … re=related

                    This is a lecture from a man who translated 23 books of the Bible for the Vatican. He had to translate the Stalingrad Codex (the version of the Bible which all three major monotheistic religions - Cristian, Jewish and Muslim - recognize as the official Bible) from the Hebrew, word by word, literally and with no interpretation.

                    The Sumerian story of the origin of man:

                    http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/sumerian … of-humans/

                    I wonder why people depicted Gods in physical form when they are supposed to be mythical.  What made them think they looked like the way they were depicted?

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I'm not talking about Judaism, either. There are religions that are centuries older than Christianity but are almost identical.



                      Men created gods in their own image, obviously.

                3. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  re: your post of a couple of days ago.

                  Does not the statement that Muslims are wrong not put you into the same arrogant, close-minded attitude you are assigning to some atheists?

                  It seems to me that the ONLY reasonable stance is that of an Agnostic; "I don't know".  Humble has nothing to do with it - it is the only statement that can be true as no one knows the truth of any religious beliefs.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, because I have done research into the origin of Islam.  If I just said it was wrong without doing research, then I would be arrogant.  I do research on my own religion and due to evidence see that the OT is a fraud.  It just simply is not true.  So I reject that side to Christianity because the OT is accepted as the word of God in that religion.  When I hear the pastor read out of the OT, I cringe.

                    It is not true that no one knows the truth about religious beliefs.  God has made it simple for humanity.  Jesus is the truth and the life.

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Like when you claimed gods walked the earth in physical form and a host of other claims you couldn't support? lol



                      lol

                    2. Disappearinghead profile image89
                      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      ??? The OT is a fraud??

                      I'm more inclined to accept that the Hebrew scriptures are inspired by God than the NT.

                    3. 0
                      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      (No, because I have done research into the origin of Islam)

                      Claire,

                      So the definition of "truth" is that which has been personally researched by Claire Evans?

                    4. nightwork4 profile image60
                      nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      but the reasearch you read was written by people so how can you be sure they are right. the biggest arguement for religion in the end is faith which is also the biggest cop-out. look at our world and i mean really look at it. open your eyes, see the things that go on and then explain how some loving god created us.

                  2. TFScientist profile image92
                    TFScientistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "It seems to me that the ONLY reasonable stance is that of an Agnostic; "I don't know".  Humble has nothing to do with it - it is the only statement that can be true as no one knows the truth of any religious beliefs."

                    Wow. That is really good. I have never thought of it that way. But, looking closely, science relies on refutation. Science cannot categorically refute the existance of God (an extension of the white swan thought experiment) and Religion cannot categorically refute the non-existence of God.

                    It really is only logical to remain agnostic...although I understand those who hold theistic or atheistic views.

                    Thanks!

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      In a way, I don't agree. Although it is correct that science cannot categorically refute the existence of any given god, it certainly reveals mountains of hard evidence that would show gods are not only unnecessary for our universe to exist and function as it does, but forces us to think about the myths and superstitions that control a great part of mankind through the practice of indoctrination and exposes religions as nothing more than a vice, completely devoid of the moral and ethical properties and characteristics that make up evolved human beings.

                      I would submit that an agnostic worldview of "I don't know" would ignore all of that and much, much more.

                4. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Let's recap, shall we:

                  First Claire: (What is your obsession with calling everyone who disagrees with you liars? I consider you to be extremely arrogant, not thinking for one moment that Christians may be right.)

                  Then, Winston: (Do you ever for one moment think Muslims may be right?)

                  And again, Claire: (No they are not.)   

                  Next question.  Have you ever heard of the phrase, the pot calling the kettle black?

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The difference between me and ATM is that when I am not sure of something, I am willing to learn when it is proven to me.   I have had people here correct me when I say things that aren't correct or wholly correct. 

                    ATM, on the other hand, always thinks he/she is right.  And if anyone disagrees with her/him, he belittles others.  I don't.  If ATM is honest with himself/herself, she/he will know that he/she doesn't know 100% that Jesus is not the son of God.

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      That is entirely false, yet again. You are not willing to learn when others hold facts right in front of you.



                      Really? Seems more as if someone else here is claiming 100% that he is the son of God.

                      I wonder who that might be, eh Claire? lol

                5. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The "cross" as used by christians, was used as a phallic symbol, long before the crucifixion of Jesus.  It had other sexual connotations, depending on which way up it was presented. ("Phallic Worship" by George Ryley Scott, Senate Press).

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So? The Romans also happened to crucify people on a cross.  I suspect that is where the Christian cross came from.

                6. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  (I don't know if you know the origin of Allah.  He is a moon god and Satan is often depicted as a moon god or goddess, like Baphomet and Artemis.)

                  Claire,

                  This is a mistake we humans make over and over again, more so when our bias clouds are judgment.  There is no correlation shown here.  The word allah simply means god, but over time metamorphasized to be a very specific god named "Allah". 

                  Likewise, Jesus was a common name in the first century.  I'm sure there were charlatans named Jesus - what does that have to do with anything?

                  You connect the dots, but you are using two or three different puzzle books to do so.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Did you read my comment about the origin of Allah? What about it did you know understand? The etymology part or the archaeological part?

                    Jesus was a human being.  Of course He'd share names with others.

                    1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Oh, Claire, Jesus was a human being?  Wow, that's a relief.  I thought for a moment you were claiming he was god.  Silly me!

                    2. 0
                      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      (Did you read my comment about the origin of Allah?)
                      Claire,
                      I just commented on your comment, so, of course, I read it.  And it is still in error - you are asserting correlations that do not exist other than in your own quite confused mind.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol Disagreeing is one thing, lying is another. I understand you don't know the difference.



              Yes, they may be, but if they were, they should be able to show it, why are they instead compelled to lie in light of factual evidence?

              It is these liars who are extremely arrogant. Funny how you believe pointing out lies is arrogant, that says a lot about you. smile

              1. aka-dj profile image78
                aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I see you are on the same thin ice, as the Atheist in question in the OP.

                It seems you aslo resort to referring to all believer as being guilty of lying.
                Perhaps you need to get firmly grounded in understanding what lying is. And, furthermore, what TRUTH is. I think you have these rather blurred in you mind.

                Instead of calling people liars,(of course, you are politically correct, and don't ACTUALLY call them that, just INFER it. Playing it safe, no doubt.) why not counter the argument with truth? (If you have any)?

                1. Pcunix profile image92
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, she doesn't infer, she implies and other people may infer from what she wrote.

                  For the record, I think it's silly to say that theists are generally lying about belief.   However, I have known people who present a public face of belief but privately think it's nonsense.    That includes at least one priest..

                  1. Michele Travis profile image67
                    Michele Travisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But what about the historical writings? The Dead Sea Scrolls?   Don't they report the truth?  And there are things that have been written outside of the bible, by Romans, by Pagans that mention Jesus.

                    1. Pcunix profile image92
                      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Really?  I know of NO historical mention of your mystery man.

                      Any mentions I know of are long after the fact (and that includes your Bible).  Contemporary writers don't mention anything like this.   

                      Dead Sea scrolls?  You do realize that these span almost 600 years on both sides of this alleged person?  When were the "Jesus" parts written?  Long after he supposedly existed.

                      Conclusion:  fake, or embellished from a real person.  No miracles, no resurrection.  Just a made up story.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just the ones the do lie.



                  Not at all.



                  Clearly, reality is truth, which is what is presented to counter the fantasies and lies spewed.

                  1. aka-dj profile image78
                    aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    PLEASE, present some truth then.
                    Not many of your posts contain any such reality statements, only critical rhetoric, on what others have said.

                    The more I read your posts, the shallower a person you show yourself to be.

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I did. It's called reality. It has nothing to do with your religious fantasies.

      4. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This question is disingenuous, I hope.

        There is no single atheist who represents all of us, just as there is no single representative Christian.

      5. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I imagine that was an outburst due to the sheer degenerate theism that is spread on hubpages.

        There are unintelligent people on both sides, but it's not like anyone needed to be told that.

        Though atheists are proven to be more intelligent as an average, so I wouldn't go pretending the opposite.

      6. Marisa Wright profile image93
        Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You do understand that the bad spelling is deliberate, to poke fun at uneducated Creationists?  I'm sure you do, because any intelligent person would get the joke.  The first sentence is insulting, but that does not necessarily mean the writer is unintelligent - just that he/she is angry or frustrated.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Marissa.
          Yes, you are right, I get it.

          This was neither a one off outburst, nor an expression of frustration.
          This person uses this language, grammar and tone regularly.

          I was merely asking other atheists to respond for themselves. Though my question was a generalisation, it was, in fact seeking individual answers.

        2. AntonOfTheNorth profile image62
          AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          One can be angry and frustrated and not be insulting if one wishes.

          Clear lack of respect.  That's all.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

          cheers

      7. 67
        paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They only show disrespect; they deride and ridicule; all these things hamper good reasoning to generate in their selves; this way day by day their reasoning faculty is deteritorating; nature is taking its course against them.

        If they make habit of respecting others; using no foul words they may improve.

      8. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So, what you're saying is that the person in question has been calling someone else on their lies and reached a point where they have to make it clear that all they are hearing from that person are lies.

        The question should be, Is this indicative of where discussions with those who must lie to defend Jesus and their beliefs are occurring here?

      9. 0
        Cranfordjsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Want to know how I know pro religious people lack confidence? Every person on this thread uses the word "God" in a general since. If pro religion was so secure, they would say "Jesus" instead of "God". If it doesn't show a lack of confidence, it shows a lack of intelligence, being that one inter twines the word "God" with Jesus, while talking on the world wide web. A world that host a population of seven billion people with seventy percent not believing in Christ.

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6062440_f248.jpg

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow!
          That's enlightening. hmm

          I lack no such confidence. I know Him, in whom I believe.
          I have never differentiated between God and Jesus. Jesus is the manifestation of God, in the flesh to the world.
          If there is any confusion as to which god is the TRUE God, it is not in my court.

        2. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this


          Yes, that may be, but only 16% have NO religion.

          http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

          1. 0
            Cranfordjsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What percent of that "33%" attend church everyone Sunday?

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What purpose does the answer to that serve?

              Can't one be a Christian without church attendance?

              1. 0
                Cranfordjsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Does a simple check mark beside the choice "Christian" on a questionnaire make a person a Christian?

                No, one can't be a Christian unless they have fully submitted to Christ. Not going to church shows a lack of Christianity to one's ideology who claims otherwise.

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wrote a hub on that very topic.

                  The whole concept of "going to church" is wrong, anyway.

                  Believers ARE the church. Not the building they congregate in.
                  Every time I meet with fellow believers, and are there in the name of Jesus Christ, a part of church is active.

                  Ticking a box indeed does NOT make one a Christian.

                  Keith Green  said  "going to church doesn't make you a christian, any more than going to MacDonnalds makes you a ham,burger.

                2. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ..Yes I think you are right,but Jesus didnt always go to church ,so then aagain you are wrong wink

                  My personal view is that too many people get hung up on a building or an ethos or a group mentality thing.

                  Jesus was not about traditional rituals or pompous status ,that is why when he was crucified the temple was no longer divided in two (lower court for the low people ,higher court for the priests) the temple curtains were shredded in two.

                  Jesus was now the High Priest and no man comes to the Father except through Him ,no longer was it to be a man or hierachy as it had been ruling over the people unjustly and at times with hypocrisy.

                  The gathering of other believers was encouraged for the building up of the saints.

                  The body of Christ is not a building ,it is a set of working beliefs found within believers ,you could just as easily be meeting and praying in a bus terminal or individual homes as in a building called a church.

                  1. 0
                    Cranfordjsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you know all of this stuff about 'Jesus'?

                    1. aka-dj profile image78
                      aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      How is it the YOU DON'T know?

                    2. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      From reading what Jesus said and did ,and other peoples accounts of what Jesus said and did.

                      Plus the holy spirit (conscience) confirmation wink

          2. georgethegent profile image60
            georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            An amazing percentage of non-believers call themselves Christians!!!

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not to mention, about 50% of non-religious are theists, none the less.

              But, in any case, what's your point?

              1. georgethegent profile image60
                georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I find it very difficult to imagine a non-believer calling him or herself a christian, it doesn't fit at all although the non-religious being a theist doesn't present the same problem for me. I don't believe therefore I am not a christian, voila!!!

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  voila what?

                  Your still chasing your tail with half digested answers..

                  Lack of presentation being the kind corrective criticism I'm aiming at.

                  Reference to yourself doesn't shed much light.

                  smile

      10. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just for the record, atheists have the highest I.Q. levels in the world, and religious people the lowest. That is 100% researched and tested information. You can google it, yahoo it, bing it, whatever.

        Next, the latest edition of National Geographic gives the results of twin studies. The information has always been there but has been politically incorrect for fear of hurting the feelings of some. Intelligence is genetic. It's not educated into you. You can buy the latest edition of National Geographic if you'd like to check that as well. You can also consult the many scientists who did the testing and the thousands of identical twins who were tested over and over again.

        What is more interesting is that religiosity is inborn as well. It's an inherited trait through DNA. So people who are religious can't help themselves - anymore than atheists can help themselves.

        For some reason, Mother Nature (or God) gave the same people he made non-religious more intelligence.

        Can someone please explain 'God's' reasoning to me.

        I'm listening. smile

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Matthew 11

          At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have ...

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's convenient smile

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Or helpful,guess its all about perspective wink

              Actually I was responding to the post above mine.

            2. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Convenient?

              Is lack of understanding what prevents elaboration on prideful comments?

              cool

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Dear God,

            Please make me stupid.

            Amen.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Interestingly enough, when we view a believers beliefs in terms of brainwashing, we no longer can view the person as being stupid.

              We also know there are varying levels of education and knowledge amongst believers which means some may simply be ignorant by many of them are most certainly not stupid.

              smile

            2. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I took a CPR class the other day.  A man and his wife were also there and he was so fat that no one could get their arms around him for the Heimlich.  He and his wife both thought that was quite funny.

              Then the instructor reminded us that you can't do CPR in bed.  The big man's wife laughed and said she couldn't possibly even roll him out of bed, never mind pull him.  He thought that was pretty funny too.

              I told my wife about that when I came home.  She asked "Are they happy?"

              Yeah.  They obviously were very happy. 

              Don't knock stupid.  It has benefits.

            3. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              For some people there is no need to beg lol

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Still they are always in church, begging.

            4. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol, I believe God granted your request in advance...

              cool

          3. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Who, way back when, was wise and intelligent?

            Who, way back when, didn't "know" the world was flat and the wind originated from a sleeping god who lived in cave.

            And, since way back when, we have accumulated a tremendous amount of knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Many of those "hidden things" are no longer hidden with many of them being well understood and taken for granted in everyday life.

            Those words by Jesus are becoming more and more meaningless as time passes and we learn more about our universe.

            I can understand believers are probably pretty upset by that considering knowledge is evil if it ain't God knowledge.

            One thing is for sure though, God has done a bang up job of hiding himself.

          4. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's called propaganda. The church fathers, the state, and everybody else who was in a controlling position had to flatter/scare the masses in order to get them to be obedient.

            On the one hand, they told them if they didn't obey, the devil would get them.
            On the other hand, they told them if they used their brains, they would show evidence of having no faith.

            Like all the people who were too scared to tell the emperor that he had no clothes, the masses rather than actually use their brains, didn't... And, of course, if you don't use them, you lose them. smile

        2. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, I'll bite!

          Here then, in effect, you are confirming that the Atheist in question is of a higher intelligence than me (and all believers) because of their Atheism. That then justifies the rhetoric which I posted in the OP.

          This would also explain the condescension, ridicule and verbal abuse coming from many Atheists.
          They are, in fact of a higher order.  Simply put, better than everyone else.

          Thanks for clarifying that.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Way to shed light dj, agreed.

            cool

      11. Dave Mathews profile image60
        Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No sometimes it is worse than that.

      12. nightwork4 profile image60
        nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        so you are using the comments of one person to judge atheists?

      13. phillippeengel profile image72
        phillippeengelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is definitely not an intelligent answer. It is called deliberately inflaming other people's religions and instigating violence and rancor.

      14. Leafy Den profile image82
        Leafy Denposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        With some, yes, but he is not a representative of all atheists as there are a lot of people of other faiths who say things that do not sound intelligent or respectful. Shame on him for saying what he said in the manner he said it. Shame on anyone who assumes that his behavior representative of all - that is sort of thought where all kinds of prejudice originates. P.S. I am not an atheist and don't like what he said either because it was disrespectful. At the church I grew up in, there were convicted child molesters and drug users. I know these people are not representative of all Christians but it would be easy to lump them all together, if I wanted to do so. That is the challenge of intelligence, not lumping things together but taking things on a case-by-case basis.

      15. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You can't hide his identity dj, that was a kind effort though.. LOL

        cool

      16. Thinking Allowed profile image60
        Thinking Allowedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, what I'm reading has nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with frustration. I'd really like to see what that comment was a response to. Everyone is their own person, but yeah, we can get mean when we're dealing with someone that just doesn't get it. That has nothing to do with atheism and has everything to do with that individuals breaking point. For myself, when I see that logical arguments are not going to get through to you, yeah, I may ridicule you.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I guess it is a developed skill then to attack the problem ,rather than the person wink

          Mostly I try to take the higher ground (not arrogantly) and sometimes I don't.

          "God hasn't finished with me yet" lol

        2. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for your honesty.

          We'll be sure to keep that in mind when we read your future posts.


          BTW, there are plenty of mentors here to teach you the finer points and techniques. lol

      17. artblack01 profile image82
        artblack01posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think it's indicative as humans whether atheist or theist or whoever, with varying degrees of intelligence and maturity to answer in various tones of intelligence and maturity.  It doesn't really matter what you believe you are capable of saying the most stupid and unintelligent and/or angry statements.
        I suppose it also depends on your background and experience with said opposite group.

      18. grinnin1 profile image82
        grinnin1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In my experience, which isn't a lot, I might add; most of the conversations started about religion quickly deteriorate into petty, rude, personal cracks at each other's beliefs. Surprised me that it would be that way here, but seems there are few exceptions to the rule. There are one or two hubbers who are always even, objective and keep a cool head, thank goodness for those(Emile R). Otherwise, the "debates" usually trail off toward the lowest common denominator of the group. Again, this is my limited experience and opinion.

      19. John Sarkis profile image76
        John Sarkisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think intelligence is indicative of anything.  You can be an Atheist or a Christian and be intelligent; you can be an Atheist or a Christian and be stupid, makes little difference.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My own version of Intelligence is:

          The ability to ask a question.   In order to arrive at this ability, one needs to first be humble and say, "I do not know."  Then have the curiosity to see if there IS something to know; open the senses to something new; have the mental agility and energy to sort things through.  Finally to come up with an answer to the first question or problem.

          Most of this function will come out of need.  From this, it can be seen that Intelligence is not dependent on "class," social standing or financial status.  Each person in his or her own environment will find the level of intelligence necessary for survival.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In your opinion; is there any difference between inteligance and wisdom?

              And if there is what is it?

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for your question Jerami.   Again, these are only my own ideas on the subject of wisdom, they are of course debatable.

              I see wisdom as "the ability to make sound judgment."

              It is said that wisdom comes with age.... but not necessarily.  Through the long experience of life one can often see a different point of view on various subjects, if they have been part of the experience.  The different point of view might then lead to more appropriate solutions. 

              A younger/less experienced person might then look upon the elder as "wise."  The wisdom here is not something to be claimed or presumed by the elder.  The assessment of it being wisdom is for the other person to decide.

              I have often, in men's groups, witnessed a much younger man but one who is/has been a father, with all the responsibilities and trials and errors that he has to go through, and been deeply impressed with his "wisdom."  Again, MY assessment of Him, not something he would consider of himself.

              So, I would see intelligence and wisdom is some ways related, but certainly not the same thing.

      20. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have just read from the site of Steve Pavlina.  "10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion."

        Interesting stuff, well worth a read.

    5. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 4 years ago

      These self-obsessed threads from flat earth proponents are now becoming terminally boring. 

      If people are so stupid that they are unable to understand simple science and physics and are so completely unable to grasp that spirituality is a human condition, not a brick and mortar paradise room - then how is it useful for so many people to try to educate or argue with them ?

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you are talking to actual "flat earthers", your audience is minuscule.
        You are posting in the wrong place.

        If it's directed at me, all I can say is lol

        Sorry. My sense of humor betrays me sometimes. big_smile

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, you do seem inordinately proud of the fact that you can think one level up - and have progressed to a round earth that was invented 7000 years ago and populated with creatures all in one go by a super-being who then inflicts misery on it s inhabitants for its own vicarious pleasures.

          I hate to tell you this, but there are many more layers of understanding that most kids get to understand at around 7 or 8,.  unless of course they are home schooled by morons who are unable to get beyond the basics themselves.

          You will never get it I suppose, but I have to tell you that once up there you woould be able to comprehend that all the things you believe are also true to some greater or lesser degree, just no the way you think it is.

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the encouragement.
            I will work on getting to a higher level.

            How many levels do I need to attain, to be where you are now?

            Will it take going back to college, or university?

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Probably, but using your analytical brain certainly help.

          2. WD Curry 111 profile image62
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Same ol' Marxists rhetoric. It is attracting flies.

      2. 67
        paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Whether one knows science or does not know; or one has a religion or does not have; why should it bother one so much that one starts tp deride and to ridicule others and puts insutls? That is not a human approach, in no way.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Much like every time you post against atheists.

      3. AntonOfTheNorth profile image62
        AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The science around the beginning of reality is not simple.  It's pretty complex.

        And if you insist that someone who disagrees with you needs to get more education and you don't want to waste your time. . . then really, why post anything at all?

        cheers

        1. WD Curry 111 profile image62
          WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Complex? We will never scratch the surface. Faith in science to give the answer is delusional. We will not find the answer on this side of the end of time.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol So, let's just forget about it and open up the Bible to page...

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Page 1
              Genesis 1;1.

              There's a start for you.

              Then, you can try. John 1;1

              Happy reading. Let us all know what you learn when you finish. (I hope I'll still be around then. lol

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (Page 1 Genesis 1;1.  There's a start for you.  Then, you can try. John 1wink

                aka-dj,

                Don't you have any non-fiction you can recommend?

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes I do. For someone who likes the nitty-gritty details, and all, I have three for you;
                  1 Leviticus
                  2 Numbers
                  3 Deuteronomy.

                  Enjoy! smile

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you for accepting that the other books of the bible are indeed fiction.

                    1. aka-dj profile image78
                      aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      lol I had a suspicion you would say that! lol lol

                      That is to totally subjective inference by you. I made NO such assertion!
                      Nice try! lol


                      So, you concede that the three I gave you are NOT fictitious, then?

                      Does that mean you will read them? Let me know how you go?

              2. jonnycomelately profile image85
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                aka-dj, you entire belief system depends upon you accepting the existence of someone who watches over you ... a metaphysical being. 

                Also it's built on the premise that you will have some kind of consciousness after the death of your physical body.

                Do you feel superior in your thinking?  Do you see people who don't have your beliefs as unintelligent, just on the basis of that?  Or are you just criticizing their manner of discussion?

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't have a belief system. I just believe in HIM.

                  A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right. Worth the odds, don't you think? (Not that I'm playing any odds. Just saying!)
                  I have never felt superior, nor have I ever stated anything of the kind. In fact, I wasn't even criticising, merely drawing attention to the kind of post presented by and Atheist. All, to bring others to comment on "one of their own".

                  So, to that end, you can leave a personal perspective, if you like.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Kinda like you don't go bowling, but instead roll large balls down narrow wooden corridors to knock down pins. lol



                    No, not at all. Terrible odds. No one in their right mind would ever gamble their entire lives on such odds.

                    1. aka-dj profile image78
                      aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I see. You are an Atheist who doesn't resort to the same language as that in the OP.
                      You just twist peoples words to suit yourself. That's kind of like lying, isn't it. Politicians and the media do it all the time. You must be one of those.

                      If you are going to quote me, then quote me in it's entirety. Don't leave bits out, that you don't like!
                      What I ACTUALLY said was   "A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right. Worth the odds, don't you think? (Not that I'm playing any odds. Just saying!)

                      That completely negates you reply as being relevant.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you believe in HIM, then Genesis 1:1 might indeed be a good place to start to reaffirm that belief.  If you don't, however, Genesis 1:1 will never convince a thinking being that they should believe in a God.  Any God at all.  The story is much too far-fetched and has zero evidence to back it up.

                    The odds are 50:50 you are right - cannot the same thing be said of the FSM?  Or any other wild belief system that is completely without evidence?  Now what are the odds that any one particular similar (a god like creature creating everything) out of the tens of thousands that might be conceived of is the actual correct one?  One out of tens of thousands?  Not good odds at all, I'm afraid.

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      It would appear by the fact that there are so many religions in the world that odds of 50:50 are probably not correct.

                      If we take the top three Abrahamic religions alone and add non-belief, we have 25% odds in favor of any given one. The more religions we add, the smaller the odds for each one to be correct.

                  3. jonnycomelately profile image85
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "...there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right."

                    If you depart from any sound logic, then you could be right.... but since when did fundamentalist thinking ever consider logic to be important?

                  4. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    (I don't have a belief system. I just believe in HIM.   A pretty good premise it is, too! After all, there's a 50;50 chance that I'm right)

                    aka-dj,

                    While it is accurate to state the possibilities a single event that has equal chances to be 50/50, when the possiblities increase the odds change.   When you claim a specific "him", it is like claiming that a random coin picked out of a bag of mixed coins and tossed in the air will not only come up heads (50/50), but the coin itself will be a 1938 D nickel in mint condition (1-in-total-coins-chance).

                    Likewise, once your claim is of a specific "Him" it is no longer a 50/50 proposition and becomes nothing more than an arbitrary chance in billions of possibilities that has no more chance of being right than any other god possibility.

                    PS: You may either wake up tomorrow or die tonight in your sleep.  Does that make it 50/50 that you will be alive tomorrow?

      4. jpwriter profile image76
        jpwriterposted 4 years ago

        "If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said."

        I don't understand the text message language, but I'm curious what was said to prompt this comment. 

        I have never really understood why it's so hard for people to accept the fact that humans evolve.  Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.  Believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you must accept every facet. Set the ego aside, take what works, and leave the rest. 

        Condemning all atheists based on the comment of one person is as useful as atheists condemning all those who believe in a creator.

      5. LeanMan profile image81
        LeanManposted 4 years ago

        Thank god for atheists!

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh. don't thank Me !

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

      6. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago

        I dont think one can generalise about ALL atheists ,anymore than one can generalise about ALL Christians.

        Are they not human first,with all those wonderful charactaristics and quirky mannerisms ,then maybe however they wish to indentify themselves second?

        Then of course the real fun starts:

        1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image62
          AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          and yet so many do, so clearly we can. 

          We just shouldn't.  It's lazy.

          cheers

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            True statement. I agree.

            Cheers smile

            I also think how people communicate(especially writers) is often to first get the readers attention ,provocation just being one form. wink

            Dats majik innit.

      7. kayecandles profile image59
        kayecandlesposted 4 years ago

        smile Just keep fighting-there's no reasoning with those who have no reason

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's a reasonable statement! smile

      8. 71
        SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

        I like to be on topic and if your topic invites conversation then expect a reply. If one creates a Hub on how wonderful it is to be an Atheist then I would ignore it and read stuff that would interest me. I do this with countless religions and female topics that do not ask for anyone's opinion on the subject but desire to hold a discussion with those of the same interest. Instead they ask for a reply from all parties and then write something dumb to start a conversation. I think well maybe they are interested in the opinions of all parties but most of the time they have no ability to even consider any view but their own. Even this is perfectly fine but when your only plan is to criticize others rather then make a point I find a hub that serves no real purpose. You can say a politician is great and he should be elected but you should expect to here everyone's point of view based on true and valid points. If you our an Atheist and do not believe in God then what is your point in writing about God. If we believe in scripture and there our several interpretations. Then we must assume that you have no interest in knowing such things unless you are asking, so why do they argue with the rule book? If you do not agree with the Bible and have no desire to learn anything then this must be the intelligence of the Atheist. From the view point of a believer I would have to create hubs with dumb questions such as: Why are all Atheist going to rot in the ground when they die. I am an Atheist and believe in nothing the end. (Talk about a short hub) The life of a lazy sinner and why we should legalize all crime. Most of all, do Atheist believe in ethics or have any morals and if they do why? You see being a moron and asking dumb questions is OK. Lets just say that my last choice was posted and then I spent my time criticizing them and arguing with them every time they claimed to have any morals or ethics. Your an Atheist you can not have any beliefs, morals or ethics. If they claimed they did I guess I would have to call them a Christian. Them Atheist are all closet Christians, they just never got past being spiritual babies. Or from the stand point of all believers they are going to Hell not because of me but God. Since their is no penalty for believing and no man with the power to judge or condemn me, I like to consider the possibility and take the chance that their is something better then living in a World that believes in this life.

        1. 0
          MP50posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just my input, I think this is a contructive comment.

        2. fpherj48 profile image81
          fpherj48posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          SanXuary.....Ditto!  Thank you so much for doing all the writing for me and being so accurate in my perception of this thread.  I don't get it either...all this intenitonal controversy.  Arguments from diametrically opposing views/beliefs.  Exactly why I steer clear of discussions on Religion & accompanying sub titles.  I recently wrote a hub on precisely this!  Good job, SanXuary!

      9. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

        Obviously de-evolving. I believe in God and evolution. Top that.

      10. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

        Michele Travis,

        There is not a single mention of this person by any contemporary, i.e, a person who lived at the same time, even if not an eyewitness.  He left no written records.  There are no towns, roads, bridges, or villages named after him.   No coins with his image.   No engravings of any kind.  No hand-drawn artwork.  No carving inside a cave.  Historically, he is a phantom.

        The only remains of this person are second hand, third hand, and fourth hand accounts that may or may not be reliable.  Some claims of historical mentions are virtually unanimously accepted as forgeries, which were common in the era.  It is notable that the Romans, known for meticulous record-keeping, made no mention of this person during his life but only mentioned actions of his followers, and those mentions were after the fact.

        There probably is enough evidence to think a radical rabbi lived during those times, who may have been crucified.  After that, the story relies exclusively on biased non-witnesses who had an agenda to sell.

        1. the lone gunman profile image60
          the lone gunmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I've always heard that even the most degenerate person would still acknowledge that Jesus was at least a real person, crazy or otherwise. Whether you believe the Bible is a holy book or not, its historical significance cannot be ignored.  The Bible contains 100s of instances mentioning Jesus written both before and after His time on earth, by His contemporaries as well as "non-witnesses".  This is apparent in  some of the books of the Bible named after the authors such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, ect. Paul the Apostle, though not alive at the same time, wrote many letters mentioning Jesus.  You could argue, and it seems you are, that 40 different authors of the Bible from different time periods spanning 100s of years are all biased lying politicians whose account never contradict though they had little to no means to corroborate their stories. For sake of argument, what is the agenda that these so called "non-witnesses" are trying to sell?  I mean, do you have any idea what the true Christian Gospel is?  It's not world domination or to rule the economy or to ruin your fun, though some misguided hypocrites have try to do so falsely in the name of Christ.  The Gospel, which literally mean "good news," is simply that Christ loves us more than anything, so much in fact that He shed his blood and died for our sins, taking our punishment.  All we have to do is VOLUNTARILY accept this free gift.  If this qualifies as an "agenda" then count me in.  But right now I'd be more interested in hearing the agenda that you are trying to sell, though I already have a good idea what it is.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Again, all written by people who were not allive at the time.

            Full of discrepancies, as you'd expect from people spinning yarns.

            There may have been a wandering preacher of this name or several.  The miracles sure as heck never happened and nobody was ever brought back to life.

            It's a story.  A nice, happy story.  You can do well following the moral advice.  That's all great.  But it isn't real.

            1. the lone gunman profile image60
              the lone gunmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is not a discrepancy one that cannot be explained by a contextual analysis (not saying that i myself have the ability as of now to do so).  I find it ironic you say that it "sure as heck" didn't happen.  They say it did happen, and you say its lies.  But u say it didnt' happen and that supposed to be the truth?

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, nonsense.  Explained by hand waving lies, sure.

                1. Michele Travis profile image67
                  Michele Travisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wait a minute...isn't that a politician?

                2. the lone gunman profile image60
                  the lone gunmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I believe what he is referring to is 'the force' or 'jedi mind trick.'
                  what i was referring to is that men smarter than you or me have studied it out and based on full contextual analysis, there are no discrepancies in the Bible (now I'm not referring to the many modern so call translations of the Bible)

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nobody smarter than I am has resolved the discrepancies that are there for anyone to read.

                    People with a religious agenda spin ridiculous and twisted tales that pretend to explain but wouldn't satisfy a child.

        2. Michele Travis profile image67
          Michele Travisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AKA Winston  I undsertand what you are telling me.  If you do not believe, that is your right.  I will not force it down your throat because that is wrong.  So many things have been done by "Christians" who tried to force others to be "Christians."  So, please forgive me for all that I wrote.  I get a little bit excited sometimes.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Michele Travis,

            There is nothing to forgive.  You presented your argument and I was presenting countrary information - where either one of us did anything out of line is beyond me.

            I was impressed by your list, yet at the same time I question its integrity (not yours, the list's).  Eusebius was one of the great defenders of Christianity, and he is accused of forging the part of Josephus that is  obviously forged and speaks of Jesus, but he, in many of his writings, discounted the words of others as unreliable.

            Many times texts that we no longer have to study were quoted in order to attack the conclusions made - protoorthodoxy versus gnostic, for example.

            The key issue is whether or not these scraps are historicity of an actual person or simply arguments about an ideological myth.

            As for you and me, no harm, no foul, as Chick Hearn used to say.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Just as an aside, wasn't Eusebius the guy who played football in the 1966 World Cup?  Portugal or Argentina, can't remember which.

            2. Michele Travis profile image67
              Michele Travisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              AKA Winston  no harm no foul is the best.  No idiodic insults are proof of high intelligence.  The idiocy takes place on both sides.

      11. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

        (The Bible contains 100s of instances mentioning Jesus written both before and after His time on earth, by His contemporaries....This is apparent in  some of the books of the Bible named after the authors such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

        Mr. The Lone Gunmen,

        I hate to be the one to break the news, but there is not a single sliver of parchment or piece of dried animal skin left that has a single letter of the original words that make up any of the books of the NT.  What we have left to read are copies of copies of copies of copies and rarely do the copies match word-for-word.  There is powerful evidence that the famous story of Jesus absolving the woman's sin by saying, He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, was added in the fourth century.  Likewise, in the oldest and best manuscripts of Mark, the book ends at Chapter 16,  verse 8 (if memory serves).  There again is strong indication that Mark was added to later in order to make it more in keeping with the orthodox views that developed much, much later than the first century.

        The gospels were not written by the people with their names on them (they were illiterates and spoke Aramaic, while the books are written in Greek) - this is so well known in academia (even Christian academia) as to be embarrassing to have to point out to you.  No one knows who authored the original gospel books, but they have been dated to no earlier than 35-40 years after the supposed death of Jesus, with the book of John penned around 95-105 C.E., some 60-70 years after the fact. 

        The only NT books whose author is known are the letters from Paul, and Paul was not a first-person witness to Jesus but only someone who claimed to see a vision that he interpreted as Jesus.  All other accounts of Jesus were at minimum second hand retelling of oral accounts, and were not written by anyone who had seen Jesus, lived at the same time as Jesus, or had ever heard him speak.

        Sorry, but the evidence really is lacking.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You see, even this information is open to interpretation!

          How many manuscript pages/pieces have you (personally) studied, and researched to conclude you opinion?

          My guess is NONE!
          Like most people, you took someones word for it. You trusted someone else to tell your THEIR interpretation of the evidence, and you believed it, and are now, repeating it.
          Now, that's ok, we all do it. Myself included. The question is, do you have the correct interpretation?

          The big difference between believers (Christians, in particular) and non-believers, is they have personal experience to back it up. Sure ist's subjective, but that's the nature of faith.

          As to your point about the writers, I let one short quote speak for itself.
          Luke 1;1
          1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.a 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.

          Heres a longer summary of my point:

          http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible   (I expect you will dismiss this as a religious site, and therefore biased. But, isn't that the case the other way also?)

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, I don't think so.

            I think Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus is a decent, unbiased look at all of this - unbiased in the sense that all sides are presented fairly and accurately.  A Christian can read that and come away convinced that Jesus was a real person and I can read it and remain doubtful.

            That there have been historical "liars for Jesus" is without doubt and the extreme need to believe this story of course has colored all of it, from the earliest manuscripts right up to today.   That doesn't mean that none of it was not based on one or more people (I'd say "or more") wandering about preaching messianic tales.    It does mean that there have been not enough critical eyes - as that article says "It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work".

            Somewhere up above someone used the word "degenerate" to describe anyone who questions the historical accuracy of Jesus.   Honestly, that bothers me far more than those who just blindly swallow it all up as truth.   As I have said many times, it's a nice story and the philosophy has value no matter what its origin.  It's obvious that people want to believe it and that's fine.  But to say that someone is "degenerate" for questioning something that plainly is muddled at best is really ugly.

            Sigh.  Somehow characterizing doubters as "degenerate" doesn't fit that philosophy well, does it?

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, it doesn't.
              It certainly wasn't me that said it, either.

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, it definitely was not you.  I forget who and don't want to look back and give any more attention to the ugliness.

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.)

            aka-dj,

            Don't you wonder why this particular "careful account" in Luke does not match the "careful account" found in Matthew? 

            (Like most people, you took someones word for it. You trusted someone else to tell your THEIR interpretation of the evidence)

            You misunderstand the difference between fact and interpretation.  It is fact that there is not a single piece of surviving manuscript from any book of the New Testament.

            Why there are differences between the surviving copies is a matter of interpretation.

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They should also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth and (to assuage their bruises after that) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

              I'm sticking with myth, possibly seeded by one or more actual wandering preachers who might even have used the name.

          3. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (You see, even this information is open to interpretation!)

            aka-dj,

            Just because there is room for interpretation doesn't mean stupid people and intelligent people can both examine the same data and form equally reasonable and rational conclusions.

            Before one can form a reaonable and rational conclusion, one must be aware of what that entails.  If one doesn't know, one cannot know which side offfers the best conclusion, so one is forced in that situation to either guess or take the advice of others.

            And that, dear aka-dj, is how heirarchy in churches was born - with a bunch of sheep trusting the shepherd for instructions because they couldn't figure it out for themselves.

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is not how I came to know the truth.

              It was Jesus that transformed my life, not some church hierarchy.

              Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. (or worse yet, not looking at all.)

              1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It might have been your meditation and thoughts and focus on your vision of Jesus which helped you to change your life.

                But Jesus has been dead for 2000 years.  He was human!

                Believe what you like, but you will never convince me of your beliefs.  And don't, please don't, come back at me and say "Jesus will save you."  He will not.  He is now as dead as he was the moment after his death.

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No such meditation ever took place.
                  Neither have I had a vision of Him. In fact, he was not on the "radar" when I was searching.
                  I wrote about my conversion in my story of faith. (no self promotion intended).
                  That's only half the story.
                  He was human, but also divine. He was dead, but is alive. I'm sure you are aware that the whole Gospel message is rooted and founded on these two truths.


                  I wouldn't say that to you, especially knowing that you were once in the church.

                  But, on the point of Him being dead, well, dead people don't transform peoples life.
                  Mate, even living ones can't do that. They can impact you to some extent, but not transform. smile

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your last paragraph was thought-provoking. smile

                  2. vector7 profile image61
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well done. . .

                    Very..

                    smile

              2. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This discussion reminds me of watching an old Johnny Weismuller movie of the enthusiastic new American doctor having to be rescued by Tarzan after trying to explain in English to the Swahili-speaking savages why the witch doctor was wrong...some people do not have the ability to get it.

              3. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did he, now?
                So you are like the Paul or tarsus, who got revelation directly from Jesus, with out the aid of bible, the book written by Church people(evangelist) and edited by them?
                Why he chose only a few like you and not everyone?

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It is a gift offered to all mankind.

                  But that gift doesn't mean much to the person receiving it until he knows it is for him/her,then of course its helpful to open that gift and see whats inside wink

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    More correctly, its a curse, but as longs as humans are animals it will do fine.

                    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I am not cursed ,I am blessed and its all good to me -woof woof wink

                      1. 0
                        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Your blessing is a curse to mankind [womankind as well smile]. It stifles thought/reason.
                        On second thoughts, it may be a blessing, cause animal brain is better equipped to survive than human brain.

      12. 71
        SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

        How can someone who does not know or acknowledge God have any understanding of Gods inspiration or fulfilment of his plans through man? To claim that Jesus did not exist when their is evidence is the true intelligence of the Atheist. Every inch of scripture has been backed up from King Herod to Pilate. All the gospels are the same except some add to the account but none take away from it. Those who argue this case and ignore it have no intention of acknowledging anything. Their only goal is to remain blind and demand that everyone else must go blind as well. Honestly we get it, your an Atheist and you believe in nothing, why would we be surprised.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Honestly we get it, your an Atheist and you believe in nothing, why would we be surprised.)

          SanXuary,

          I am a realist, and I demand objective evidence for what I believe.  What is it you base your beliefs on, the secrets the priest whispers in your ear while his hands roam?

        2. the lone gunman profile image60
          the lone gunmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          SanXuary: well stated

        3. autumn18 profile image67
          autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not all atheists claim Jesus did not exist. Jesus existing isn't proof of the existence of God.

          1. georgethegent profile image60
            georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly. Thank you!!!

      13. 71
        SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

        You demand objective evidence? There is an entire World of evidence that you deny because your only agenda is to be an Atheist. Today's argument for God suffers from the same issues and those issues are people and their agendas. They are in constant conflict of man and his desire to control his destination on Earth and to hold influence over its outcome. Instead of learning and following Gods plan and his destination for your soul and nothing this World has to offer in temporary outcomes. When you reach down to nothing you appear human and such responses are predictable as well as their outcome. I believe and have a million questions that may not even exist in the Bible but the Bible is where I start. You refuse to see it as having any substance and claim nothing as an argument for your disagreement. Even if I did not believe the Bible would provide sound advice on how someone should live their life. Even Buddha who was an Atheist still had sound beliefs and principles on how to live a better life. In fact I believe that man kind is constantly trying to live within the same principles as God intended but confused by other men who choose Earthly agendas over Heavenly goals they become corrupted and simply replace God with there own ideals. Buddha was trapped by Hindus on one side and Muslims on the other and decided the hell with them both and any concept of their being a God. I am no Buddhist but as a Christian I at-least do the research and if I choose to argue I do not deny the facts.

      14. calpol25 profile image75
        calpol25posted 4 years ago

        I am not sorry to say this but one thing I have noticed in the forums and its getting really boring and tedious now - Religious extremists starting threads attacking Atheists or homosexuals etc - Then Atheists & Homosexuals extremists start threads attacking Religious people. Is it just me or can you all just agree to disagree and find something else to talk about because many people on hub pages are actually avoiding the forums. This is because they are so fed up with all the extremist BS from all sides of the equation that cant agree and are to busy fighting amongst themselves.

        Not all religious people hate atheists and homosexuals only ignorant extremists

        Not all Atheists hate religious people - only ignorant extremists.

        Not all Homosexuals hate - Atheists and Religious people- only ignorant extremists (and yes they do exist in the gay community. Before any one asks.)

        Now I know that many of you want help each other see your way, but face it not everyone wants too, so agree to disagree, now there are some threads that get put on the forums that no one even looks at, and people are asking simple questions that many of you will have answers too that are nothing to do with religion. They dont even get looked at or answered because you are too busy fighting each other over "Who is right and Who is wrong?"

        If you are so intent on helping then why dont you put aside your differences and take a look at some of the other threads, there is one with some one going through domestic violence and I am shocked that no one here is willing to help or post, so please put aside your differences and help others not by preaching but by listening.

      15. Mark Pitts profile image60
        Mark Pittsposted 4 years ago

        That would be the highest % of those who bothered to test. It is at least a possibility that atheist have a greater need to prove to themselves that they are smart, so they take more test to prove it. Religious people are more common, but also simply don't have the need to prove they are okay. It's not God's reasoning. but a flaw built into the research. A bias that is inborn to atheist. They can't help themselves.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol

        2. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, it wasn't. People who were being tested were chosen from all aspects of society and in several different countries. Researches take bias into consideration. It's not a bias. It's actually fact!

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            !

            Yeah!

            !

            lol....

            cute

            smile

      16. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago

        Gets the popcorn out and pulls up a chair wink

      17. 71
        SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

        Perhaps we would not have these discussions if one liner Hubs inviting a discussion did not exist. The word Jewish means one who argues with God. So argument was part of the plan to begin with. None of this is about hate but the argument to research a answer other then listing human failure. Science wanted to know how the Galaxy stayed together. The answer is dark matter, something to small to be measured or seen. This makes perfect sense to me because there is no such thing as nothing. None the less I am puzzled how we can believe in something like this but not God. This dark matter is only a theory, just like parallel universes, dimensions and the list goes on. So we either make it up as we go and believe in theories or we have an open mind to many different possibilities. No the Bible does not answer such questions but it seems to be more focused on the possibility of having a soul.

      18. MrMaranatha profile image86
        MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago

        It does not take any more Inteligence to be an Atheist than it does to be A Christian...

        What it takes to be either... is FAITH.

        Atheism is a Faith Based Decision.. Just Like Theism.

        The typical mainstreem definition of "Evolution" is inclusive of the phrase "Without inteligent design"  which is just as Unprovable as the existance of God is.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don't be silly.  Atheism is based on a lack of evidence for Theism.  There are only two choices: God(s) exist or they don't.  With no evidence for the existence that leaves the decision that they don't exist as the really plausible one.  Faith does not enter into it, only reason and evidence (or lack thereof).

          Similarly, "without intelligent design" is another way (in terms of evolution) to saying "randomly".  That term has a particular meaning, as anyone that has studied the mathematics of probability understands.  If you choose to believe that a God is controlling the roll of a dice to produce the exact same results as random chance that would be your choice, but it is not reasonable to demand that everyone else include the words "without intelligent design" when discussing such matters.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nope:

            Faith in evolution and man.

            smile

        2. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Atheism is a Faith Based Decision.. Just Like Theism)

          Mr. Maranatha,

          Fact is, one either has good reasons for what one believes or one does not.  Accepted mainstream religion is the only area where humans are not condemned as stupid for strong belief unsupported by evidence, while followers of religions that are not "mainstream" are still condemned as stupid or crazy or both.

          1. Pcunix profile image92
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, of course.  Look at what the Scientology folks had to go through before they got  big enough to join the club..

      19. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago

        There is no intrinsic connection between atheism and belief in evolution. Hundreds of millions of Christians believe in evolution.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes they do -thankyou wink

      20. 71
        SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

        Who really cares, heaven or hell those who our going to hell are dead. I could careless to even argue, the hell with their souls I hope they suffer. I have dealt all my life with this garbage and their uselessness please let them die and become fertilizer. I do not care about your soul let Armageddon arrive. I hate you tortured souls who torture others and please make me a martyr. I will never stop or care, let the devil send me one more person to kill me. The hell with the stupid and idiots who argue no point. If you believe in any thing why not try the Devil? Are you afraid? let me hook you up and show you where to go.If you do not believe in anything what are you afraid of? Give your soul to Satan, go find out for yourself, wimps of no intelligence. Its not very Christian of me but then what is? Got a label for me I have a few words for you. GOD DAMNED me for sure but I wait for his vengeance and it is coming soon no help from you I am certain. Just a human standing here taking more crap then you our made from.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Someone needs a nap wink

      21. 71
        SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

        I will take a nap for eternity.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No thats not a nap ,thats a sleep wink

          Hey why ya so depressed? whats up

        2. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don't let us keep you, then.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Ok that was wrong (why did I really laugh out loud then)

      22. sarahmkirkpatrick profile image77
        sarahmkirkpatrickposted 4 years ago

        I have read a few times that people feel like they are being 'tested' for their faith by God in order to make it into heaven. But to what extent does it go from standing up for what you believe and cross over to fighting because you are scared to let go of the idea in case their is a God? Many people say that they believe in God 'just in case'.

        Also, the entire topic of this thread was atheists being grouped as one belief? How do Christians feel about being grouped? Christians are the ones with the psycho brothers and sisters.

        Want to be grouped with my Aunt? A die hard Christian who believes that dinosaur bones were planted underground to test people? Since apparently the world is only a few thousand years old? So are you all the same?

        I admit that I lose my mind and let my emotions get the best of me when I talk to people of religion because I simply can't understand how they allow this fantasy to cloud their mind and kill people over it. But I can say that every individual is different and to be 'intelligent' is subjective.

      23. Dr McNair profile image59
        Dr McNairposted 4 years ago

        Mules occasionally must wear blinders to be able to focus on the path in front of them.  And that path is chossen by the master who holds the reains.  You will only see what your master wants you to see unless you remove the blinders of ego and selfish purpose.

        There were many who claimed to be Messiah and claimed to work miracles before and after Jesus.  But Jesus of Nazerath is by far the true triune God.  Proofs and refrences to His diety abound if you are not blinded by this world.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then, why don't believers remove their blinders?



          No proofs, no references. Sorry.

          1. Dr McNair profile image59
            Dr McNairposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some pets think their yard is the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth.

            1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image62
              AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              some people think their beliefs are the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth.

              It works both ways, no?

              cheers

            2. skyfire profile image74
              skyfireposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Some pets think that their master is awesome, loving and merciful than any other pets master. Ironically their master failed to write the books which are only readable by their pets  and instead he asked few favorites to write it to help other pets. So they go on preaching spree in every continent to spread the virus. That proves our point ---"Some pets think their yard is the totality of the universe and don't want to be bothered with the truth."

            3. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, Christians are just pets in a yard? lol

        2. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ***************************

          Out of the night that covers me,
          Black as the pit from pole to pole,
          I thank whatever gods may be
          For my unconquerable soul.

          In the fell clutch of circumstance
          I have not winced nor cried aloud.
          Under the bludgeonings of chance
          My head is bloody, but unbowed.

          Beyond this place of wrath and tears
          Looms but the Horror of the shade,
          And yet the menace of the years
          Finds and shall find me unafraid.

          It matters not how strait the gate,
          How charged with punishments the scroll,
          I am the master of my fate:
          I am the captain of my soul.

        3. Daekin profile image61
          Daekinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Score for theist biggots. Just like them to refer to atheists as incomplete, or half-blind mules. Kindly remove yourself from that high horse so you can see the world from a point of view not clouded by your theistic arrogance.

        4. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dr. McNair,

          This type of empty rhetoric may work from the pulpit to amaze and dazzle the choir, but do you sincerely expect to sway the public in a sectarian forum with nothing but clever-sounding but unwarranted allegorical analogies?

      24. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

        (There were many who claimed to be Messiah and claimed to work miracles before and after Jesus.  But Jesus of Nazerath is by far the true triune God.  Proofs and refrences to His diety abound if you are not blinded by this world)

        Likewise, once you remove the blinders of Christianity, scientific proofs and references abound that dead tissue cannot reanimate, "spirits" cannot cause pregnancy, and a human cannot live in the sky for thousands of years and then return to earth.

        However, speaking of mules, there is that flying mule that carried Muhammed to heaven and back.

        1. Dr McNair profile image59
          Dr McNairposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you are goin gto quote be, be honest and site me please.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You mean you actually stand by those statements?  I was trying to be kind.

      25. georgethegent profile image60
        georgethegentposted 4 years ago

        Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists? It probably is, three or four steps above the so-called christians who will believe almost anything.

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Very detailed in my investigations actually..

          Thanks for the false assertion though.

          smile

      26. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 4 years ago

        Hmm.. that guy failed to save his own life and ultimately failed to stand as a savior. Saying that he died for our sin is no different than saying Kim kardashian getting married for the sake of love.

      27. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 4 years ago

        I see certain one's humor is at the same level as the OP. lol

      28. Daekin profile image61
        Daekinposted 4 years ago

        http://daekin.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-become-an-atheist

        Not all of us are incoherent babblers.

      29. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago

        I like the Charles Baudelaire quote, “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist,” but my agnosticism dulls any alarm I might feel being trapped in this situation of  mutually conflicting, yet dependent conditions.

      30. georgethegent profile image60
        georgethegentposted 4 years ago

        "Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?"

        Grammar? Construction of heading? Question answered?

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Insult added to the original insult which resulted in the reasonable line of questioning.

          Question now answered correctly.

          smile

      31. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago

        I dropped by drawn in by the title of this thread - to find the same boring sheeple baaaing.

        When will fundamental religion come be treated like the mental desease that it is.

        1. Pcunix profile image92
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can't let that pass.

          I admit that some of what you read in forums like this sounds insane, but religion is not a disease of any kind.

          I had more to say, but I rambled on for a thousand plus words and then some, which nobody would ever read.

          I'll leave at this:  religion is irrational but there is nothing insane about that.  Some of the most important decisions we make in life are irrational.  I'm not a fan of religion, but it's definitely not insanity.

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well - as you can see I said fundamental religion - not religion per se.

            Sprituality is an essential part of humanity, and if religion is the way some people find it then what the heck.  But fundamental religion is just a shitty little parasite on the least intelligent and least well educated people, who deserve better from those they look to for help and support. 

            The constant stream of moron threads, that seem to come mostly from people who sign up just to post drivel here, just degrade the value of this site.

            1. Pcunix profile image92
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's still not insanity.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The definition of sanity that I like the best is that "when everyone around you appears to be insane then it is probably you" and when science, philosophy and reason appear insane, as they do to fundamentalists, then I suggest it is more insanity than simple stupidity.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think that would be an excellent thread topic, guys.

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It would surely lead to insanity.

                    smile

                    1. LewSethics profile image61
                      LewSethicsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Speaking and/or asking favors from imaginary beings, kneeling and begging for forgiveness from same, worshipping pieces of wood and cloth supposedly touched by some special person, and lets not forget torturing killing those less than perfect belief to save them from some worse fate, I think all these would qualify as insanity.

                      1. georgethegent profile image60
                        georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        I quite agree. It's always strange though, how your President and our Prime Minister are always seen as practising Christians. Where do they find the time to run the country - or are they having us on?

      32. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

        (What part of Allah being a pagan god before Mohammed do you not understand?)

        Obviously the part that you don't understand.  Just because there was someone named Jesus who is claimed to have been the messiah does not mean that everyone in Mexico named Jesus is related to him.  There is no correlation - see?

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, how many Allahs do you know of?

          "In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god."

          So we have a moon god titled Allah before Mohammed depicted with a crescent moon.  Sound familiar?  In fact,  the worship of the moon god Allah was the main religion in the Middle East before Mohammed.

          "Allah is found ... in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643)


          "The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called allah" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Houtsma, Arnold, Basset, Hartman; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1913, I:302)


          "Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406)


          "Ilah ... appears in pre-Islamic poetry ... By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry"
          (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Lewis, Menage, Pellat, Schacht; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971, III:1093)


          "The name Allah goes back before Muhammed" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:41)


          The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, I:326)


          Scholar Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University stated:



          "Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam: or, the Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of Mohammed, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p.102)

          http://www.investigateislam.com/moonGod.htm

          It's pretty interesting that Allah was one of the Meccan deities.  Don't Muslims make pilgrimages to Mecca?

          Mohammed grew up with the moon-god religion.  His fellow pagan Arabs
          considered Allah to be the greatest of all the gods.  Mohammed decided that he was going to decree Allah to be the only god.   So the pagan Arabs didn't object to this since Allah was their greatest god anyway but he wanted to influence the Christians and Jews, too, by saying Allah was their god, too.  However, no mention of Allah is made in either the Old or New Testament or Hebrew texts for that matter.

          I've got a quote here from WikiIslam:

          Islam is a monotheistic bastardization of the pre-Islamic polytheistic religion followed by the inhabitants of 7th century Arabia. Its pagan heritage is clearly evident.

          http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Pagan_Origins_of_Islam

          I think it should be clear to you now where Allah came from.   Mohammed knew damn well that Allah is a moon god.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I find it hilarious and hypocritical that Claire goes to such lengths to criticize other religions origins but refuses/denies her own. lol

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, so what is the origin of my religion, ATM? Why would I have a religion I didn't know the origin of? That's a bit silly, don't you think?  I was actually writing about the origins of my religion to angelars.  You must have missed it.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It goes well beyond silly, Claire.



                You mean, your version of it.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, then.  You give me the origin of Christianity.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are many alternatives, Claire, none of which you would probably entertain.

                    For example, it's origins could be simply the fact that ignorant people have a tendency to assign divinity to ordinary human beings.

                    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                      Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      A tendency that has lasted for well over 2,000 years and as strong as ever.

                      Now in a scientific world that would be a fact by now wink

                      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Religious indoctrination and ignorant people assigning divinity to normal humans is a fact.

                    2. Claire Evans profile image90
                      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Why would people assign divinity to Him without Him doing anything extraordinary? Can you give me an example what He would have done to be called divine?

                      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        It is believed He gave sight to the blind, but He never cured blindness. How divine is that?

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Claire,

            You would be well-served to study correlations and causations.  Just because the Nazis used a symbol that ancient Indians also used does not mean that Hitler was a reincarnation of Geronimo.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sorry you can't see the obvious.

      33. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

        What about pantheists?
        Don't we have any pantheist representatives here on HP?
        We should be more well-rounded, don't you think, instead of polarized?

        1. georgethegent profile image60
          georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We have heard nothing from the panentheists either. They will help us keep away from the polarisation that we are suffering from.

          1. georgethegent profile image60
            georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A little definition of panentheism.

            Matthew Fox writes: "As the ocean is in the fish and the fish are in God, so God is in everything and everything is in God." Theologians call this Biblical position "panENtheism," meaning literally, "all in God." Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which maintains that God is all, and all is God. Panentheism is not yet in most dictionaries, but with Google listing over 8500 pages with the word, perhaps its time has come!

        2. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          At least Pantheism makes more sense.  So, there you have it, Mighty Mom:  "We need MORE rational pantheists in the 'Religion & Philosophy' forums as opposed to the abundance of pantywaist panises without reason."  Sounds good to me...

      34. charles wade profile image61
        charles wadeposted 4 years ago

        Funny!  And they call believers insane.

        1. georgethegent profile image60
          georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think that I'll stick with atheism Charles. The religious freaks will always be around, getting up our noses but there is no god to follow them!!!

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What right do you have to call anyone a freak?

            1. mischeviousme profile image61
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The same right religious folk have to call him a Godless heathen. It works both ways.

              1. Pcunix profile image92
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Mmmmm...

                No, I don't think so.  As an atheist, I am  "godless" and although adding "heathen" is somewhat redundant, it isn't insulting.

                There certainly are religious freaks -  I'd say those Westboro Baptists qualify.  But the great majority of religious people are not like that and enough of them are truly wonderful people that I think the "freaks" get cancelled out (not that I wouldn't like to see them gone, of course).

                So George is correct that the freaks will always be around, but that could easily be taken as insulting to all relgious people.

                1. mischeviousme profile image61
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I've seen plenty of good religious folk and I've had my fill of the thumper freaks but to them, we're just as freaky. I'm not religious nor am I atheist thus, I see it clearly from both sides.

                  I don't even know where I fit in. I hate religion, yet I'm not an atheist. Does that make any sense to you?

                  1. Pcunix profile image92
                    Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hard question to answer..

                    I don't see "hating" religion except as hyperbole when annoyed by some particular excess.  As a general statement, though, I don't see that as sensible.

                    1. mischeviousme profile image61
                      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I Can't say I hate religion so much so as see it as a form of social elitism. Again, you can see it from both sides. Many atheists see themselve's as better, as do many religious. This applies only on an individual basis, I'm not trying to generalize.

                      1. Pcunix profile image92
                        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Shrug.  I see myself as "better".   Most of us do.  Seeing yourself as inferior is not healthy.

                        I know that as an agnostic, you get annoyed by the certainty of atheists.  Get over it: we are annoyed by your wishy-washy inability to make a decision.   We are all annoyed when others cannot see what is very plain to us.

                        I get very weary of "You're OK, I'm OK" PC correctness.  I accept the fact that other people have different opinions from my own and I can even accept that in some cases they may be right and I may be wrong.  In other circumstances, I am fully confident that I am correct, and in those cases, I'm not going to pretend that I think their ideas are equal to mine.

                2. georgethegent profile image60
                  georgethegentposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for the support Pcunix!!! I must admit that both the believers and the atheists have their freaks amongst them but as an atheist I spot few of the atheistic freaks. The same will be true of the believers, they won't spot the same amount of freaks amongst themselves as we do but that's because we have more brains smile)

      35. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

        Agnostic & Atheists (damn, I hate all of these names & titles) generally come across as more intelligent simply because they think for their own selves and refuse to be brainwashed by others that don't walk in their shoes.  It gets old, with all of the people out there claiming to have unravelled the properties of the universe and know the so-called "only path" to enlightenment baloney...  However, there are religionists out there that are quite intelligent, but if I had to put my money where my mouth is, I'd bet that most agnostics & atheists generally have slightly better cognitive function, for example.  Please exclude me, however, because I'm smarter than all three (religionists, agnostic and atheists) because I'm none of the above, but my origin is top secret, of course.  LMAO!  Just kidding, I think...  neutral

        In all seriousness, I couldn't imagine science without religion and religion without science and imagination without science-fiction, etc.  It is all apart of the equation as the mind is a universe in itself; cheers!

      36. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

        (Turn to God if you want to start eradicating suffering).

        Claire,

        Turn to god - like Mother Teresa did?

        "Suffering is nothing by itself. But suffering shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift, the most beautiful gift, a token of love.”
        ― Mother Teresa, In the Heart of the World: Thoughts, Stories and Prayer

        You would eradicate this "wonderful gift"?  But I suppose Mother Teresa was not a "real" Christian....

        1. mischeviousme profile image61
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          She wasn't... She was a true human being, being true to her own nature.

        2. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You completely miss the point of what Mother Teresa was saying.  What comes out of suffering is a beautiful thing and sharing in someone's suffering is a beautiful thing.

          I don't think someone being shot to death is a beautiful thing.  Context is everything.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The greatest example from history of God taking the greatest evil and bringing out of it the greatest good was at the cross of Jesus Christ. No one will ever experience any greater depth of evil than that exhibited at the crucifixion of Jesus. It was Satan’s best strike against God. Because of the cross, Satan was defeated. Christ rose from the grave and defeated Satan and evil. Now we can declare that God causes all things to work together for His glory (Rom. 8:28).

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And what do Atheists have to offer as an answer, or solution?

              NOTHING.

              Oh, maybe education, since so many tout that as the answer to all our woes.

              As IF the world is educate-able, with all the greed of the wealthy. The last thing they will want is to spend their money to educate the poor, and other workers. Who else will they have left to produce the millions they now enjoy?

              Any other solutions people? hmm

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jist a thought ?    What  if everybody is wrong?  and when we all cross the finish line? what "IF" everybody recognizs just how wrong we ALL were?


                   There won't be nuttin left to do than to laff at ourself!   and  ????  ...
                everybody else?

            2. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely!

              People have often asked me how the Holy Spirit talks to me and to others who love Him.  Sometimes I will be inspired to write things, like what I have been doing.  Then it can be confirmed with "coincidences".

              I have been talking about the need for faith in order for Jesus to be able to heal someone on earth.  Winston quoted Mother Teresa and both he and ATM jeered about my take on suffering.

              Today I went to church and was quite astounded what one of the scriptures were.  It was about Jesus' healing and the topic of suffering.  There was even a Mother Teresa quote in the Bible Study section.

              Here are excerpts:

              "Jesus did not accept the view of suffering as a punishment from God.  God does not do evil.  God does good.  What we see in the Gospel is not so much an answer to the question "why suffering?" as Jesus' response to suffering.  He healed the sick and proclaimed the good news of salvation."

              "The problem of suffering became an opportunity for Jesus to show what God is like...by the way He gave Himself to the sick, He reveals to us the compassion of God in the face of human suffering.  The suffering of others is an opportunity for us, too (think of mother Teresa's quote.  We may not be able to cure, but it always without our power to care.  However, this is not easy because it means that instead of relieving someone's pain we have to be prepared to share it.

              "If you want a lamp to keep burning, you must keep on putting oil into it." - Mother Teresa

              (Taken from New Sunday and Holy Day liturgies - Year B by Flor McCarthy SDB)

          2. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am afraid it is you who are trying to 're-interpret' what M Theresa said.  She is clearly and uniquivocally talking about suffering as experienced within the passion of Christ, as magnification of her spiritual love if you like, I guess.  This idea of suffering in conjunction with spirituality is a very christian, even very catholic, idea.  You should go read a bit more before shooting from the hip with what you think about things you appear to know very little about.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are just repeating what I said.  Sharing in someone's pain is a beautiful thing because Christ shares in ours.  It teaches us to become more compassionate and more able to love.

              I think I'm right when saying I don't believe shooting someone to death is beautiful thing.  Do you disagree with that?

      37. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

        (You have no evidence of anything)

        getitrite,

        Your statement is inaccurate as one does not have to be an eyewitness to have valid evidence.  Secularists have tons of evidence of the causes and cures of different diseases, as well as evidence of the inability of claimed healings to do what they say they can do when rigorously tested.  There is indisputable evidence that the only writings of the bible are copies of copies of copies of copies, and not a NT word comes from an eyewitness or contemporary of Jesus.  The only evidence of Jesus and what he may have said is the worst kind of evidence, second and third hand accounts from biased sources.

        Many people choose not to accept these second and third-hand biased accounts as reliable, and those same people generally require objective, repeatable proof of healing claims.  That these people are reasonable about their belief should not be a cause of aggrevation - the theist needs to concentrate on offering objective, validatable evidence if the goal is to convert the rational-minded.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Winston, how do you know not a word came from eye-witnesses and contemparies? We only have copies of copies because none of the originals survived! The story of Jesus also existed in oral tradition. 

          My goal is to not convert the rational-minded.  I enjoy speaking about Jesus and most of the time I'm approached.  It is true I wouldn't speak with such confidence about what Jesus said if it was just the Bible I had to tell me all about Jesus, then I wouldn't know that much.  The Holy Spirit is alive and makes Himself known to all those who want Him.

          1. Quirinus profile image75
            Quirinusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Amen, Claire.  I would not be as confident defending Jesus by citing Bible verses.  I can only speak from personal experience and the insights or inspirations from the Spirit that have empowered my life.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely.  If I just had the scriptures, well, how can we say that Jesus really did say the things in the Bible?

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (Winston, how do you know not a word came from eye-witnesses and contemparies? We only have copies of copies because none of the originals survived! The story of Jesus also existed in oral tradition)

            Claire,

            Well, duh!  That is the entire point.  As much as you demand over and over "prove it", I would think you would ask for at least as much for your beloved NT writings - since, as you point out, we have no idea what the originals had to say because there are no originals left.

            Even assuming the copies are legitimate, the authors of the gospels are unknown and the gospels were written decades after the fact.  The best that can be said is that these writings are handwritten (and mistake filled) copies of copies of copies of copies of second or third-hand accounts of oral traditions.

            Hardly the makings of proper "proof".

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't need to prove anything to you.  Scriptures alone cannot be proof of what Jesus said because, as you say, we weren't there to hear those words.  In fact, why believe anyone in antiquity really said what they were purported to have said?   It could all be made up!

          3. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (My goal is to not convert the rational-minded.)

            Your goal is to convert the irrational?

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Lol.  My goal is not to convert ANYONE.

              It is just to plant a seed for people.

      38. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

        Some hubber called "Jomine" said, deep within this crazy thread:  "Science can perfectly explain that there is no god."

        LOL!  Well, there went your credentials, as that is obviously a very flawed statement - in all senses of the term.  All agnostics would obviously disagree, and most educated atheists would even be silent about that one, while the scientists just mumble to their self and pretend that was never said and the religious folks nearly defecate on their selves in response.  lol

        I'm not adhered to any organized religions, but I couldn't help but nearly fall out of my seat, when I read that hilarity of a statement.  Thanks for the laugh, Josmine.  You was kidding, right?

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As long as you are insane!

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I chose my name for bait, just for simple-minded folks like yourself that can't think of anything else; ha-ha!  Thanks for taking the hook, although I'm throwing you back into the water; blah...  big_smile

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              All psychotics says the same. Don't post too much, if they find you, they might even give you shock therapy!

      39. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago

        My goodness Claire sure has many feathers ruffled on here lol

        (But then again ,if none ofit is true,everybodys happy -right? )

        Wonder why..hmm


        Do hope posters attack the problem and not the person ,theres no need for putdowns or inuendo's wink

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well she does come out with some incredible statements and does not appear to entertain the idea that she could ever be wrong. A dose of humility works wonders for gaining respect.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Humilty is a commendable attribute,but then so to is courage wink in standing for what you believe.

            Personally for me if I attack the problem ,or topic, I am able to respect the persons character.

          2. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I may be wrong about many things but not the claim that Jesus is the son of God.  Imagine how egotistical HE must have sounded to claim He was the son of God.

            There are many people on this forum who claim the Jesus being the son of God is a fairy tale.  They don't entertain the idea they may be wrong but I don't see you people call them out for their lack of humility.

            It can be perceived as extremely arrogant to say for a fact that Jesus is not the son of God.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You answered it yourself, purported to be said, made up.

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I wasn't referring to the Gospels when I said it could all be made up.  I said that things that ANYONE in antiquity, like Alexander the Great for example, said or did that could all be made up since you hold the the Gospels to the same standard.

                Truth is, without the Holy Spirit, one could not know without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus said those things.  Since I know Him, I can say He said those things with confidence.  Not word for word, obviously.

                The nutter has spoken.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Lot many things about Alexander might be added up later, we cannot know. We can only be sure that there was a king like Alexander at that time of history who went to war with Persia, India and so many countries which changed the course of history. What exactly he said, or how exactly he did was anybodies' guess.
                  Regarding Jesus, who is supposed to be famous figure(multitudes followed him), we have absolutely nothing. No antiques, no sayings. About a man, we are not even sure lived, what he said was pure guess work. Just like the gospels authorship were thrust upon his supposed disciples, all sayings attributed him was put forth by clever charlatans, for their on end.



                  Truth is , anyone who wanted to gain authority over others had invoked the names of god and spirit. You might remember that Popes used to do it very frequently and which was a partial cause for protestant-inism.
                  As a side note; no spirits exist(by the very definition) and anyone who claims that they have seen or talked to non-existent beings are said to be hallucinating.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Lol, there is far more written about Jesus than there was about Alexander the Great. 

                    Historians cite the following evidence for Jesus’ existence:

                    •    Archaeological discoveries continue to verify the Gospel accounts of people and places they record, the latest being Pilate, Caiaphas and the existence of first-century Nazareth.

                    •    Thousands of historical writings document Jesus’ existence. Within 150 years of Jesus’ life 42 authors mention him in their writings, including nine non-Christian sources. During that same time period, only nine secular authors mention Tiberius Caesar; only five sources report the conquests of Julius Caesar. Yet no historian denies their existence.[53]

                    •    Historians, secular and religious, readily acknowledge Jesus Christ has influenced our world more than any other person.

                    After investigating the Christ-myth theory, the great world historian Will Durant concluded that, unlike the gods of mythology, Jesus was a real person. [54]

                    Historian Paul Johnson states that all serious scholars acknowledge Jesus as real. [55]

                    Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”[56]

                    http://www.y-jesus.com/index.php

                    How can you think that the NT isn’t even considered an historical document?   And of course we have the writings of Tacitus, Josephus, (not the interpolated parts), Roman historian Phlegon, Suetonius, etc.  To say there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus is asinine.

                    The main surviving sources testifying to Alexander the Great’s existence was written between three hundred and 5 hundred years after his death by Greek authors.

                    Here we have gospels that were written 30 years after the death of Jesus yet that isn’t considered historical evidence.  Not to mention what outside accounts wrote about Jesus.

                    This is the problem I have with people.  They believe people of antiquity existed with scant evidence but think that Jesus didn’t exist despite the wealth of information we have.

                    You can believe spirits don’t exist.  It means nothing to me.

                    1. 0
                      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      First, the first non-christian writer Josephus, even if we concede that paragraph was written by him, was not a contemporary of Jesus. Most others wrote about Christians, not Jesus.(Christians obviously has an angle, they always said they would lie for jesus). There is no contemporary that has seen Jesus  including St. Paul.
                      It is not Jesus, but Christians that have changed/affected history. At the supposed time of Jesus there were various christian sects like Nazarites, Essene,Gnostic..
                      Regarding Alexander there are various archaeological findings that suggest his existence. Again if such a person never lived historians will never be able to explain the post Alexander dynasties in Egypt and the turbulence in India/middle east....
                      Gospel is just like any other historical fiction, it mentions some real persons and places, but at times mistakes the geography and mentions things nobody could ever have known..

                      1. Claire Evans profile image90
                        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        If every historian dismissed figures of antiquity because of no contemporary sources, very few would be considered to have existed.  What contemporary to you believe should have written about Jesus?

                        Let me prove my point.  Let's take Pluto for example.  People believe he existed but none of his records have been preserved and no contemporaries wrote about him.   The earliest copies of his so-called writings are dated back to 900 AD.



                        I think you need to take in account the status of a person who had contemporaries writing about them.  There were contemporaries of Caesar who wrote about him because he was obviously of high status.  Who was Jesus? A carpenter and an obscure religious teacher.  Should the Romans have written about such a figure?

                        If you claim that only Christians changed history, then you need to prove the founder didn’t exist and I don’t think you can. 

                        “Again if such a person never lived historians will never be able to explain the post Alexander dynasties in Egypt and the turbulence in India/middle east....”

                        That’s like me saying if Jesus didn’t exist the calendar wouldn’t be based on BC and AD.

                        It’s just silly not to believe in Jesus’ existence.