WHY DO CHILDREN STILL STARVE IN AFRICA IF THERE IS A GOD.
I have read a number of views here from both Atheists and Believers especially with regards to starving children in Africa.
First of all let me start by saying that I am African, born, bred and raised in Africa. When we speak about Africa and its problems you must understand that God has nothing to do with it. Africa is one of the richest places on earth. Our people believe that we did not develop so many things in the past because there was no need for it. as necessity is the mother of all inventions. Africa has an abundance of food and in cases where there isnt there is the land which is rich and fertile, we have good weather so there is a lack of need for massive structures and prior to colonialism there was respect for animal life. We did not kill animals except for when it was needed. Africa in a lot of ways is the cradle of life for the world.
The problems in Africa are complex but I can assure you they were not caused by God. They were started by colonialism, extended by slave trade and have continued by racial discrimination. Every single one of these is cause by men such as myself. When Barack Obama became president it was a big deal that a black man was elected. This feeling was not developed by God it was done by people. African president who were taught corruption by colonial masters have for centuries plundered and stolen its resources for their own good and starved their own people. Africa is in trouble because of people and not because of God. God by nature has given us free will and as such will not deny us of the consequences of our choices. When a king/president rules with terror do the people not suffer.
Look to yourselves and see if you ever learnt anything from the 1st or second world war. Millions of people died. Did God cause this? How about global warming, Did God cause climate shifts?
More important than blame what have you done about it? I can honestly say that in all my years in Africa I have never seen one so called NGO or charity asking for £3 a month to help children ever.
I am happy for the girl that got to go to disney land but I also know that even in the bible God did not always come down from heaven himself to make a change in the life of his people. He sent someone to deliver them. Look at Moses, Nehemiah, David, Habakuk and Jesus (who walked as a man).
To my fellow christians be careful not to miss what that really means and my fellow Atheist be careful to speak about things you really do not understand but have only seen from the media. God has nothing to do with problems in Africa. Africa is damaged by people. To borrow from a saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
When you refuse to feed others when you have enough you have starved him (not God), When you refuse shelter to a friend (you have made him homeless) not God. God answers prayers through people in a lot of cases so do not say he doesnt. I have so many testimonies to share but not enough time as I am only passing by.Look here...
http://worldhunger.org/harmfuleconomicsystems.htm
The World Hunger Organization agrees with you and so do I. That isn't the point of the argument, though, which instead is that many believers claim God intervenes in our world and they are only too happy and grateful to thank Him for it. These acts of good faith on His behalf are tales of the magical opening up of a gridlocked boulevard in order to let one special Christian get through it, to finding their lost car keys. These tales of magic and whimsy have both entertained and raised hackles on these forums.
So, if believers are going to praise their gods for intervening in their lives, we can conclude God is just far too busy finding lost car keys, or He simply ignores the plight of the starving.
Yes, we know the cause of everything on the planet is from men, that's the point entirely.
Gods don't do bad things, they don't do good things, they don't do anything at all. The argument as to why they don't do anything is another story.
You are contradicting yourself. Gods do not answer prayers in a lot of cases, or in any case.
Which prayer do you know for sure did God answer for you? How do you know God answered it, did He tell you Himself?
Then, your entire post is meaningless and serves only as a stark contradiction.I have seen suffering you probably cannot relate with. I have seen poverty that is in stark contrast to anything shown in the media on TV. I have seen racism you probably only watched or heard about in Django or roots and yes I still believe God exists.
You asked how I know God answered my prayer. I know the difference between luck and chance and an answered prayer as there is order to an answered prayer.
Also I have seen the lame walk, I have seen the blind receive sight. Even I myself have been healed of Asthma. I do not believe just for that reason I have also seen drug addicts suddenly give up drugs and peoples lives restored. This is not chance and no matter what you believe I know that ultimately I will not succeed in convincing you that God exists any more than anyone can convince me that Buddha is God. I can only throw light on certain areas. Ultimately if you will be converted God will do it himself.
If you want to really know and be an agnostic and not just form a conclusion that over a billion people are crazy then ask and be open minded. The argument about not seeing God is a silly one to me as just because we do no see oxygen does not mean it does not exist or we do not need it to be alive....there is order to the universe and everything in it. there is a divine order that is all love, one that is not, and the current one that is a combination of both. which do you prefer? I for one strive for the order that is all love
it is free will choice that creates what is in the universe. Choice come through thoughts, words, deeds, feelings and beliefs. The subconscious feelings and beliefs are the soul strength or weakness in each of us.
We must desire to learn to do better with each of our choices of free will.Just because you want a loving God doesn't mean there is any God at all. You can't wish it and make it happen. Reality check.
...did I mention the word God? I have faith in that order of love.
I would have no problem, though, calling it God, because I recognize humanity's problems with defining God and I don't have those problems. So, by example I am trying to make my point. We see thedivinie natural order in nature that has not been corrupted by humanity's abuse.OH - how wrong you are. I have wished it and it was granted. You have fought it and so it will never happen. When God acts, he acts through me. When you choose to ignore God - you choose your own poor destiny. No people in my area of control have ever starved. None have ever died due to lack of care. You wish to spread viral disease through your radical attack on God. However, those who follow the sower of righteousness prosper and live. There are many manmade problems in Africa - but - if everyone worked through the principles of the Lord, then the problems of Africa would cease. You and others who deny the Lord are the reason for such travesty - because - you declare yourselves in control and then find that you cannot control it, so you then have to blame someone. Only the devil is to blame - but - you lack the courage to find the spirit to do so. God forgives you for being so blind and so do I.
That you have "have wished it and it was granted." I have little doubt. Just as I have little doubt that you have wished it and it was NOT granted, but of course we'll ignore those times. They don't support the desired conclusion and are thus not to be mentioned or considered.
But..."God forgives you for being so blind and so do I". I expect that kind of thinking from believers, just as I expect them to claim that believers will always prosper and live even as the ignore the millions of believers that neither prosper NOR live.you are an incredible disbeliever who creates your own doubt by proclaiming that which you cannot understand. I have never had a wish NOT granted because I have not wished for that which I do not need. You on the otherhand indicate that many negative things have impaced your life and so you continually seek the negative in all things. Christians will always prosper because we know that we can prosper by wishing only for those things we really need for life. We will always live better by enjoying what we have, not by being jealous of others.
There is a very thin line between what one considers their needs for life and their jealousy of the needs of others.
I think the term is, "Keeping up with the Joneses", which has become the American dream.
And boy, do we ever see Christians trying to prosper...
In other words, you're saying Christians are magical wonderful people.
But in reality, Christians are just regular homo sapiens, suffering from psychotic delusion....
delusion of gran·deur (grnjr, -jr)
n.
A delusion in which one believes oneself possessed of great importance, power, wealth, intellect, or ability.I guess you are still stating your opinion as if it is a fact.
In a case like that I think the same term
delusion of gran·deur (grnjr, -jr)
n.
A delusion in which one believes oneself possessed of great importance, power, wealth, intellect, or ability.
Applies to Atheist. Sine we know that lack of sight,touch, taste of something does not make it non existent (e.g oxygen) then we can say that by your same logic Atheists suffer the same.
NB: By your own conclusions not mine.Ever feel the wind blow? You just touched oxygen. Also nitrogen.
Also, I thought you Christians were supposed to believe that the atom is a lie of Satan and that left-handed people are demon-possessed?Where in the name of all that is good did you get this " I thought you Christians were supposed to believe that the atom is a lie of Satan and that left-handed people are demon-possessed?
If we couldn't taste or touch oxygen, we'd all be dead.
Thats besides the point. The only point is that just because you cannot touch it or taste it does not mean it does not exist. Its existence goes beyond the natural abilities to see, taste, feel, touch and hear.
This is my only point on the matter so by the same logic the inability to see,taste,feel,touch or hear (not saying that christians dont but at least it is safe to say Atheist dont) God does not prove non existence. It only proves exactly what it says, that YOU (an individual) cannot see, feel, taste, hear or touch God and no mare than that.
This then means it is an opinion you hold and while you are adult enough to have your own opinion it does not make it a law unto itself or an Absolute. Your opinion of an event or phenomenon can be respected as that which is uniquely yours but it does not make it the truth by which all man must live by and if not they should be classed as a fool.
Do you understand?
For me it is okay not to believe in God. Salvation in God was presented to me as a choice. One I took with free will and I will not wish anything else upon another person, lest the cross be emptied of its power.But, we can touch and taste oxygen, so it is entirely the point.
No, it doesn't.
It certainly doesn't prove existence, either. Hence, you still have no point.
Yes, and I cannot see, feel taste, hear or touch the invisible purple dragon living in my garage.
It is a false premise that you hold.
No, that was gibberish.
Crosses have no power.The term "cross of Christ" is not literal. It is a bible statement used in this particular statement (which is relative) to mean let the power of God not rely on my ability to speak eloquently.
Also when speaking about tasting oxygen what in all that is good are you talking about? When did you taste oxygen? Thank goodness I have the same breath you do. I have never tasted oxygen.
When talking about touching oxygen what are you talking about? Are you confusing the wind with oxygen? You can feel the wind and when it mixes with dust you can even see it but I am talking about you in a closed room with nothing but oxygen. You cannot see nor touch it. Hence the term "a chasing after the wind".
Please dont say silly things. It does not make you seem sensible and I think to some degree you are in fact a sensible person.
Like I said a few times here the question of God only applies to creation as unfortunately with everything else there are too many variables to conclusively state what is responsible (more so when arguing with an Atheist).
In other to know if God is real in a person life I believe that the person must truly experience him. There is no man in the bible that did not experience it so I will be foolish to expect an Atheist to believe just because I say so.
However the question about creation is an entirely different thing as no man can ever nor does anyone today (science or Christian) conclusively say they were there when it all happened so a thing such as an absolute proof of creation cannot exist (in the strictest sense of the word). It is a futile argument to have.
This means that at the very worst I cannot completely say science will never provide an unquestionable proof nor can science say that God is not possible or at the very worst that they will not reach the same conclusion eventually.
It is still up for debate till this day for that same exact reason.
I believe in God because I have experienced him and as such do not expect anyone to until they experience it. When it comes to creation, I accept the bibles account because (and only because) I trust the source as being credible and reliable.
Only an idiot argues that they know for sure how man got here based on anything except faith. Science uses other accounts to try to prove this but every excuse can stand on its own and thus not naturally debunk a creation by a God. (an example is natural selection). If you were not there when it all began then even your understanding is taken by faith.
It really is a simple matter of faith eventually. It always boils down to whose report will you believe Science, God or your own.You and I both taste oxygen every time we take a breath. The fact that it doesn't taste like chocolate marshmallows or fillet Mignon is irrelevant.
Oxygen is all around us at all times, there isn't any time you are not touching oxygen, even if you are swimming.
No, but you're confusing your invisible super being with oxygen.
Actually, that was a very silly thing to say. No, you haven't experienced any gods.
Many have already shown the Bible to not be credible or reliable.
That is why there are no idiots who don't accept faith as an argument.
And, you were there?
Science, obviously. God didn't put that computer in front of you.
Actually Oxygen has no taste and if you feel it does then maybe I am speaking to the wrong person.
It is a pointless argument to say it does. You can do a general google search about this and No I am not comparing God with Oxygen. I am pointing to the flaw in the logic that just because it is not picked by one of our 5 senses does not mean a thing does not exist. Thats all.It is really hard to believe you're still arguing about that. Do you have any knowledge of biology?
Although oxygen in its free form does not have a taste, that doesn't mean our taste receptors don't absorb oxygen every time we breathe.
God is not picked by any senses.
You seem to have no idea about how to think from a rational perspective. You have not, in the least, drawn a rational conclusion, but have just spouted irrational, impertinent nonsense. You have not shown anything pertinent about atheist in respect to my comment. You have only responded with elementary, childish, incoherent drivel.
I see you still have the tongue of an arrogant child. It would also make sense from an educated point of view to wait for a response.
You are not half as bright as you think you are and you really should stop stating your opinion as fact. I am very clear when it is an opinion and when it is a fact.
You don't understand me because you aren't very bright and maybe this is my fault for over estimating you. To be honest I confused you with another Hubber. Next time I will dumb it down for you to simple elementary terms that even a play school child will understand.
You really do not understand nor do you seem capable of logical reasoning. Logic must be generalizable or it seizes to be that and becomes nothing more than just an opinion. A simple elementary example might help you as more thought provoking ones seem to escape your thinking.
It is logical to say that the sun will be out tomorrow because everyday I have been alive the sun always comes out. (it might sometimes be shrouded by clouds but it is always there). It is an opinion if I say the sun does not always come out because I have spent a life time seeing it come out and this is not logic, as it is not generalizable but simply an opinion.
Every one of your statements are ill thought out and based on your opinion and while I respect a persons opinion I feel it must not be presented like facts.
This is evident in every court of law in the civilised world and why lawyers and judges always say"do not tell me what you felt but what you saw/heard/witnessed".
This is the way you talk. You lack logic, you are forceful, abusive, petty disrespectful and still only put out your opinion. Only people who were bullies or lack intelligence feel the need to use force to exert their own beliefs or opinions.
I never forced you to believe in my God as I said earlier. To believe in him you must experience him. God is real and to be real to anyone it must be true experience. At the risk of repeating myself again (which is tedious but appears necessary to you). No man in the entire bible believe just because, they all experienced him. I will not hold any Atheist to any other standard that I do not hold anyone else.
Your choice of childish words bordering on demeaning is a sad trait pointing to more about your life than I am sure you would like others to know. An unfortunate weakness in thinking clearly.
If you must speak, speak so that others can see reason otherwise be careful with what you speak so that if someone thought of you as a fool you will not open your mouth (or rather type) and remove all doubt.What an insulting and angry Christian. See, this I what happens when people spout psychotic nonsense. They get angry at the rational opposition, and submit scathing, emotional, libelous statements....trying desperately to destroy the character of the messenger. These kinds of rants show nothing but the knee-jerk, emotionally charged, and childish reaction of one not suited to argue from the angle of reason.....but one who has chosen to adopt the ad hominem mode to assassinate the character of the voice that they fear will lead them out of the bondage of slavery.....that they so readily embrace.
You have told nothing but lies about me. And your response shows your frustration....brought on by trying to outwit someone who is, clearly, out of your element. You have failed......miserably. This is beyond absurd.I apologise if I have confused you. I do not consider you on the same intellectual level at all. Not even by a large distance. I have explained my reason for my statement and dont want to do so a third time. You have submitted another hub reply with still no statement in it.
It is simply "verbal candy floss".I called no man an Idiot. I disagreed with him and called his statement verbal candy floss. How is that an insult?
I said I do not consider myself to be on the same intellectual level with him. This is not an insult but a statement. I do not consider myself to be on the same intellectual level with a lot of people Mr JMcfarland.
You really need to read what was said before to understand the meaning of the statement. We were having a civil argument till he said something I disagreed with and I still did not attack his person but his words.
Now the counter argument that could have been had would be that I am either deluded or right. It is a choice and more importantly what does this have to do with you?
You still have not said a single valid thing/ I was having an educated disagreement with getitrite and radman. You (JMcfarland) on the other hand I fear is not a possible task considering your present position.you didn't call someone an idiot? really? Allow me to quote you:
"You are not half as bright as you think you are and you really should stop stating your opinion as fact. I am very clear when it is an opinion and when it is a fact.
You don't understand me because you aren't very bright and maybe this is my fault for over estimating you. To be honest I confused you with another Hubber. Next time I will dumb it down for you to simple elementary terms that even a play school child will understand. "
JMcfarland
You really need to read what was said between the two before you start taking a side or giving your own two cents worth.
Read what was said before. It will give you closure. You seem more bothered than the person in question.i'm not bothered. I simply want you to abide by the rules as set forth in this forum. Criticizing your position or your beliefs is not an attack or an insult against you. It's a criticism of your beliefs, and if you continually put your beliefs out into the open, you should expect that they should be criticized and critically examined. I quoted what you said in response - and THAT is a personal insult, telling someone that they're not that bright and you're going to have to "dumb down" your responses in order to converse with someone is an ad-hominem attack against the person - not against their beliefs, arguments or statements. I'm sure they teach that in university, and you with your million plus degrees should know what an ad-hominem attack is, no?
Do you enjoy attempting to belittle others who disagree with you?
You have resorted to very personal attacks which is unexcept-able. Your entire post was nothing but a personal attack to belittle someone to prop up your own ego.
I would not be surprised if someone reports your post.I would understand if someone did report this, however, I did not report it, because it stands as evidence of the argument that I have been trying to get this hubber to see, about how the deluded mind can become completely demeaning to someone who disagrees with its psychotic beliefs. Troubling!
I reported it. Evidence or not, the entire barrage was a personal, ad hominem attack against someone just for disagreeing with his arrogant position of authority. It directly violates the Forum's rules and terms of service, and it should not be allowed to continue unchecked. I think that allowing personal attacks to continue unchecked sends the message that kind of behavior is acceptable, and it's not. Not at all. Maybe it will make other people rethink their positions of superiority - they're bound to the same rules and regulations as the rest of us.
You both have insulted my education and belittled me and now you say I insult you. I do not insult I only state my belief. I do not believe intellectually we are on par. That is a separate statement from a logical position. It is only my opinion and this not a fact nor is it binding. It is within your right to disagree.
When I say it is verbal candy floss. It is because it simply sounds sweet but has no value. Or is my opinion not as valued as your anymore.
The double standard here is ridiculous
Radman were you not the one that stated this "You seem to have no idea about how to think from a rational perspective. You have not, in the least, drawn a rational conclusion, but have just spouted irrational, impertinent nonsense. You have not shown anything pertinent about atheist in respect to my comment. You have only responded with elementary, childish, incoherent drivel."
Is that not insulting?
Or JMcFarland is that friendly educative talk?Rad Man did not insult you as a person. He criticized your arguments. Critiquing an argument or a response is not the same thing as calling someone an idiot - or are you so highly educated that you're incapable of spotting the difference?
No I didn't make that statement. You seem to be making that mistake frequently.
This is comical, but disturbing. You believe that you have demonstrated superior intellect when debating with the atheist on this forum, and you state that you have arrived at that conclusion....through logic????? Sorry but it is painfully clear that you have not demonstrated anything of the sort....in fact you have shown just the opposite. Respectfully, I say to you, the atheist here seem way above your range. I am actually starting to feel pity for your lack of understanding of the definition of intellect. Just look at the difference in some of the articulation between the atheist and yourself. Is English your first language?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole value that you have placed on your intellect seems to be derived from mere wishful thinking.
Daniel, From one Christian to another, this wasn't cool at all. I may not agree with Getit or any of the other atheists on some things, but to break down to personal insults is not cool and really shines a bad light on Christians in general. I understand how frustrating it can be at times to have your beliefs ridiculed (especially if you cannot separate yourself as a person from what you believe), but it should not (in my opinion) cause you to stray from that which you hold sacred to drop to a lower level than a level of respectful discussion, debate, and agreement to disagree.
Now I have taken time to calm down so I think I can explain without saying more than I need to. First of all, on several occasions in this forum I have been called several things such as an Idiot, a liar, incompetent and fool. I chose to ignore them all for a long time. It dawned on me that what is used here is more of bullying than conversation.
I am a Christian, I am not a coward. While Jesus preaches on humility please do not confuse this with cowardice.
Why is it okay for Atheist to come on here and call Christians names and it is not okay to reply in the same tone? Is there some moral inequality that we "as humans" must adhere to as long as we have a belief that counters theirs?
With regards to calling him stupid I will agree with one thing on that. No man is superior to the other and even though "I might feel" I am more educated it still does not give me the right to insult him so for that I genuinely apologise (this is of course more than I expect to get from him).
Now going back to the moral principle on the statement. I was called incompetent (JMcFarland: YOU AND YOUR GOD ARE INCOMPETENT) , a liar (Referring to my education) and a person that spouted irrational, impertinent nonsense as well as elementary, childish, incoherent drivel (from getitrite).
What is with the double standard?
Also I think it is important to state that a man finds his identity through years of experience and socialisation. We are who we are because of what we have been through and what we believe to be the lessons gained through it.
In essence what I am saying is that if I am trained to believe I am courageous, I will act courageous until either experience or life teaches me otherwise.
I find my identity in Christ, I do not separate myself from him and neither should I. When David took on Goliath he took Goliaths insults on God personally. He did not say "oh well its God that Goliath is speaking about and not me".
What about Jesus in the temple. Did he say , Oh well its not my house or did he say my fathers house? Why do you think he was angry?
What about Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Samson, Jeremiah, Samuel, Elijah (the list goes on)? Did they all say we dont care as long as its not me they insult, I am separate from God?
There is nothing wrong with getting angry, it is a human emotion and a healthy one if channelled properly.
You see Deepes Mind to understand Christianity an hold its belief to be true. It must first of all be true to you. I will not take it or accept it if a man was to insult my mother or my father. How much more if it was my "heavenly" father?
This is fundamentally what atheist miss and confuse with religious arrogance.
You see this is what is amiss in this entire conversation. A healthy respect for the other persons belief. I do not believe in Buddha but I will not insult Buddha. I can question the idea or the reasoning behind the following but to insult Buddha is to insult his followers.
You say you are a Christian and yet you separate yourself from God when it does not agree with social convention. They already think we are murders, back stabber and hypocrites. You do Christianity no favours when you do not defend your beliefs when your God is insulted. You do it no favour when you coward to a corner and say "please note I am not a part of those who get angry when God is insulted.
This is all I said and I still stand by as I know the topic here might get diverted again.
For me it is okay not to believe in God. Salvation in God was presented to me as a choice. One I took with free will and I will not wish anything else upon another person. However it is not okay nor will it ever be to insult something just because you dont believe in it. I do not insult any ones mother or fathers here so why should it be okay to insult mine?
I think Deepes mind you confuse "passion" with "anger".
NB: After all I have delivered and explained I think it must be said that I do strongly believe every man has their worth as long as they still draw breath and as such if I have insulted you personally I apologise. I apologised to JmcFarland when I kept calling her "MR" as I thought I was speaking to a man and did not know it was a woman.
This however does not take away from all the insults I have received and so many other Christians here.Atheists question our beliefs. That is what they do. I am not nor have I ever questioned your courage. Often times it takes a lot of courage to call yourself a Christian these days because of the stigma that is attached to Christianity. I applaud you for your stand.
I'm not saying it is ok for an atheist to call names. But ultimately, the Bible does call for us to turn the other cheek and not to retaliate in the same manner. But if you look at the example that Christ followed, worse was said (and done) to him and did he retaliate in kind? No. He simply did what he was to do and moved on. Now, we may not be Christ, But as Christians, should we not follow His example?
Again it's not ok, but to bring yourself to a point to where you fell you have to retaliate reflects on you because these actions take you away from following God's command to love your neighbor as yourself or to love those who spitefully use you. We are bound by the word to behave and act in a different manner because we do believe in God and the bible. The atheists are not bound by those guidelines because of their lack of belief. We are called to be in this world but not of it.
Sticks and stones, my friend
You are absolutely correct. A man does find his identity in all of the things that you mentioned. But if a person is secure in that identity, then he or she should be able to stand in that identity in the face of whatever comes his or her way and still be able to maintain composure in the face of opposition. Now, I am not questioning your security in your identity, but I am saying that if you have reached a point of security in your identity and beliefs, then whatever anyone says about your beliefs should not matter. Again, sticks and stones
Let me ask you this.. Do you believe that you channeled your anger properly by returning insults instead of directing that focus on continuing to find scripture or to find the words to back up and reinforce your beliefs? If you believe that, then I can understand your stance. If you don't believe it, then why return insults?
In that belief, if Christianity is true to you and you are secure in that truth, then you can defend that truth without anger no matter what others say about it. If people still cannot accept your truth, then walk away (Biblically... shake the dust from your feet).. Christ himself set the example when he was rejected at Nazareth.
I agree with this, but on another level. Fact of the matter is that there is a double standard here as well. Do you respect the Atheists' lack of belief in God? Have you expressed an understanding of where they are coming from regarding their lack of belief? Each of the atheists have actually stated how and why they do not believe as they do, yet they are attacked as being heathens and threatened with hell at every turn. I have even seen you yourself make comments against their lack of belief. How can you expect them to respect your belief but not offer respect for their lack of belief? I do not agree with their lack of a belief in God, but I understand why they lack belief and I even respect their lack of belief and their right to lack that belief.
Okay.. Here is where I tread lighter and seek to be understood. It appears that you are doing two things here: you are questioning my beliefs and Christianity and you essentially called me a coward. First off, I must point out a more than slight contradiction here. Your whole post has been about being insulted by atheists and how there is no call or reason to insult, then you turn around and make a comment (the one I am addressing now) that could be seen as insulting, and you made it to a fellow Christian and all i did was simply disagree with how you handled a situation all the while Calling yourself a Christian.. Now that I have addressed that, I will gladly address both of your concerns (questioning my Christianity, and my perceived "cowardice") but I will do them in reverse.
With my disclaimer, I am not saying that I am not part of those who get angry when God is insulted. It bothers me when people cannot hold a conversation without resorting to name calling. What my disclaimer is referring to is the fact that I separate myself from those who under the guise of "defending their faith" turn around and try to get the last word in by giving the Christian equivalent of saying "up yours" by leveling insults back at others (which you have done) or by "warning" them that they're headed for Hell. Am I condemning or judging them for acting in this manner? No I'm not. but I am expressing that I do not act that same way although I am still a Christian. That's what I separate myself from. Earlier, you mentioned humility and cowardice. So you call me a coward for being able to discuss things without appearing to get angry.. I call that humility. The fact that I am able to stand here and state my beliefs without calling another person's beliefs (or another person) stupid, irrational.. etc is (In my opinion) not only humble, but also shows a strength of security on my beliefs and position.
You state that I Do no favors when I do not defend my beliefs when God is insulted or when I "cower in a corner" and separate myself from those who think that the best way to defend is to offend? Do you believe you are doing God a favor by calling JM or Getitrite idiots (When the bible says to turn the other cheek also to shake the dust from your feet)? Better yet, do you think you are doing God a favor by questioning the belief of someone who proclaims and professes a belief in the same Bible that you do and has a belief in Christ as the savior? All I am going to say about this one is please reread Matt 7:1-5.
Now regarding your questioning my being a Christian but "separating myself from God when it does not agree with social convention". I am in no way, shape, or form separating myself from God. You cannot separate yourself from that which is within you. When I say that I separate myself from my beliefs, I mean that I am able to separate my emotions (flesh) from being able to discuss and rationally defend my beliefs. I am still very much passionate about my beliefs, but I am able to stand up for them and clarify myself and my position without compromising myself and my standards for behavior. There is a difference in defending yourself by standing your ground and holding firm to what you believe and defending yourself by attacking another in a like manner. Defending yourself be standing your ground means not trying to injure the other person while at the same time preventing them from injuring you and at the end still walking away with your head held high. Defending yourself by attacking basically means you are attempting to injure the other person the same way that they are attempting to injure you. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Now with this in mind, have my beliefs been attacked by the atheists?? Absolutely they have been. But the funny thing is that my beliefs in the best way to respond as well as my Christianity has been attacked MORE by my fellow Christians. The thing of it, Mr Prideland, is that in the defense of myself and my beliefs, I respond more to the statements that are in line with the topic at hand than in the so-called insult of my belief in the topic at hand. In doing this, I am thus able to continue to rationally clarify any statements that might have been misinterpreted and misunderstood as well as to break down my understanding of what a specific scripture means to me and my life specifically rather than simply quoting scripture as if it explains everything by itself. In addition to that, I also have asked questions for clarification of statements before I reply to them so that I know my response is correct in context to the conversation. I also express an understanding of what an atheist is trying to convey even as I express my disagreement with the overall sentiment. Ultimately, when I feel that a conversation has reached its end point, I simply make a statement of agreeing to disagree and moving on to the next topic while reminding them that they must do what they feel is best for their life and not what I feel is best for their life rather than falling into the stereotypical dogmatic stance of insulting them by telling them that I'm going to pray for them or by using specific scriptures as a weapon of attack. By doing this, I have thus earned their respect enough that they speak to me differently than they speak to other Christians (even though they still disagree) because I am showing the other side of Christianity (respect, love, and tolerance, and understanding of differences and the need to find God for themselves rather than have them conform to my way of thinking). JMcfarland herself has even come to my defense from attacks on my from other Christians. She also stated that if she were to ever return to a state of belief in God, it would be because I and a few others here have shown her a different side of Christianity that is not often seen. In my opinion, this is progress because ultimately, even though she still does not agree with me presently, I have at least opened her eyes to a different perspective.
I understand that you, myself, and others have been insulted, but we must remember that some of our actions are viewed as insulting to Atheists as well and for some of them their insults are retaliation for how they have been insulted by Christians and believers of other Religions.
Ultimately, by all means continue to handle people the way you think is best for YOU to handle them, but please do not judge me or any others for handling them in a different manner.There are many gods to choose from, not just one. Why did you choose that one instead of one of the others? Perhaps, none of them were offered to you? Perhaps, you choose the wrong god?
Your father is a human and is not of this discussion whatsoever, we are talking about an evil megalomaniac who happens to be completely invisible.
THESE WERE MY CLOSING WORDS
After all I have delivered and explained I think it must be said that I do strongly believe every man has their worth as long as they still draw breath and as such if I have insulted you personally I apologise. I apologised to JmcFarland when I kept calling her "MR" as I thought I was speaking to a man and did not know it was a woman.
I think this says all for now.
I understand that to belittle a person is not the way to go and this has nothing to do with Christianity. It is simply about being a decent person and when it comes to Atheism. I have said several times that I understand. I have explained in several posts why and how it is difficult to believe or accept something just because someone else says its true. I explained even recently again how I do not even expect anyone to be converted by my words alone as no one in the bible was converted by such but by actions. This was the last conversation I had with Radman.
You see when I talk we must remember we are humans. When an Atheist insults my God he pretty much insults my biological father after all I do believe God created me and while it is not acceptable behaviour it is also not acceptable for me to demean anyone. I know we are all equal in Gods eyes "educated or non educated". That is a matter for our pride and ego.
I have explained my position and you have explained yours and as such I respect your views (and dare I say even you as a person) and agree with most of it so I will not pour more fuel to the fire.The respect is mutual. This is partly why I even commented on it. The way you attempted to hold up was very commendable in the beginning, which is why it was disheartening a little to see that they had gotten to you.
Mr. Prideland, you seem to be setting up a scenario where we are not allowed to question your faith while debating faith without you taking it as a personal insult. In the post before this one you appeared to apologies while calling Deepes a coward for not agreeing with you. Wars and fights are caused by this attitude. Nothing about Deepes seems cowardice, the first thing he's done is tried to understand what he doesn't understand.
If you can't handle someone questioning your faith perhaps you shouldn't be in these forums.
I did not call him a coward. I challenged him and I did not address that as it could be misunderstood to be exactly that.
Also as mentioned earlier the problem is not the questioning of the faith but the disrespect of the person. My belief in God is not separate from myself and when a persons directly says You and your God are incompetent. It is the same as saying you and your father are foolish. This has nothing to do with faith but is a directly assault.
Also it might be worth looking into or reading the conversation I have already had with him and how it ended.I misunderstood that as well. As far as I understand it, The brave and courageous do not cower. People who cower are considered cowards. So even though you didn't call me a coward specifically, it was implied because you said that I cower in the corner
Your challenge to me is no different than how the atheists challenge our beliefs..Some of them state that our belief is a lie because what we have been taught to believe does not exist. This would imply that we are liars.
It's in the implication... not necessarily in the use of the word itselfYou most certainly did. See below.
But I'll let it go. Back to starving African children if you will.Thanks for coming to my defense, Rad, but yeah, let it go. Hopefully, he will understand that there is little difference between what he did to me and what some of you do to believers in general (not referring to the direct statements like JM actually calling him incompetent)
Yea, but should we go back a look at what he said to her.
Nah. It would only strengthen what I stated.. Remember, what he said wasn't an insult or attack (in his opinion).. It was a challenge. And some of what he said had been addressed too, which prompted this present conversation.
Let's let it go for now. Hopefully there has been more understanding gained as to how things can be taken as an attack even if it is implied..
Call this my attempt at diplomacy...LOL
My point exactly. It is because I know it could also be read that way I did not respond or say anything about it. I simply took responsibility for my own words. The fact is that it is a lot harder conveying meaning with written words than with spoken words as tone of voice is hard to decipher.
Implying is one thing. An out right statement that I am incompetent is another or a statement that I am an idiot is one.
You see a perceived grievance is taken just as seriously as a real one. My point is, If I felt you raped my daughter I would have the same reaction whether you in fact did commit such a horrendous act.
Also why is this still a topic? Have we not moved on from this? I have apologised to anyone I insulted personally or anyone that feels I did (knowing fully well only getitrite can say so and he would not be honest if he did not at least accept to himself that he has insulted me on numerous occasions). JMcFarland on the other hand I never insulted and even when I misunderstood her sex I apologised immediately with no excuses, I have asked them to respect my belief and direct the conversation towards a disagreement and not name calling outof respect for each others parents (God is my father).
Why do we still speak about this? As far as I am aware I am the only one who has infact apologised to anyone here. Everyone else seems to stand their grounds that they were right and justified in what they said (which is fine if they feel that way).The topic at this point isn't about who insulted who with direct words or implicating statements. What now is at topic is in whether or not someone can disagree with you or question a belief without you taking it as a personal insult. It is no less of an insult to an atheist for you to express your belief that they are all heathens that are going to Hell. As an example of reference, I do not believe in Santa, so for you to tell me that he isn't going to bring me a present for Christmas is an insult to me because I don't believe in him. Atheists view God in the same manner. They lack a belief in God so for anyone to throw hell at them is an insult to them as well.
What Rad Man was saying, to put it bluntly, is if you can't stand being questioned about your beliefs or for people to have a strong opinion of God (which a lot of people do), then These forums aren't the best place for you. Not saying that you shouldn't post, but remember that if you do, your beliefs will be questioned and the atheists do not see what they do as an insult to you no more than you saw your challenge as an insult to meWhen your answers to my questions don't make any sense, I will tell you....then when they still don't make any sense I tell you again, with more stress. This is an attempt to get you to use your critical thinking. But instead of using your critical thinking, you seek to assuage the cognitive dissonance by resorting to fraudulent claims against my intellect....which you know absolutely nothing about. And anyone observing the exchange between us would certainly see that I am not unintelligent, nor do you have any documentation(IQ test, college transcripts) to assert such egregious misrepresentations.
I agree.. you are very articulate and intelligent in your ridicule... J/k.. you present a lot of valid points with your responses.
Deepes mind. I guess you and eye might believe in God but it doesnt seem like we have the same understanding. Ridiculing someones beliefs is not right not even as a joke.
Please feel free to go back to what I actually said to JMcfarland to see if at any point I ridiculed her.
|Everyone here seems to want to act like they have clean hands and did not have a direct confrontation on a personal level with me that is separate from our conversation. That is fine. A leopard does not change its spots. It will come out again.The issue isn't in our understanding. The issue is in how we apply that understanding. I am very understanding of how you feel insulted by some of the comments here (Not even referring to the ones aimed directly at you) because as a fellow Christian I understand you, your passion for God, and your desire to defend the gospel. On the other hand, I have also come to understand some of the atheists here and as such although I might not have seen anything personally wrong with some of your comments (other the ones where you directly addressed them in a negative manner), I also can understand why they see them as insulting. It all comes down to perspective. At the end of the day, the important thing is to make sure that in certain areas we all first seek to understand before seeking to be understood. This way we can avoid debates turning into confrontation.
Every one of us recognizes that there was a confrontation with you at one point or another, but at the same time, you have to accept that you may have played a role in that conflict as well. this starts with taking a step back and looking at each conversation objectively and analyzing how and where each part could play in the conflict. We cannot be responsible for how others react, but we are responsible for how we present them and to make sure our messages were sent as intended. (**Note- I am directing this to you, but it applies to anyone who is reading this)
Okay, here is your change to shut me up and make a believer our of me. You only need to ask your God for one small bit of information and I'll be reformed.
Ask you God the name of the street Rad Man lived on in 1980. A simple request, one you would think God would want to give you and one that would change my life and bring joy to your's because you've helped convert a lost soul.
I'll wait over here...Do you ask me that question because you will genuinely want to know and be convinced if he does answer me or do you ask to insult my God?
If I a man will not not answer such a question when it is designed to ridicule and insult why would God?
If you genuinely seek to know he will show you why he is known as "ancient of days".
It might interest you to read the book of Daniel and see this
Daniel 2
New International Version (NIV)
Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream
2 In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep. 2 So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers[a] to tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king, 3 he said to them, “I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.[b]”
4 Then the astrologers answered the king,[c] “May the king live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will interpret it.”
5 The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. 6 But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.”
7 Once more they replied, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will interpret it.”
8 Then the king answered, “I am certain that you are trying to gain time, because you realize that this is what I have firmly decided: 9 If you do not tell me the dream, there is only one penalty for you. You have conspired to tell me misleading and wicked things, hoping the situation will change. So then, tell me the dream, and I will know that you can interpret it for me.”
10 The astrologers answered the king, “There is no one on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer. 11 What the king asks is too difficult. No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do not live among humans.”
12 This made the king so angry and furious that he ordered the execution of all the wise men of Babylon. 13 So the decree was issued to put the wise men to death, and men were sent to look for Daniel and his friends to put them to death.
14 When Arioch, the commander of the king’s guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact. 15 He asked the king’s officer, “Why did the king issue such a harsh decree?” Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel. 16 At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that he might interpret the dream for him.
17 Then Daniel returned to his house and explained the matter to his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 18 He urged them to plead for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that he and his friends might not be executed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven 20 and said:
“Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
wisdom and power are his.
21 He changes times and seasons;
he deposes kings and raises up others.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.
22 He reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what lies in darkness,
and light dwells with him.
23 I thank and praise you, God of my ancestors:
You have given me wisdom and power,
you have made known to me what we asked of you,
you have made known to us the dream of the king.”
Daniel Interprets the Dream
24 Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him.”
25 Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means.”
26 The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”
27 Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, 28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you were lying in bed are these:
29 “As Your Majesty was lying there, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. 30 As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than anyone else alive, but so that Your Majesty may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.
31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.
39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”
48 Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. 49 Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.
NB: I tell you the truth, As surely as my God lives. If you seek genuine answers for the sake of Knowledge he will answer you. God is not dead and does not rely on blind faith. You really only need to be on the fence with regards to the existence of God. The rest is up to God and no amount of words or research can truly sway the heart of Man. Only God himself.so in other words, you're incapable of asking a simple question, and you have no direct link to god to get the answer. You (and your god) are incompetent.
Okay Mr Moral high point.
Is calling someone incompetent not abusive behaviour? Honestly your double standard is ridiculous.
What was that dribble about being abusive you took a while ago?
Is it okay to report your comment as abusive also and thus resort to that petty playground tell a teacher behaviour?
Also I do not mind talking to radman as he seems to be able to think beyond just the petty.
Mr JMcFarland I will simplify this for you.
I simply stated if a man asked me to prove in public I had male reproductive parts I will have to make a choice.
1) What good will that do?
a) WIll it prove I am male
b) Is he asking me just to demean me in public
c) Does he ask for another reason?
All I stated is that the decision to answer a question is always based on the motive for the question.
In your case (and please note I am not referring to you Radman) a word of advice. It is better to be thought a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
As usual, this is just my opinion and not law.If it would make you feel better to report me, although I have not personally attacked you whatsoever, then feel free to, and see what the staff does with it. nothing. Nothing at all. I have never once been banned for my behavior, and if you want to try to be the first go ahead.
Secondly, stop calling me MR. i'm a girl. And I'm perfectly capable of trouncing all of your regurgitated arguments all by myself.
Thirdly, what does whether or not you're male have anything to do with the discussion at hand? You're claiming to be in direct contact with god, and that since you know the "true" god, you're right, while the rest of the world that disagrees with you is by default wrong. We're asking you to prove that what you say is true, and in order to do that you need to have evidence that backs up your claims of the supernatural. to date, you have not presented any. If you give us a piece of information about us that you are not in a position to know, that can not be googled or learned by normal means, your claims may have some weight - but they may not. AT the very least it will require us to take your claims a LITTLE more seriously. If you are unable to do that, then as a result it would prove that you're incapable of doing what you claim to be able to do. The fact that you're unwilling to even ask for it means that you recognize that you're not going to get an answer, so you're not even going to try. That makes your faith incompetent.First of all I apologise for calling you Mr. There was nothing meant in it. I genuinely do. I had no idea.
Now getting back to the issue at hand. I did not claim to speak directly to God. To have him as a house guest. I only claimed he existed. I also did not claim to be God and as such I have no powers of my own.
You cannot ask me for what I did not claim to have. I simply said God can prove himself. My other argument was the atrocities committed in the name of Atheism and as such they need to get off their moral high horse.
My explanation was simple. If I am to answer a question I must first of all ask myself the motive of the question such as Jesus did several times in the bible when asked questions.
If there is no point but to make jest then I will ignore it. Now I am merely a man "If" God exists. Why should he answer you? (this is a genuine question). Of what use is the knowledge of God to you? You do not seek to change nor do you seek to know. You only seek to debate and let your opinion be known. This is a futile argument.
When you seek and ask questions of God for the right reasons I am sure he is able to ask.
If I may use a quote to explain from the bible .
James 4:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives......
NB: Yes you did insult me. You call Me and My God incompetent. This was a direct insult.It was not a direct insult - and if your god saw it as insulting, he is more than capable (according to your beliefs) to prove me wrong. To date, he has not done so, although I have him over 20 something years of my life. Jesus also says "if you ask anything in my name, you will receive it" I provided you with links that refuted your arguments about atheism used in immoral acts. I'm guessing that you didn't even take the time to see the counterpoint or consider it further. If you're not willing to see the refutations to your arguments, I hardly see the point in conversing with you further. You just want everyone to read YOUR points without being burdened with the counter arguments that blow yours out of the water. that's hardly honest or fair debate tactics. Calling your faith incompetent in the light that you're refusing to prove us wrong isn't a personal insult. It's simply a statement of fact. You're not even willing to try, which pinpoints the flaws of your so-called faith in the first place, because you know good and well that you're not going to get an answer - at least not an answer that will highlight the claims that you're making and will only leave you looking foolish.
Again, my question was not directed towards you, but towards the person who said God answers all his/her prayers. You answer is typical though.
I did read and reply you.
I will cut and paste a reply to a different hubber about Atheism.
I guess you havent had a chance to read it
Christians are not the most dangerous people ever. Atheism has killed so much more than Christianity (or rather to put correctly, killing in the name of God). For as long as there has been "A God" there has been killing in his or her name be it apollos, Oden, Zeus or Hercules. This is a mankind condition and not a God condition.
Also Atheism is responsible for some serious atrocities. E.g Adolf Hitler was an Atheist. He was deeply influenced by frederick niche who famously said a few of this
A) A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
B) In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
C) In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.
D)The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.
E) In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 16
F) What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.
G) God is dead.Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 108
H) Morality is herd instinct in the individual. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 116
I) The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 130
Hitler was responsible for the holocaust and responsible for the deaths of 60 to 80 million people in the world. The second world war claimed about 4% of the worlds population or to put in perspective more people than are presently alive in the whole of the United Kingdom.
B) Other Atheist are Benito Mussolini: 224,250 deaths
C) Napoleon Bonaparte: 2.5 million to 6 million
D) Mao Zedong: 20-67 million (with reported incidences of cannibalism) over 5 million reported in death camps.
E) Joseph Stalin: 10 to 60 Million
F) Pol Pot: 2 million Cambodians (one third of his country at the time)
G) Mao Zedong
H) Jim Jones making over 900 people commit suicide. He was atheist but is sometimes confused to have been a Christian. This has been shown to be false.
I) Kim Jong Il: over 4 million people.
J) Americas most famous serial killer Jeffery Dahmer who famously said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”
Jeffery Dahmers quote is exactly my argument on Atheism and Morality. And the rest showcase evidence of a lack of accountability to anyone or thing is God is not a central moral reference point. It simply becomes whatever makes you feel good and is only punishable if society (relative to where you live) does not accept it.
By my calculations this is almost 300 million people dead as a result of Atheism and these were done by just 10 people listed here. Averaging almost 30 million deaths per listed atheist.
For the sake of truth let Atheists get off their moral high horse. There is more damage done in the name of non belief than in the name of belief. Also organized religion is responsible for murders and has been for centuries even pre-dating Christianity. This was the case in so many cultures that Christianity was not a part of.maybe you're unable to keep up - since I responded to this already, and provided you quotes that refute the argument that you're trying to use. In fact, I gave you THREE links to refute your arguments - but you haven't bothered to look at them, have you?
Okay, I've been sick for almost a week and I'm behind. I'm responding to the comment that Mr. Prideland considered to be a personal attack, and by this point it's been blown so far out of proportion and beyond what I intended it to mean, it's absurd.
I made a mistake when I called you, Mr. Prideland, incompetent. I meant to say that, if you pray and your god ignores your prayers or otherwise ignores them or refuses to acknowledge them, then your prayers are ineffective - and your god is incompetent.
While you may be unable to separate yourself from your religious beliefs, criticizing or insulting the god that you believe in does not equate to a personal attack on you, no matter how you choose to slice it. Just because you have religious beliefs does not them immune from criticism. If I were to tell you, for example, that I was kidnapped by aliens, you would probably mock my experience when I couldn't prove it to you - and with good reasons. If I met an adult who believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, I would laugh at them, because the thought of an adult believing in these fairy tales seems absurd to me. What you have to understand is that your claims about god, which are similarly unproven and uncorroborated are nothing more than fairy tales to an atheist. Asserting that they're true does not make them true. I don't care how many degrees you have, no one - in over 2000 years has ever been able to offer sufficient and irrefutable evidence for god. If god could be proven to me, then I would no longer be an atheist - but I would still have the choice whether or not to worship that god and/or follow it. Religious beliefs do not get an immunity from criticism - especially when you turn around and criticize other christians for their beliefs because they believe things differently than you do. If you're unable to differentiate between a criticism of your religious beliefs and a personal attack on YOU, then there's really nothing more to say. I maintain that, if your version of god existed, he would be a maniacal despot. A tyrant. A bloodthirsty jerk. If the christian god were true, i would rather die a million deaths than consider worshiping him.
I don't understand how christians can shove hell down people's throats, threaten them with eternal torture and damnation, tell atheists that they're fools or stupid for not believing in an invisible super-deity in the first place, but as soon as an atheist criticizes their ideology or pokes fun at their religious beliefs, the cry foul and claim persecution and go off on tangents about how disrespectful atheists are. Do you not see the inherent hypocrisy here?
Glad to see you back JM.. been kinda quiet without ya.
it's good to be back. That cold kicked my disrespectful atheist bum. But I recovered - no prayers required :-) This is the problem with being married to a pre-school teacher.
As you can see, there has been a little "excitement" here
so I've noticed. Regardless of what individuals believe, or how educated they claim to be - I have little tolerance for people who in one breath call an intelligent (albeit sarcastic) person that I respect an idiot or claim that they're intellectually "beneath" them, then cry foul when someone approaches them in the same manner that they're speaking to others. i have little tolerance for hypocrisy in any realm, and religious hypocrisy is no better - in fact, it's often worse. I swear I need to save that cartoon on my desktop and pull it out whenever the situation warrants it - which is apparently more and more frequently.
Yeah. I know about you and your tolerance level.. you might want to avoid My exchange with him then.. You might relapse..LOL
oh, I've read them. I'm holding my tongue before flying off the handle - but I do sense a couple future hubs in the works on the topic of hypocrisy and judgement.
Uh-huh. You do realize, I hope, that only the most dangerous people on the planet throughout history have uttered those words.
I'm sorry, but that is a complete denial of reality.
Africa is literally split in half with Islam in the north and Christianity, the south, with the left over 10% making up everything else. So, if you want to talk about God, then consider the constant conflict between the two religions there, shootings and bombing, which anyone can read for themselves...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17886143
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17885476
Of course, the religious problems are just part and parcel to the various other problems Africa is plagued, which btw have nothing to do with your God and no amount of "following the sower of righteousness" will ever solve them.
Don't you think it rather pedestrian to be accusing people for the problems in Africa simply because they don't follow your religion?
And then, to add insult to injury, you forgive us? <--- Me accepting your forgivenessFor the first time I agree with you in part. It is true Africa is plagued with many problems and poverty in only one amongst a few. It is also true that Islam and Christianity have been destroying each other for some times but this is not without reason.
Remember according to biblical history Abraham rejected his first son (though illegitimate) Ishmael and cast him out in favour of Isaac. Ishmael is the father of Islam and Isaac a grand father of the jews and thus Christianity. There is deep bad blood and also deep misunderstanding between the two religions. This is in fact another human problem and not a God one. According to the bible God promised Abraham a son through his wife sarah and they got impatient and dis believed so she convinced him to sleep with her servant and thus Ishmael was born. God eventually fulfilled his promise but by then Ishmael was 9 years old (I might be wrong about his age).
I do not think it is right to judge someone that does not believe for that reason. It is okay not to believe if all I am presenting is just words (no matter how well researched). A belief in God is based on experiencing God in true form.
No man in the bible just believed because he was told so, God gave them a reason to know. The only difference is I am also of the opinion that God will reveal himself to an agnostic before an Atheist. It is okay to say I do not know if God exists and to be honest I will respect you for it because I do not have some deluded sense of self grandeur that makes me feel my word must be taken as the truth.
God said if we seek him he will show himself. I can only try to convince an Atheist to the point where he genuinely wants to know if it is in fact true. The rest is up to God to show that he is real. My God is not dead and does not need me to provide evidence of life. Much as with science if we ask the right questions long enough we will find the answer.
If you think there is even a small chance God might exist then ask him based on the understanding that if he does exists (he is GOD and not man) and will show himself to you and until he does, it is okay to remain "uncertain".
God did not force me to chose him, Salvation in the bible sense might be for all but it is a choice and will always remain so.
Also I was going to skip saying this as there is a chance this is all you will hear or read from this whole reply but here I go.
Christians are not the most dangerous people ever. Atheism has killed so much more than Christianity (or rather to put correctly, killing in the name of God). For as long as there has been "A God" there has been killing in his or her name be it apollos, Oden, Zeus or Hercules. This is a mankind condition and not a God condition.
Also Atheism is responsible for some serious atrocities. E.g Adolf Hitler was an Atheist. He was deeply influenced by frederick niche who famously said a few of this
A) A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
B) In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
C) In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.
D)The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.
E) In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 16
F) What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.
G) God is dead.Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 108
H) Morality is herd instinct in the individual. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 116
I) The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 130
Hitler was responsible for the holocaust and responsible for the deaths of 60 to 80 million people in the world. The second world war claimed about 4% of the worlds population or to put in perspective more people than are presently alive in the whole of the United Kingdom.
B) Other Atheist are Benito Mussolini: 224,250 deaths
C) Napoleon Bonaparte: 2.5 million to 6 million
D) Mao Zedong: 20-67 million (with reported incidences of cannibalism) over 5 million reported in death camps.
E) Joseph Stalin: 10 to 60 Million
F) Pol Pot: 2 million Cambodians (one third of his country at the time)
G) Mao Zedong
H) Jim Jones making over 900 people commit suicide. He was atheist but is sometimes confused to have been a Christian. This has been shown to be false.
I) Kim Jong Il: over 4 million people.
J) Americas most famous serial killer Jeffery Dahmer who famously said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”
Jeffery Dahmers quote is exactly my argument on Atheism and Morality. And the rest showcase evidence of a lack of accountability to anyone or thing is God is not a central moral reference point. It simply becomes whatever makes you feel good and is only punishable if society (relative to where you live) does not accept it.
By my calculations this is almost 300 million people dead as a result of Atheism and these were done by just 10 people listed here. Averaging almost 30 million deaths per listed atheist.
For the sake of truth let Atheists get off their moral high horse. There is more damage done in the name of non belief than in the name of belief. Also organized religion is responsible for murders and has been for centuries even pre-dating Christianity. This was the case in so many cultures that Christianity was not a part of.
Now that I hope I have cleared that up. I hope you will not ignore the rest of what I said.Sorry I didn't read all of what you said because you are under the illusion that Hitler was an Atheist. Hitler considered himself a Christian.
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."Okay, Hitler was no Christian . Just like Jim Jones (Also mentioned) he used Christianity to gain support. Nazism was an Atheist Ideology
The NSDAP Party Program stated: “We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession....”
This is not Christian. Now read the rest of what I said and as I feared you will just get hung up on only that part. I said a bit more than just the murders by Atheism.You get to decide who is Christian or not regardless of what the individuals say? Should we list the wars caused by Religion?
Hitler hated Jews because he thought they killed Jesus, which was taught throughout Europe at that time. It's was my Father in-law was taught and what he still thinks.The Nazi Ideology was not Christian and like I said He started out believing in God. I think I have already explained the rest so I wont bore you by repeating myself again.
To be honest what about he rest and more importantly Jeffery Dahmers view on God and morality? It was not a senseless statement and to be honest is quite true if you do not believe in God. You are left with what feels good and only punished by what society (in relation to whichever country you are in) says in wrong.
Accountability disappears.You obviously could use a few classes in Ethics. You see it that was the case the prison system would be clogged up with Atheists instead of Christians. You are welcome to make those statements, but be prepared to back them up. Atheists make up about 16% of the north american population and less the 0.5 percent of the prison population.
Why is that?
Also hitler famously stated "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
Hitler appeared Christian prior to the the second world war but abandoned his belief and we have the world war as a result. He could not say he did not believe in God as religious ordination is often one of the strongest motivators of organised crime. Afterall how many times have people been convinced to do dangerous things in the name of pleasing God. Look at islam and suicide bombing today. When one believes in God and is misled it can prove a very effective and dangerous weapon of war. The evidence of that is all around us today with battles against terrorism all in the name of God.
while you may be able to prove, in fact, that atheists have killed people, there's something wrong with your "list". Firstly, Stalin was a graduate of theological seminary, which may not make him a christian, but he was aware enough of christianity that his personal beliefs may be in question. Secondly, Adolph Hitler was a lifelong Catholic, and was never excommunicated from the Catholic church. In fact, he often pointed to Catholic teachings to justify his attempted extermination of the jews.
As for the rest of your "list" while they may be atheists (and it's impossible to know for certain" they did not carry out their deeds because they were atheists. This is in direct contrast to the fact that for centuries, the church carried out the inquisition, the witch trials, the torture and murder of thousands upon thousands of people BECAUSE of their religion specifically. Your numbers seem a bit off, and it's impossible to say for certain because we don't know how many were killed in the crusades, in the various inquisitions, in the witch trials, in the wars and atrocities carried out in the name of 'god' etc.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Hitler
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … an_atheist
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … auses_evilOf course, the Christian/Islamic wars have been going on for centuries. They never stop.
Exactly, the irrational belief held by Abraham regarding alleged God promises did little more than destroy his family. Families are constantly destroyed everyday because of Christianity.
No, it's an indoctrinated belief.
It isn't, not by a long shot.
But, He doesn't show himself, ever.
The failure to show Himself has been very real.
Gee, that's a relief.
Yahweh. You haven't cleared up anything. You post some stats for some of the worlds worst despots and expect us to just swallow your claim it was all due to atheism.
Im already ignoring ATM. I can't ignore everyone.
So are you going to go around to each forum where I post, so that you may inform people as to the really bad, bad human being I'm? Why have you judged me? Why is it that when someone has the really in-depth comments, you see it as someone who really just wants to fight? Why have beliefs if the only people you want to hear from are people who agree with you? It would seem that you are insecure about your beliefs....and angry. I'm sure God is very proud of this foolishness.
You were making sense up until you started talking about this imaginary God as if it was real. SMH!
As both getitrite and ATM have pointed out, you are right, the troubles in Africa and elsewhere are man made. That's the point. That's what we are saying. People in affluent areas go around thanking God for little nothings and can't grasp the larger picture.
The answer I have for your title question, WHY DO CHILDREN STILL STARVE IN AFRICA IF THERE IS A GOD? is that is an experience every lifeforce, as man, must experience via karma and reincarnation. However, the only god I have found is my own life-force and such things are a part of the requirement for me to learn the various manifestation in and of existence.
Everything happening happens exactly the same way cycle after cycle and because we don't usually remember previous incarnations we don't know it has or will happen to us. During the governing reign of each of the 4 primary ethnic of man, Asians, Natives of the Americas, Africans and Europeans there are different conditions which are manifested on one ethnic by another. It is doing the "winter of civilization" {when the white snow destroys everything except the evergreen plants symbolizing everlasting life} that this condition happens in Africa.
If it was realized that the name Africa isn't what that land was originally called by its aboriginals, like America is the name applied by Europeans to the western 2 continents, it would begin to lead us into understanding things are happening by some order unknown to us. Although the world looks chaotic to our temporal minds it is a well designed "orchestration" working just exactly as it was designed.Awesome information.
....So....Africa needs reformed from inside the Country, right? To get rid of the tyranny, to make a democracy or republic where the poor will be helped.Yes exactly that. It is a leadership problem
When something bad happens anywhere, God is always blamed for such problems. But I don't undrestand why? Since the children in Africa is starving it doesn't mean that God don't love them. God loves everyone equally. He may have got some kind of intensions in his mind. Who are we human beings to question him?
The ones who are starving to death while other believers have plenty?
All these double standards from Atheist is doing my head in.
First of all you claim that there are more Christians in Prison than Atheist and that age, culture, race, education, sex, society and genes have nothing to do with this "fact" and in so doing make the indirect conclusion or potential conclusion that Christians are bad people who are more likely to go to jail/commit crimes than Atheists..
Then you say that Christian/believers have plenty and they watch other people starving to death. Did you just chose to ignore the overwhelming fact that most charities are run and owned by Christian organisation trying to make a difference to a world destroyed by man (and not God). Have you ever heard of JAM (which is a Christian organisation) that feeds over 1million African children a year and does not discriminate (As per the Children's religion)? How about the red cross (with its red cross sign showing clearly its affiliation with Christianity)
What does Atheism do for mankind that makes it feel it can point a finger on starvation? What do you do personally? What difference do you make?
I never understand the double standards every time.Actually, those are the prison statistics, they are not just claims.
Are you saying the facts are lies?
No, most charities are NOT run and owned by Christian organizations, that is entirely false.
Sorry, but neither one of those are Christian organizations.
They don't go around telling the starving they require salvation before they get any food.They are Christian organisations dedicated to people. You really have no idea about the religion you criticise. Were you just taught to hate or did something happen to you?
What does helping have to do with conversion. Christians help without conversion and it is silly to believe that you must be Christian to receive aid from a Christian organisation.
Jam, is as I know one its founder and he was an Atheist before but that's another story. When he converted his legacy now feeds over 1 million starving African children. It is silly and quite frankly foolish to claim JAM isn't. Its founder is Peter pretorious, You really should hear his conversion story. Its quite powerful.The Red Cross is not a Christian organization. Lying about it and then calling me a hater is pretty intellectually dishonest, especially for one who touts multiple masters degrees.
OPk, I have gotten really tired of this. Let everyone who claim or talks about degrees please state what they have. Its not my fault if I am more educated than you. I went school as a hobby because I loved knowledge and got more degrees than I really want or need to prove my point.
This childish jealousy has to stop. I mean, am I talking to children aged between 9-12 years old here or what?>calls for everyone to state what degrees they have
>doesn't list his own degrees
>claims others are acting childish
>makes childish accusations
>says he is more educated than us
>cannot provide any facts to support his case
If only I could change my font color to green, then this post would be complete...I have infact listed mine. So don't speak about something you know nothing about.
By the way, I mean this as a personal criticism and not a direct insult. A troubled man. You are deeply ignorant that it saddens me to even speak to me. The red cross was founded by a man called Henry Dunant. He was a Christian. Dunant grew up during the period of religious awakening known as the Réveil, and at age 18 he joined the Geneva Society for Alms giving. In the following year, together with friends, he founded the so-called "Thursday Association", a loose band of young men that met to study the Bible and help the poor, and he spent much of his free time engaged in prison visits and social work.
I mean how lazy are you that you cant just make use of Google?Sorry, but the Red Cross is an organization that does not align itself with any religious organization. These are facts. You can continue lying about it or just go to their website to educate yourself.
Read this http://www.gavinvarejes.com/1/category/ … ica/1.html
and see the section that pertains to JAM.
Why are atheist SOOOOOOOOO preoccupied with God and engage in their endless, useless pranks and futile attempts to slander Him, IF they believe He does not exist?????????
Then, please show us the proof of this God, and end this preoccupation. Should be a very simple task, as you and others are perpetually heaping accolades upon something that we see no evidence of, whatsoever. Make the evidence clear, so that even these dense atheist can comprehend it. Thanks
Umm because people are using God as a backbone for social issues such as abortion, gay marriage etc.. Not to mention some schools are forbidden from teaching proper science because of "God" and thus making our children dumb as hell!
A better question is "Why did Christians burn anyone that didn't agree with them alive at the stake?!?!"Because they are too cheap to feed the poor and want to put the blame on God.
Btw, when was the last time a Christian burned anyone at the stake?Not quite at the stake, but here we have a case from 2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/21/idUSL21301127And where does it say that Christians did this horrible act?
96% of papua new guinea's consider themselves Christians.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 … ew-guinea/Wow, how you like to take articles and twist it to support your hate to Christianity is obviouse. The artical didn't even mention any accusations towards Christians, It was done by a cannibal cult that believed they could gain powers by eating the brains of dead witch doctors. Next time you post a link in this nature. At least use the common sense to read the article first.
The part about the cult was a separate incident. A country with a Christian percentage of 96 and a mob stripped, tortured and bound a woman accused of witchcraft, then burned her alive in front of hundreds.
"Bystanders, including many children, watched and some took photographs of Wednesday’s brutal slaying. Grisly pictures were published on the front pages of the country’s biggest circulating newspapers, The National and Post-Courier, while the prime minister, police and diplomats condemned the killing.
In rural Papua New Guinea, witchcraft is often blamed for unexplained misfortunes. Sorcery has traditionally been countered by sorcery, but responses to allegations of witchcraft have become increasingly violent in recent years.
Kepari Leniata, a 20-year-old mother, had been accused of sorcery by relatives of a 6-year-old boy who died in the hospital the day before."People naturally fear what they do not understand. This is repeated in history several times over and as I said earlier. There is a difference between actual Christians and people who use the name the commit all sorts. I can assure you that anyone that has ever really read the bible remember Jesus gave only two commandments " love God with all your heart and Love your neighbour as yourself".
Even when it comes to enemies Jesus says if someone slaps you on the left cheek turn over the right". He goes one to say that if anyone curses you , you should pray for him. When a woman was accused of committing adultery and was about to be stoned Jesus replies and says "Let him without sin cast the first stone" as the story goes not one person did. Jesus also teaches " remove the log in your eye before you remove the speck in another's". Jesus never advocated revenge nor did he give us the right to judge others.
He also says my people obey me.
I am a Christian and I condemn such actions. No one who does or believes in that can truly say he follows God because even the Son of God condemned such.
This is what I believe and any person who calls himself a Follower of God must. This is what we must act.
1 Corinthians 13
New International Version (NIV)
13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
Real Christianity is about Gods love for his people and not his judgement.I agree, but you can't just say anyone who sins in anyway is not a Christian, because you would be judging and throwing the first stone. The bible is open to interpretation and people get from it what they want or need. I wasn't pointing to these articles as proof that Christians are bad people. He made the comment that these things don't happen anymore, but they do and they did.
There might be a bit of a misunderstanding to what I said. I am not pointing of judging anyone at all. I am simply saying that the primary understanding of Christianity is love. I mean true love and true love does not mean weakness nor does it mean always giving to another's request. After all a good father will not give a poisonous snake to his son no matter how much he begs for it
Sorry, but Christianity does not understand love, it has taken the entire concept, watered it down so much it has lost all meaning.
This is exactly what Christianity understands by love.
1 Corinthians 13
New International Version (NIV)
13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
This is what pure Christianity understands love is. This is the information we were given by our God. This is what we were asked to do and how to live.
Secondly.
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
These are the two commandments (meaning non optional) we were giving by Jesus.
You see this is what God wants. What people do is a whole different argument and to be fair is not exclusive to Christianity. It is a human condition.
You hold atheism as some divine proof of your superior intelligence
but this is what has also been produced by Atheism
Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under communist atheistic regimes.[1] It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[8] Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error (see also: Atheism and communism and Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union).
Koukl summarized by stating:
“ It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1] ”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' [9]
”
Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]
Do not speak about Atheism as if it is some cool belief when it has committed more atrocities than Christianity.Thanks for showing us just how bad Christianity has destroyed the concept of love. Lets see what other nonsense Christianity has taught you...
Ah, it has taught you to lie, too.
Please, remind us again how many people were killed in God's "merciful" global flood (which, coincidentally, didn't happen)? Was it "supposedly" mere millions or billions of people?
The question of God as a divine deity is not one of good or evil. The God question is one of creation (i.e Who created Man).
In Christianity we believe first and foremost that God is just and sovereign. This is more important than good or bad and more so especially because the concept of good or evil is ultimately relative and subject to cultural meaning. It is too flexible. e.g in some cultures in the world today it is good for a girl to be married at 9 years old and others it is evil. We believe in a just God who also does not show partiality. To put in another way, the sun shines on both the good and bad of this world. It is left to them to decide what to do with it. The question of justice only comes up when potential injustice is raised.
Also God by the very definition of the term transcends age as it means having no beginning or end. So the question of who made God becomes as similar as why is water, water? The properties of the object is what defines it and the properties of a divine deity is as ageless ad timeless (with no beginning or end).
When addressing hardship in the world and attributing it to God. it is important to remember that as a democratic nation (i,e either America or the UK) you must believe that true Justice and freedom is allowing people to do what they want but also putting laws in place that guide such behaviours. If a man commits murder it is not unlawful to seek justice for him.
If Colonial masters destroyed Africa at the first and Africa continues to destroy itself who is to blame? Did God not provide the land for the food and the food on it? Is he to blame when one government harvests it all and uses it to buy expensive jets while the rest of the nation starves.
In simpler terms there is a cause and effect order. At no point does God in the bible promise anyone an easy and stress free life and as a matter of fact Jesus once said "The poor will always be amongst you". Always being the key term here.
It is also important to note that the God of the bible is primarily focused on his people. He did not save every nation nor did he hear the cries of every one. So if you must accuse the Christian God (Im not implying there are other Gods, only using the term for illustration reasons). of prayers not answered you must have met the condition before you can say it doesnt work.
It is like trying to prove a car does not run on gas when you never put gas in it.
John 9:31, "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him."
We believe there are people whose prayer God will not hear. Isaiah 59:2 says, "But you iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear."
Not only this there are also conditions for Christians for prayers to be answered and barriers to prayers.
e.g
1)Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16 and Ephesians 6:1-3 link long life with your honoring of your parents.
2)In Exodus 23:25-26, the condition was, "And ye shall serve the Lord your God...." Then God would take sickness away from you.
3)1 Timothy 2:15 promises that a woman will not die in childbirth -- but only if she continues in faith, holiness and sobriety.
And a few other, these are what we know as conditional promises in which we are only asked to meet the conditions. However there are also unconditional promises in the bilble
A) GOD HAS UNCONDITIONAL PROMISED NO MORE FLOOD TO DESTROY THE EARTH, Gen.9:8-17.
B) GOD HAS UNCONDITIONALLY APPOINTED PHYSICAL DEATH FOR ALL MEN, EXCEPT THOSE LIVING AT THE 2ND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST, Heb.9:27; 1Cor.15:21,22.
My belief in God originates from where do people come from and I must be honest I get very confused when it come to Atheist because while I understand the Atheists who only do not believe in God because of Christian that acknowledge him with their lips and deny him with their lives. I do not understand when a man will see a car or house and believe an intelligent mind made, designed and gave function to every being of the object but when it come to humanity where our abilities and potentials are some unmeasurable especially as a group they believe it was as a result of chance. At what point do you acknowledge that even that is not logical.
Religion is ultimately about mystery and things we do not understand and for any one man to sit and say that because they hold it that an intelligent being did not make us and we came from years of evolution is beyond me. Also can I point out that any scientist worth their salt understand evolution to be more about adaptability than about origin. As a matter of fact Charles Darwins Origin of species originates from his study in the galapagos island where he witness adaptability and not evolution.Justice and sovereignty are also subject to cultural meaning, no different from good and bad. And, we already know what Christianity says about good and bad. God good, everything else bad.
We could list the societies that consider marrying 9 year old girls good and find deep seated religious beliefs driving that misogyny.
Then, put the gas in the car and prove it runs. Show us how you know prayers are answered.
No, it was not a result of chance, it was a result of evolution, so most likely, the reason why you say you don't understand is because you never took the time to understand.
That is why religion is useless drivel.
Okay, it's beyond you. It isn't beyond a lot of other people who took the time to understand it, though.It's odd how Africans will complain about the horrible abuse that was inflicted by the colonial masters, yet choose to accept and worship the very same God that these white colonial masters taught them to. I think that somewhat answers the question right there.
I have to be honest that is a very ignorant statement. There is difference between being a Christian (Christ follower) and being called Christian.
The people that brought Christianity to Africa were good in a lot of ways. They cared and showed love. Mother Theresa was of a similar generation as those. Or do we forget so soon the love she showed to so many homeless. Or the works Christians do in the world.With 40 thousand plus different denominations, it should be a mammoth task trying to figure out who the REAL Christians are. Of course you are up for the task.
They brought the same thing to America too..along with genocide and slavery.
Christopher Hitchens doesn't seem to think Mother Theresa was a saint at all. In fact he thinks quite the opposite. I think he makes quite a strong argument for his case.I've read that she allowed people to die in a painful manner because she thought it would bring them closer to God. I seen a witness describe how she would refuse to bring a child to the hospital for a simple operation and instead allow the child to die. If it's true we've all been had, or at least I was.
How shocking that Christopher Hitchens a world known Atheist did not accept the good she did. When he himself has never been known to do any good. It is so much easier to point than to do. Her belief encouraged her to make a difference. I am not deluded to think she did not most likely make mistakes. She is after all in fact human but let that not take away anything from that which she did accomplish.
Even the apostles of God made mistakes. There is not a single person in the entire bible except Jesus that did not make a mistake in one thing or another or face temptations. As long as we remain human we can be tempted and we can fail. Let one man in the entire world come and say that sin is not in him and I will show you a liar. It is not the mistakes she might have made we remember it is that which she got right. That which so many people today still lack the courage to attempt not to talk about achieve."There is not a single person in the entire bible except Jesus that did not make a mistake in one thing or another or face temptations."
So I'm guessing Lucifer appeared to him in the wilderness just to have a lively fireside chat?I wrote that correctly with the exception of facing temptation. I meant fall for temptation,
There are mistakes and then there is deliberately letting a child die a painful death because you don't want to spring for a cab.
Then spring for it yourself if you are so concerned. Stop pointing out others mistakes and work on your own. you act like a hypocrite.
I take my sick family member to doctors and hospitals when needed. I only comment on what has been reported, sometimes we need to look critically at institutions. Hypocritical? Do you think I haven't taken a child who need an operation to survive to the doctor or hospital?
I would also like to add that if we look at the world today and look to its history. Where massacres were the order of the day, where senseless wars were fought (first and second world war) and brothers (like the tutsi and hutus) where mass genocide (leading to the deaths of over 20% f the entire population of rwanda) occurred because brothers forgot they were brothers when colonial masters divided them by height and nose size so they can govern them happened.
A rational mind can only form two possible conclusions
1) There is no God for such a thing to happen (Atheism)
2) There is a disparity or a breakdown in relationship between man and God (which is what Christians believe)
However the problem with the first explanation is that there is no solution there is the understanding that as there is no God and such no moral reference point then anything goes. This are beliefs held by someone the greatest dictators the world has every known like Napoleon, Hitler, Major General Sani Abacha and , Ghadaffi, Saddam Hussein. If God is not reverenced then a believer is no better than an atheist.
With the second conclusion there is hope for mankind. If God rejoices in peace and mankind can regain their relationship with God then we will obey him. Jesus gave only two commandments.
Love God with all your heart and Love your neighbour as yourself and believe it or not America was founded by this two principles and today is only becoming a weaker power because it has departed from its first love.No, that is not what a rational mind would conclude.
That is entirely false. Morals are not derived from gods, they evolve.
And, then there were Holy Wars, Inquisitions and Witch burnings, all within the morality of Christianity."And, then there were Holy Wars, Inquisitions and Witch burnings, all within the morality of Christianity."
These acts were not done by christians. There were done by people who did not know their God. Christians was not a name we gave ourselves but a name given to us by unbelievers because of who we were and how wer acted. I am willing to accept that a major amount of us deny God with our lives but acknowledge him with our lips but the bible says " I know my people and my people follow me".
Jesus said Love your neighbour as yourself for this is the greatest commandment". He did not ask us to burn people so people who did so were not Christians.
This is not true. Also morality itself is also relative. The idea that morality evolves is not accurate in full. I know cultures where it is moral to have a wife when she is 7 years old and I know in modern educated society it is not accepted.
When I speak about morality I speak about a moral reference point. If there is no reference point then we are subject to the society we find ourselves in. The same can be said about good and evil. In some cultures it is okay to marry more that one wife and in some a Man gives his wife to his guest for the night to entertain him. There is no moral line or ethical barrier when God is absent.
It simply is whatever we feel is right that goes on and why not so. Afterall there is no one you need to be accountable to if that particular society allows it. This is why it was so hard to abolish slave trade. Society simply took it as the norm to own people. William Wilberforce about 180 years ago needed to remind people about God and even then it took a few more years to make owing slaves illegal.
Society had forgotten God and its moral compass had been lost.Yes, they were committed by Christians who had every bit of authority to call themselves Christian, just as you would do.
They would adamantly disagree with you.
So what? That only shows a particular culture that follows misogyny, most likely because of their religious beliefs, which have stifled them from becoming an educated society.
You are referring to religious societies. No moral reference point.
Wrong, you are accountable to yourself and society.
Yes, religious societies.
That is only true in societies that deal in gods.
You lost me. The third most Christian nation in the world behind Vatican City and the 50 people of Pitcairn Islands is Greece with 99.7% Christianity. They have their problems. Christianity is no help.
Neither are Atheist. Atheist I have met are quicker to blame God for disaster and ignore. We pollute the air and atmosphere and its effects is dangerous weathers and we say it is God.
We kill people in whatever name and we also blame God. When do we as people start to take responsibility for what we do.Sorry, Atheists don't blame God for anything because we don't think there is a God to blame. It's the believers who don't take responsibility, they blame Satan and give credit to God.
And what exactly should a believer take responcibility for?
His actions. Don't you think you should take responsibility for your own actions?
And what actions have I done that needs me to be responcible for?
Good ones, bad ones how the heck should I know. Some Christians thank God for everything they achieve and blame Satan for errors.
In Christianity most of Jesus teaching was to bring consciousness back to the heart and take it away from just words and actions. I hate religion and love God and Jesus. It is only of recent that they seem to be confused to be the same thing. Ever since the man can trace back people have committed many atrocities in the name of some deity or another. Be in God, Odin, Hades or Zeus.
Religion has been responsible for a lot of terrible things and it has been because for some reason people have deemed themselves as judge over others.
God has not called me in this present life to be any bodies judge. I hate the sin but love the sinner. That is what my religion believes.
How can I not show mercy on people when I believe that my very life is possible by Gods mercy.
This is what Jesus teaches about mercy and judgement
Matthew 18:21-35
New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[a]
23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[b] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[c] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’
30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”Your God tortures?
That's a nice story, but I don't see what it has to do with my post that that you replied to?Like I said when I first started God is first of all Just (Justice).
You say he tortures. This is based on what? Have you ever heard that God sent some one only to torture? Where is this coming from? Is this an opinion or just based on personal experience? Please do not raise the case of starving African children because not a single Atheist here actually knows what they are talking about when they speak about this.
Even when Jesus was slapped he asked about justice. When the prostitute was about to be stoned he spoke about justice first. The bible says "God is not a respecter of persons".
God is also sovereign. It is a lot harder in this dispensation of democracy to understand that God is not democratic. The bible says that "Can the clay say to the potter why have you made me like this"?
Also that story is very relevant because the King who forgives is meant to be an illustration of God.
Also while it difficult for people to believe in God it should be easier based on the past history of the world to believe in Evil. Evil is something we have seen and witnessed in men. The bible says "The heart of men is desperately evil". If there is evil there is good. One has no meaning without the other.
We cannot see the devil in others (pure evils) and fail to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of good (pure good).
Also this arguments of seeing God. There are several accounts of people seeing God in present times. With the argument of prayers answered. I prayed to God and he has never failed me. With the question of Miracles. I was born with Asthma and had lived with this all my life. When I was younger I needed intravenous injections just to breathe. Today I am Asthma free. I have not had a single attack in over 6 years. I believe because he loved me before I loved him.
When I became a Christian I questioned everything. I did not believe because it was written I needed more. A good person who answers a lot of questions you might have is a man called Ravi Zacharias. He is a Christian Apologetic. He runs a programme called "Let my people think".
As Christian who know what we believe and why we do not close down our brains to accommodate faith in God. We believe because experience has shown God is faithful. I understand you think he is not and as such he does not exist but as I said a few times sight is not proof of existence and even if someone told you a prayer was answered or miracle received you will basically just disregard it.
The reason is simple.
The Parable of the Sower
13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”
Not until your mind is actually searching for truth and not just an opportunity to showcase your own perceived grand knowledge will you ever truly know if there is a God.
When you search for truth, understanding that he might be I guarantee you one thing. As surely as I serve the living God. He will find you and if sight is what it takes just as it did for Apostle Paul he will will show you. You just must desire real truth and not just a chance to hear yourself speak.
Also please note that most of the apostles with the exception of John experienced horrible deaths. If they really believed that God did not exist or Jesus was not the son of God no one is stupid enough to believe till the point of death. the same goes for all those Christians killed in the Roman ColosseumNo you did.
Based on the quote you posted from the bible.
"34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
The rest I'll read when I get a chance.I dont know what bible you read but the word "torture" is in error and added in. The Greek word "basanistais" has a couple of meanings running from tormentors to testers. Basanistais is the verb to the Greek noun Basantos meaning touchstone. A touchstone tests, it does not torture or torment.
I stand corrected. it is basanisthEsontai that is the verb. Basanistais is a noun after all, which means both tormentors or testers.
If you go the Baptist route, they believed that humans have sinned therefore mankind has to suffer in some kind of way (hurricanes,death, etc,). This is what I learned from watching videos of the Westboro Baptist Church. I'm not generalizing the whole religion and there's a reason why the numbers in this church are shrinking.
Answer to OP ... I get around to at bottom of post.
I don’t understand why people can not see the obvious. Simple facts
The old testament comes from the Hebrew religious texts. These were written by Hebrew prophets with messages to those Hebrew people. These messages and prophesy were given to those Hebrew people. In the 1st century there was one basic religion having 4 or 5 different denominations.
Point being that these prophesy were given to a nation of people that that nation became nonexistent around 135 to 138 AD.
Approx 40 years before that nation of people were scattered through out the rest of the world and that nation was erased off the face of the earth, St.John received visions that this would happen. The woman as seen in Rev. 12 is The Lords adulterous wife, the nation of Israel. She was carried away into the wilderness where she is fed for 1260 days and hides from the face of the serpent for a time and times and an half (1290 days). 1260 days in prophesy is equal to approx 1645 of our years.
Back to the point at hand. In 96AD, John was told that “A NEW Religion” would soon rise up that counterfeits the Established religion so well that it will fool even the very elect if that is possible. This religion will be given (from God) 42 months to blaspheme. Again, 42 prophetic months is equal to approx 1645 years on earth. Thankfully the two witnesses are also sent down to the earth for a equal amount of time and they infiltrated the “New Religions” This explains why there is good and evil found within the church.
There are many rightious people within the "New Church" who are doing all they can to feed the hungry all over the world while others are stealing from the poor.Oouch... Im not Baptist, but I attended the Baptist church growing up many times over the years. That is not their teaching. The Westboro church is almost an entity unto itself.
Yes, just like all the other 43,000 denominations of Christianity, entities unto themselves.
When testing any theory two questions must be brought to mind to know if it is usable or acceptable. These two are fundamental principles of scientific reasoning.
All these are based on Validity and reliability
What is Reliability?
The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable. Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions and generate the same results.
Without this replication of statistically significant results, the experiment and research have not fulfilled all of the requirements of testability.
This prerequisite is essential to a hypothesis establishing itself as an accepted scientific truth.
This means that the theory of evolution has failed already based on this. Honest answer required: Who has ever tested it and achieved the same result, bearing in mind that in origin of species evolution was a hypothesis adaptability was the theory (to simplify it).
2) Validity:
Validity encompasses the entire experimental concept and establishes whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method.
For example, there must have been randomization of the sample groups and appropriate care and diligence shown in the allocation of controls. This means this theory of evolution that explains all life around us must be represented and duplicated on various platform. Plants and Animals alike.
Evolution has also failed in this area. This means that Science cannot safely conclude based on the nature of the fact that for pure sciences there has to be at least 99% confidence interval unlike social science where it is only 95% (which in it own right is also high).
We believe in Jesus because He fulfilled over 300 prophecies. I have put some examples below but just so my point hits home the probability of someone fulfilling only 8 of those prophecies is 1 times 2.8 x 105 x 103 x 102 x 103 x 103 x 105 x 103 x 104) gives us 2.8 x 1028, or for simplicity sake 1 x 1028 or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Given this and the time span between the writings of the Old Testament and the fulfillment by Christ in the New Testament, the prophecies were either given to the prophets by God, or the prophets just wrote them down as they thought they should be. With Christ fulfilling all eight prophecies, what are the odds the prophets were just guessing?
To illustrate this point: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and thoroughly stir the whole mass--all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar.
Now please feel free to do that maths for 300 various prophecies.
I will give you 16 prophecies and try to put the time it was written also in it
What are examples of some of the prophecies?
1) Jesus will be begotten of God.
Prophecy: Psalm (2,7): "The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you’"
Jeremiah 31:31-33 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
2) Jesus must be able to heal
Isaiah 35:5-6 written: 712 BC (Before Christ) - Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing. For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.
3) Jesus must be born of a virgin:
Isaiah 7:14 written: 712 BC (Before Christ) "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Word "Immanuel" means: God with us. In the Old Testament it occurs only in Isaiah. 7:14 and 8:8.
4) his place of birth must be Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2 written: 710 BC (Before Christ)
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
5) Going to Egypt:
Hoseah 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
Matthew 2:14 "So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt."
6) John the Baptist must prepare the way...
Isaiah 40:3 written: 712 BC (Before Christ)
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."
7) Jesus must come from Galilee and teaches in Caparnum
Isaiah 9:1-2 written: 712 BC (Before Christ)
"Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."
Matthew 4:12-16 "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zebulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fuslfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."
8) The Betrayer must give him up to Temple authorities after eating bread with Jesus
Psalm 41:9 written: 1023 BC (Before Christ)
"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."
9) The Betrayer must give up Jesus to Temple authorities for 30 pieces of silver.
Zechariah 11:12 written: 487 BC (Before Christ) "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver."
10)False Witnesses must rise up
Psalm 35:11 written: 1042 BC (Before Christ) "False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.
11) His disciples will forsake him
Zecheriah 13:7 - "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the Man who is My Companion," says the LORD of hosts. "Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; then I will turn My hand against the little ones.
Matthew 26:31 - Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: `I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
THE DEATH PREDICTIONS
12) The mockery of the spectators...
Psalm 109:25 written: 1023 BC (Before Christ) "I became a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads
13) Being crucified.
Psalm 22:16 written: 1018 BC (Before Christ) "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
14) He must be a suffering servant.
Isaiah 53:5 (Suffering Servant Passage) written: 712 BC (Before Christ) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
15) Messiah will be Rejected in Israel:
Isaiah 8:14 written: 742 BC (Before Christ) "And he shall be a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
OTHER PROPHECIES
16) the silence before his judges...
Isaiah 53:7 written: 712 BC (Before Christ). "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
Also for all rational thinkers here. In science, not seeing something or feeling it does not mean it does not exist otherwise things like oxygen by that same logic do not exist. Just because A man was born blind does not mean colours and the sun does not exist. Do not limit your thinking to just your basic senses. It is foolish to think that way.
I appreciate an agnostic more than an Atheists because they are willing to accept that there might be chance they are wrong or right. They simply don't know. Afteral was there not a time the whole world was sure the earth was flat.
The existence of God and the actions of God are two different things. When ancient discoverers like Christopher columbus found what is today known as America it would have been stupid of him to think he knows all about it. The same can be said about Charles Darwin when he was brought (he did not discover it) to Galapagos islands.But, you have not provided any honest answers to evolution, most likely because you don't understand evolution, but you will come here on these forums to start a thread complaining about the very thing you are now doing yourself.
This is what Rad man stated to be conclusive proof of evolution.
1. The universal genetic code.
2. The fossil record.
3. Genetic commonalities.
4. Common traits in embryos.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
This was my reply.
First of all let us discuss what you yourself seem not to understand
Points 1 and 3: The universal genetic code and genetic commonalities. DNA which is a fundamental part of the genetic code is incomplete and not generalizable. Its research is incomplete and never will be because it is based on statistical probability of a representative sample of a tiny percentage of people in the world. (compared to the over 6 billion people) as it is impossible for science to ever get the DNA or the genetic coding of a significant percentage of the worlds population it will never be a strong theory and today it is even debunked in certain courts of law. (I just finished Jury duty so I know this to be a fact).
2: Fossil records: In Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.
When evolution is rapid, transitional forms may not be preserved, even if fossils are laid down at regular intervals. We see many examples of this “quick” jumps pattern in the fossil record.
Does a jump in the fossil record necessarily mean that evolution has happened in a “quick” jump?
We expect to see a jump in the fossil record if evolution has occurred as a “quick” jump, but a jump in the fossil record can also be explained by irregular fossil preservation.
Finally let me educate you on what you hold as the explanation to the start of life. It is important to also say I dint have time to add more to this but this should be sufficient.
The word evolution (sometimes called Darwinism) has a variety of definitions, from simply “change” to “the natural process by which all life derived from a single ancestor,” and is referred to alternately as “hypothesis,” “theory,” “law,” and “fact.” Because of its imprecise nature, the term is often used ambiguously to imply that the processes we can observe in the present (e.g., natural selection) “prove” that the processes we cannot observe in the past must have happened as well (e.g., the change of dinosaurs into birds). In fact, the term evolution can also be used to denote the philosophy of naturalism, which depends upon unobserved events in the past (including in astronomy, chemistry, and geology).
In scientific terms, evolution generally means the change in genetic material between generations, which is also referred to as “descent with modification.” These changes are attributed to mutations, gene flow and drift, and natural selection, which are examples of observational science and can be shown to occur. However, the other aspect of evolution is the belief that all animals descended from one original ancestor. Evolutionists sometimes claim this “fact” is established in the fossil record, homology (similar structures), and genetic evidence. However, any evidence involving historical science (one-time events that cannot be retested) is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.
Mutations and genetic drift are often cited as the source of heritable traits from one generation to the next. While mutations do cause changes in the genome and genetic drift changes the frequency of those traits, neither process is capable of changing one kind of animal into another. More often, mutations have either no noticeable impact or cause degeneration.
When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature..
Now, you blame Christians for believing in something you term as fictional as a "fairy" yet you also hold unto something that has neither of the foundations of science which includes
Reliability: The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable. Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions and generate the same results.
or Validity: Validity encompasses the entire experimental concept and establishes whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method.
For example, there must have been randomization of the sample groups and appropriate care and diligence shown in the allocation of controls. This means this theory of evolution that explains all life around us must be represented and duplicated on various platform. Plants and Animals alike. (As mentioned earlier)
I cannot change your mind as it is now clear to me that no matter what facts are before you , you will never accept that it is possible even a little chance you might be wrong. There is more to this earth that understanding only based on senses will not answer. It is foolish to think this way (Christian or Atheist) . As a matter of fact human kind will have reached no where if we ever thought this way.
also can I
Also after all of my explanations I live you with a few quotes on the theory of evolution.
I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." —*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution, " Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 77.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." —*Ambrose Flemming, President British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else." —*G. K. Chesterton (1925).
No real scientist worth their salt will ever hold this as "the gospel truth" (Pun intended).I certainly don't have the time nor the desire to comment on all that cutting and pasting however.
The big bang doesn't propose that all this came from nothing, only religion does. Not to mention how ignorant it is to state what people can imagine. Anything is imaginable. Just because Chesterton could not imagine it doesn't mean nobody can imagine it, plus we don't have to imagine it came from nothing because that's not what the big bang proposes, that's the magic religion proposes.Gotta love that Christian logic. "The Big Bang says everything came from a tiny particle? That's impossible! That's almost nothing at all!"
And yet, those very same people would be extremely unwilling to allow a single ebola virus into their bloodstream. I mean, come on! It's just a tiny virus! That's almost nothing at all!To make matters worse. The big bang says everything was contained in a tiny place, but they say nothing was there only God. We ask? Where did he come from? They respond. That's beyond what we can understand.
The question of where did God come from is a nonsense question because of the definition of God.
Go to you tube and watch a 5 min video by Ravi Zaccharias and Michael ramsden on what is Gods starting point or pretty much any of Ravi Zaccaharias videos. We are of similar minds on the issues you have. That is of course if you are actually seeking knowledge and not a place to argue.Are you seeking knowledge? Are you willing to learn from these Atheists?
You state that something can't come from nothing, which is not what the theory of the Big Bang even says, and then say God has always and always will exist.
If you want to claim that God can come from nothing then you might want to rephrase your first statement because it's a contradiction.Yes, Big Bang is an incomplete hypothesis. It doesn't state where the material and energy for the Bang came from. That lack implies either "nothing" or another "something." And where did that other "something" come from?
Every thing (effect) in the universe has a source (cause).
Now, God is not an "effect." He is pure "cause." There is no dichotomy in God as there is in the things of physical reality. This is more like the Buddhist "paramita" or "perfection." Like generosity without any spot of selfishness, or perfect confidence (faith) without any spot of doubt. These are the "one-sided coin" of creation. If you don't understand such a concept, don't worry. It takes a while to "grok" (understand fully).
No one can walk on water if they have imperfect (mortal) "belief," because that includes seeds of doubt.Sure it does, you just don't understand it. A simple google search should fix that.
That's right everything has a source. You say that, but forget about Gods source?
Walking on water has nothing to do with doubt, there is a lot of science involved and the science says humans can't.The same place your God allegedly found the materials to make the universe.
Well, if the Christian view is wrong, where did the big bang originate?
It's call a singularity. Sorry but your logic is flawed. You can't go around saying God must have created everything you don't understand. The fact that you don't understand something is an indication that you should learn about it from a secular source rather then attributing it to another unknown.
If everything according to your logic needs a creator then who created God? I suppose he is the exception?Well, God is considered to be the first cause.. thus the singularity you mentioned
Then God must have been created as well. If one is to hold onto the notion that everything has a cause then God must have a cause as well. It makes no sense stating that the universe must have been made by someone rather than something.
If singularity is god, then it turns out that the universe is god, for as per scientists universe is expansion of singularity. But then this god is an inanimate matter. Also how can we be sure that there were not another singularity a light year light year away?
PS. If the definition of god is the same as that of the universe, then I agree with you, there is a god, a pantheist god.
The Christian view does has nothing to do with the Big Bang, why would you even ask that question?
I understand that all the nonsense you wrote here was lifted from this site...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /evolutionA website written by scientifically illiterate people, so always a good reference to use, hah!!
and what qualifications make you or any other Atheist here scientifically literate. More importantly what is your counter proposal?
Please answer the two questions and also stick to answering all the points I raised below.I am scientifically literate. Here’s why: I have earned a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, Ecology, and Biochemistry (yes, you read that right…three B.S. degrees); I have a Master of Science in Biology (admittedly, not the thesis option, yet); I’ve given platform presentations at a few national conferences (with nothing but the utmost of praise); I have five years of research experience (2 years of epigenetics and 3 years of protein chemistry); I’ve spent two years teaching beginning and advanced-level college Biology courses; and I have authored three primary literature articles that are just about ready to be submitted (with me as the primary author), along with a book chapter (as the sole author; in a leading book in my field). In addition, I have made it a personal goal to be a world expert in snake venom, seeking to excel in every way that would give me the leading edge, including possessing a great understanding of evolution. Such an understanding would yield an explanation as to why we can see such a large degree of variation in snake venom composition in a variety of contexts.
My counter proposal is this: learn about Evolution from scientifically literate people. Until I get my own article fully prepared, take a look here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
On the other hand, if you’d like to learn about the Big Bang or Abiogenesis, please refer to the following articles: http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-Magic http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-Magic
My years researching Epigenetics revealed how histones (the proteins responsible for coiling up DNA into chromosomes, namely in preparation for cell replication) are incredibly evolutionarily-conserved. Upon close examination and comparison of histone DNA sequences derived from vastly different species (from independent labs), I produced an evolutionary tree that was very reminiscent of our current state-of-the-art understanding of phylogenetic relationships. Neither I, nor any of those researchers, were subject to some international “conspiracy” committee on publishing only those results which support Evolution. At least 95% (fulfilling the requirement for scientific significance) of results are self-evident in supporting a natural, “Earth-bound,” hypothesis for life (or the evolution, thereof). Just as testing the DNA of your parents indicates that you are their offspring, we humans are undeniably indicated in being the “offspring” of prokaryotic organisms from billions of years ago.
Here’s a good piece of advice: don’t quote “opinions” from non-evolutionary Biologists (especially those before the modern age of genetic technology)…it makes you look like a fool. You might as well ask an artist for an opinion on how to maintenance a diesel engine…
I understand statistics….very well, in fact (as I’ve used it extensively in the past five years preparing my manuscripts). There is a significantly high statistical probabilility that life can evolve from simple compounds as a result of simple “randomness” in the early stages of Earth’s history. There is also a significantly high statistical probability that the big bang could arise from “nothing” (quantum fluctuations, followed by inflation). There is not, however, a significant statistical probability that any supernatural power, or “god,” exists. This is evidenced by the unbiased observation of things that are “untouched” by humans (such as radio-carbon rock dating, fossil record, geological columns, astrophysics, and DNA; not things such as the Christian Bible).
If we were to burn/destroy all copies of the Bible, would we be able to reconstruct Christianity in its current form? No, of course not. If we were to burn/destroy all implements of scientific progress, would we be able to reconstruct them? Yes, absolutely! This is the critical difference between fiction and facts.
You talk of how you were “healed by God,” but were you ever analyzed by medical/scientific personnel? No, of course not. Funny enough, every single example of a “miracle” that has been thoroughly researched by the medical/scientific realm has revealed no evidence for a “supernatural” cause. Therefore, your argument has no scientific bounds. Science is able to be repeatably tested (holding up to examination from multiple, different points of view using separate lines of data gathered from scientists all over the world), whereas Religion is not (and is frequently based on “heresay” and “myths” from a single “publication”). What about prayers? Their effectiveness has been found to be no greater than that of a placebo (sugar pill): http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ … 1838.short
Why do humans insist on having religion or believing in a “god?” The human brain is pre-disposed for such a line of thinking: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22256685
Please read “Scientific Creationism” by Henry Morris…you’ll gain a much better appreciation for all of the claims “supposedly” supported by Christianity back in 1974 (a vast majority of which have been debunked by scientific advancements since then, but are still upheld by certain conservative Christian groups, including “answersingenesis.org”).
Not one Atheist here actually understands science and you all speak with some authority.
You have asked for my credentials and masters degrees.
What are yours? What makes you "some kind of genius" on the the subject that we should consider your 2 cents worth?
If you raise a question you must be able to back it up also and so far most of you dont seem to have more than a basic Undergraduate degree if any at all.
What is with all the double standard here?
Like I said I dont think you need a degree to understand God but unfortunately for most of science you do.
When will people start to answer questions with factual statements and stop giving me your opinions. My beliefs are based on history, personal experience and empirical evidence.
Address this.
Your replies are based on feelings and not knowings as you all claim.
You do not know anything about evolution.
You show no understanding of the human condition.
You show no understanding of the origin or reason why we believe
No appreciation for the statistical improbability for the fact Jesus could not have been anything short of the son of God. (if he fulfil only 8 prophecies out of the ones written about him. If these estimates are considered fair, one man in how many men, the world over, will fulfill all eight prophecies? Let’s run the math. We have 1 in 2.8 X 100,000 X 1,000 X 100 X 1,000 X 1,000 X 100,000 X 1,000 X 10,000. This gives us 1 in 2.8 X 10 to the twenty-eighth power. Let us simplify it by calling it 1 X 10 to the twenty-eighth power. Written out we have 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Keeping in mind he fulfilled over 300 prophecies. I even gave examples of 16 fulfilled prophecies.
Please note that just fulfilling 8 alone means 1 in more than the number of people alive today by several folds. Please dont be ignorant and say that is chance especially as mentioned above he completed over 300.
Can you debunk person experience? I explained how I got healed, how I saw the blind see and the lame walk. How dare you even try. Thousands of miracles God does every year. People come forward and give testimonies yet as I can imagine you will only focus on the false claims. Even when you feel a claim is false and it is foolish of you to assume so when you honestly have never checked or met someone who had been healed. It is like focusing on the ant in the room when there is an elephant in the room.
You speak about children in Africa. This is the worst thing you can do as a human especially when you do absolutely nothing for them and most of the world doesnt. You speak as if you have some bleeding heart or moral compass when not a single one of you do. Is racism not still alive and well in the world today?
Christianity teaches you that all men are made equal as God is not a respecter of persons. Racism is not a Christian ideology. It is an Atheist one. When God fails to exist then anything that society allows goes. As long as it is legal to do so who cares. That is what I mean when I talk about a lack of moral compass.
The charities you give to have so much admin costs that nothing substantial gets to the end person and very often is embezzled.
Have you never wondered why after so many years of donations Africa doesnt seem to have changed much. You all have a or seem to have some grand sense of intellect yet you show nothing to support it asides childish attacks and meaningless rants about another person which now appears more like a tactic to differ and ignore everything else. As mentioned earlier, Africa is the most blessed continent in the world. God blessed Africa, people stole its resources and used it for themselves. I am convinced that the richest man in the world is African but he can never be declared so as his wealth was gotten through fraud and mass corruption. The person I am speaking about actually had new notes printed straight for him.
You talked above lovelessness in Christianity I explained exactly what God says Love is and what he expects from us, simply put "love your neighbour as yourself". This means everyone around you. He also teaches
Ephesians 4:32 ESV /
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Colossians 3:13 ESV
Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
Ephesians 4:31 ESV
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
Mark 11:25 ESV
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”
Luke 6:37 ESV /
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
1 Peter 3:9 ESV
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
Proverbs 15:1 ESV
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Proverbs 15:18 ESV
A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention.
Ephesians 4:26-27 ESV
Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.
1 John 1:9 ESV
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Luke 6:27 ESV
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Matthew 5:44 ESV
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Proverbs 31:26 ESV
She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
Colossians 3:21 ESV
Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 ESV
And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Exodus 34:7 ESV
Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Ephesians 6:4 ESV
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
At what point will you address this and stop the smallness. Please address your own credentials and the topics. I put forward your own challenge back to you.
This is the first part of what I want addressed by you so called atheist. Next I will post I will explain why I do not believe nor hold some parts of science as true.Your credentials have been exposed, you get your information from Christian websites like answersingenesis.org from where you copy and pasted all that garbage. Those are your credentials.
Sorry, but history and empirical evidence don't agree with you.
Says the believer who copies and pastes from Christian websites.
You never did "run the math' you merely lifted that garbage from this site...
http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odd … ming-true/
You fabricated nonsense based on your beliefs. That was obvious. We are not kindergarten children whom you believe you can just pull the wool over our eyes.
Let me start by saying I agree that
1)Religion can be good when it brings us closer to the truth.
2)Science too can be good when it brings us closer to the truth.
I will use abbreviates to give the statements here some order
SB: Science believed
SNS: Science NOW shows
TBAS: The bible always said
SB:Only between one thousand and twelve hundred stars in the whole universe.
SNS: Trillions upon trillions of stars; they cannot be counted by man!
TBAS: Jeremiah 33:22a "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered..."
SB: The Earth is flat.
SNS: The Earth is round.
TBAS:Isaiah 40:22a "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth..."
SB: Light does not move, it is just there.
SNS:Light moves - and has physical properties; "light waves" or photons.
TBAS:Job 38:19a "Where is the way where light dwells? ..."
SB: The Steady State Theory, the stars are just out there.
SNS: Each star is unique, and two of the star constellations have gravitational binding.
TBASJob 38:31 "Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
SB: Bad blood should be bled out, to make a person well.
SNS: Blood is vital to life, sometimes a transfusion is needed to add blood.
TBAS: Leviticus 17:11a "For the life of the flesh is in the blood:..."
SB: Air has no weight, it is just there.
SNS:Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon-dioxide have respective atomic weights that can be measured.
TBAS: Job 28:25a "To make the weight for the winds..."
SB: Winds blow straight across the Earth.
SNS: Air currents move in large circular patterns.
TBAS: Ecclesiastes 1:6b "... and the wind returns again according to his circuits."
The Earth is carried on someone's back. The Earth floats free in space. Job 26:7b "... and hangs the earth upon nothing."
SB: People just get sick; hand washing is not important.
SNS: Many diseases spread by contact; wash your hands in running water.
TBAS: Leviticus 15:13b "... and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water..."
SB:The stars are all similar to each other.
SNS: Each and every star is actually unique.
TBAS:I Corinthians 15:41b "...for one star differs from another star in glory."
I guess the ARGUMENT for you is
SB: Something from nothing for no reason - "The Big Bang" model - poof, look a universe!
but SNS: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; that is real science. Cause and effect; input is needed to make output.
TBAS: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
It has taken several hundreds of years of research for the science to ultimately come around and prove what the bible always said. This is why we hold the bible. There are so many other things but this will do for now.
Please stick to the topic and address this also.the answer: Because man is a sinner.
Many children learn from their parents and other leaders to support only the corrupt desires of man.
But, those who choose to follow Christian teachings learn to support the needs of everyone.Old world curses of mythical babble do not explain nor offer solutions to real world problems.
Many children are inundated with talk of bronze age curses of mythical proportion, thus they ignore the requirements to find real solutions to real world problems and instead accepting our lot in life based on old world ignorance and fear, effectively limiting ones activities to focus entirely on the idleness of wishful thinking, or prayer, as its more commonly known.Oh yeah. You should tell that to world leaders. I'm sure that would nip the problem right in the bud. LOL
Instead of cry babying about how everything is whities fault why don't you people concentrate on improving your own lives.
When the white man was there your continent was a food exporting nation. Now that you have kicked the white man out your continent has gone down the toilet.
It is interesting that the Chinese are now doing to you what the white man once did.
You know I have been in a few sermons where you Africans have told us whities we were not Christians because we were not black and not from Africa. Do you people understand what racism is?
Do you understand the meaning of "Christianity is a mile wide and an inch deep in Africa" (that was said by a black African preacher)?
Why don't you stop playing the victim and start being men and taking control of your own destinies?
Do you know almost all the African here have no visa and deal drugs? They only want a woman for sex. Then they walk around with the Bibles and tell us whities how they are Christians and we are not.
I have never met as big hypocrisy as what I see in you blacks, it does not matter what country or continent you are onI have no words to describe how I feel right now, so it's a good thing I have a picture to help me out, instead:
You my friend are an idiot beyond belief.
Africa is the Mother of Humanity. Africa is the cradle of the first human civilisation. The First Renaissance on this planet was the African Renaissance. Africa was “the first world” economically and technologically NOT the “third world” of paupers robbed of their lands and riches. Our ancestors built the pyramids which even in this 21st century no one can reproduce. Egyptian civilisation was a Black civilisation. The pharaohs were Black people. That is why that great African Egyptologist, Prof. Cheikh Anta Diop has written:
“The history of Black Africa will remain suspended in the air and will not be written correctly until African historians dare connect it with the history of Egypt. The African historian, who evades this, is neither modest nor objective or unruffled; he is ignorant, cowardly and neurotic.”
The Zimbabwe Buildings that Africans built have been attributed to “foreigners” who vanished into thin air and cannot be found! The stubborn historical fact, however, is that these magnificent buildings were designed by Zimbabweans.
The Azanian civilisation which stretched from Eastern Africa to our country is a historical fact. The people of Azania whose country colonialists called “South Africa” through the British imperialist Union of South Africa Act 1909; mined gold and copper in Mapungubwe as early as the 9th century. That was centuries before Jan van Riebeeck arrived in Azania on 6th April 1652. He and the other settlers brought no land here on their ships. Our ancestors fed them and housed them. They knew not the intentions of these pale strangers.
Read up on the effects on Africa.I am still so pissed at the ignorant racist comment made. You are a shame to Christianity and Humanity. I am sure even Atheists here will agree.
Blacks are the only racial group that still show love to Whites after years of racism and colonialism.
We were made to sit at the back of the bus, no rights to votes, our natural resources exploited. I dont think any Atheist here agrees with anything you said. Not even the hardest Atheist.
You are a disgrace to your race and thankfully I have met a lot of Good Whites so I can safely say you are a spoilt apple amongst a group of good.
This is what you do not understand
A long lasting impact of colonialism in Africa is racial oppression, most markedly obvious in the South African system of apartheid, just recently ended. In fact, "the worst legacy of the European presence was the White racist state of modern South Africa, which only ended in 1994" (Craig, Graham, Kagan, Ozment & Turner, 2007, p. 690). Apartheid was a legal racial segregation system in South Africa based on traditional tribes. South Africans were segregated based on race, and native blacks were excluded from citizenship and forced, literally, to live on government appropriated lands based on tribe. Whites were given superior education, housing, jobs, and medical care ("South Africa Under Apartheid", 2009). The system was completely illogical, with ten percent of the population attempting to control the other ninety percent, but that thought process is purely colonial in its roots (Blundell, 2004). The former ruling class of the colonial era (whites with European ancestry) believed they were justified in oppressing several native tribal populations, and exploiting them for personal gain.
Widespread poverty and unequal distribution of wealth in another long lasting impact of 17th through 20th century colonialism in Africa. Essentially, colonialism forced the continent into (what was then) modern agricultural and industrial capitalism. African nations were forced to produce mono-crops or to mine precious metals or diamonds, all of which would be sold overseas. In essence, native Africans had to "produce what they don't consume and consume what they don't produce" in order to enrich the home country, which was a typical European colonial economic practice (Oku, 2009). Colonized African nations would produce for their respective colonial powers, then be expected to consume products imported from those nations. Non- native whites profited richly from this economic system and native black populations remained in poverty. Any opportunity for developing the nation itself in preparation for industrialization or improvement was ignored; moreover, colonial racism prohibited the educating of the precious natural resource of native human potential. Tribal populations did manual labor for the colonial powers, and generations of ideas and economic potential were lost. Sadly, after independence, little has changed in the economic systems of Africa (Oku 2009).
Native ethnic tension and violence due to colonialism exists because of poorly drawn international boundaries. When the European arbitrarily divided Africa amongst themselves, it was with little to no concern that native tribes and language groups were being separated into different colonial settlements, which sometimes contained enemy groups (Oku, 2009). After the countries gained their independence in the mid 1950's, the arbitrary national boundaries remained severely ethnically fragmented. Colonialism also resulted in ethnic violence by introducing the concept of social hierarchy. A current example of these long lasting effects in the present day is the well known conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes in Rwanda, which was created and eventually exacerbated by colonialism. The conflict between these two tribes has been violent, and some have labelled it a genocide. Before European rule, the tribes were not in a submission- dominance situation, but colonial powers gave preferential treatment socially and economically to the Tutsi people, whom they deemed more intelligent (Sebahara, 1998). This system was taught in schools and established in society for the entire period of colonization. Years of oppression, injustice, and eventually genocide would follow.
Racism, poverty, and ethnic violence are the most prominent impact colonialism had on the continent of Africa. Of course, the European influence was not entirely without benefit; indeed, colonialism introduced modern education systems, medicine, and infrastructures such as roads and electricity to Africa. However, it can be assumed that without colonial interference, the continent would have developed its own unique education system, medical treatment, and systems of government much more suited to the culture of individual ethnic groups. Perhaps a unified continent without strife or racial tension could have developed, with a strong economy and peaceful government. Now that Africa has its independence, the long journey toward healing begins.
Most African countries are under 100 years old. We have a country like Nigeria with over 521 distinct languages. People who are so different and should never have been joined together by their colonial masters. We have the Igbos there also that showed the truest form of democracy.
I THINK I JUST BLEW A GASKET WITH SUCH STUPIDITY. WHAT AN UNEDUCATED DRIBBLE. YOU SHOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE DROPPED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL.What stupid logic "Do you understand the meaning of "Christianity is a mile wide and an inch deep in Africa" (that was said by a black African preacher)?"
Hitler Killed Millions, Napoleon Killed Millions. Does that mean that whites are evil. No it meant 2 men (White, black, Hispanic or other wise) were bad.
You are the very reason why the world seems to hate Christianity today a Hypocrite in the full meaning of it.
My Atheist friends here. Please note this is not what we believe as Christians. It is stupid thinking like this that started the burnings and more atrocities in the past.
This is not the Christian way nor does it represent our belief in loving our neighbour.
What Zoo did you escape from?Racism still exists.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/2186634 … w.facebook
Why are there new children still being born in Africa for them to starve? should be the most important question. God is irrelevant...the sooner God becomes the centre of reasoning is when everything goes to poop!
Do you understand poverty at all? There is a direct correlation with poverty and child birth. Poor people cannot afford other luxuries so they then to do more of the cheaper options like sex.
If poverty is cause by unequal distribution of wealth due to embezzlement and corruption in an otherwise very wealthy country. What does God have to do with that?
If God has given you wealth is it his fault you decide to use it do do drugs, pay for prostitutes and essentially make yourself broke in 2 years whose fault is this. Is this God or the person?
This is the same for most of Africa. SO much has been taken from Africa. The story of Africa is that of a woman that has been rapped for centuries and then a few years later the same people that rapped her ask why why is she not okay? wasn't the rape just a few years ago? How dare she complain?
Africa as a whole has had more years under colonial rule than it has had freedom by a significant amount. Most of Africa especially western Africa did not get independence until 1960 there about. This is not long ago. Some dint even get independence until 1980's. Even Eritrea was 1993.
You Americans really need to know that there is a world away from America.
look at
http://www.japanafricanet.com/directory … dence.html
for the dates African nations got independence.
You should be ashamed for what you said. What about racism? Do you really believe racism is dead? African still having bananas thrown at them in Europe or people getting monkey shouts. What about the level of hate crime. Even look at sports today especially things like football in Europe. Do you think if slave trade did not happen we would be where we are?
By the way does any other Atheist here support this silly statements?This isn't really a silly statement. We should be shipping Condoms and other contraception over there by the skip load together with food, wait a few years and together with the instructions on how to use a condoms/contraception they can make up their own minds about whether they can afford to feed their own children....God doesn't exist, of course it's up to others to help out if they can afford it and that means people power and all that, but the fact of the matter God is still irrelevant in this situation that has happened through no fault of the African people....Of course throwing never ending food parcels over there is just a temporary solution, they have to think about the bigger picture and that's what I was getting at!! Ways to tackle the problem rather than let it go into the wind!
Simple logic!
It's easy just to say oh...why are there starving African kids...oh if there is a God....oh Geee....easy to think in 2D...better to think in 3D
Why do children still starve if there is a God? Why is there any injustice or tragedy?
Why did God see fit to bring Noah's Flood? And how could that be an act of love?
Well, it's all an act of God's love, because God loves His children and God is not Homo sapiens! Let that last phrase sink in for a minute. People look at the tragedy of human bodies and completely miss "seeing" God's children. They keep looking at the physical and miss the spiritual. And Jesus said that we need to be reborn, not of the flesh, but of the spirit.
Check out one of my "book trailers," Identity Crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDDUpGrevN4You are spamming these forums shamelessly plugging your ridiculous book. Please stop immediately.
Don't let him/her get to you, he/she woke up on the wrong side of the crib and never really recovered.
I have a general question for all atheists here and this is just so I can get some clarity on it.
Is the reason for dis-belief in God only based on the 5 capital sense (taste, touch, sight, hearing, smell) or is there more?A Troubled Man posted
There are many gods to choose from, not just one. Why did you choose that one instead of one of the others? Perhaps, none of them were offered to you? Perhaps, you choose the wrong god?
Your father is a human and is not of this discussion whatsoever, we are talking about an evil megalomaniac who happens to be completely invisible.
This happens to just be your own opinion and to be honest the question of why did I chose this one is a brand new discussion.
It would be better if you actually directed a question. Which one would you like me to answer?Hi sorry I have not been able to reply this post for a while. I was dealing with another issue.
I wont bore you too much. Feel free to review this hub by another hubber that gives some of the reasons why we claim to "know" that God is real and the bible true.
I think its an objective write so you do the judgement on it.
http://spease.hubpages.com/hub/The-science-of-the-BibleNothing but lies and fabrications. Complete garbage.
Yeah, I've read it. And when I left my comments refuting the claims, my comments mysteriously disappeared. Its easy to appear wise when you don't allow the other side to even answer your claims
Didn't you say you were well educated? Any educated person knows nothing is laid out like a tent above us and a circle is not a sphere and the earth is not suspending in space. Need I go on?
Ok. now that I have the anticipated reaction I was expecting. I have to ask. What exactly is your own reservations? I mean I had mine for a long time to be honest and I know what eventually pushed me over the edge.
I dont want to assume anything about anyone. So educate me.Reservations regarding what? The nonsense of that hub? If that's what your talking about I've already given you three of the top of my head. I don't want to waste another click on that.
No at all not that hub. I meant why do you feel God does not exist?
On this three levels
On personal/ experiential level?
An intellectual level ?
A spiritual level?There is no evidence besides the writing of some ancient people who clearly had underdeveloped ethics and were attempting to motivate their people. Many people claim to talk and interact with God but nobody can support their claim. All the holy books are deeply flawed and none show any evidence that the writers had knowledge before their time. People generally stay within the faith they were raised in, so it's very likely that you would be a muslim if your were raised by muslims. Meaning your perception of God would be different.
Promoting that hub as evidence is an example of some critical thinking issues that have effected your faith.Nothing, nada, zilch.
Think, reasoning, logic, evidence, facts.
Nothing of the sort has ever been shown to exist.Personal experience can be totally SUBJECTIVE....especially when the person, who claims to have had an experience with a god, cannot show ANY OBJECTIVE evidence to the rest of us. Your FEELINGS don't count.
It doesn't appear to be very intelligent to believe that things exists merely because someone tells you that those things exist. That's a sure fire way to get taken by ANY and EVERY con artist out there. If you lived the rest of your life that way, everyone would be able to out-smart you.
You haven't proven that there is a spiritual level. Until you do, this is completely irrelevant.
Now that it seems to all boil down to "objective evidence".
The question is then raised. What do you term objective evidence?
I think it is important to point out that there will never be a time in which it will be beyond any doubt at all as I cannot physically take you to heaven and show you it exists so I all I can do is point to faith with some knowledge.
Has anyone one of you ever read the bible?
Like I said earlier I know why I believe. It was a rough road made up of education, loads of questions and then some faith and trust in more than myself.
I know that no one could convince me by just words so I ask these questions not out of laziness but to understand.
I cannot explain what I do not understand. Would it not be foolish of me not to know the full story?Look critically at your religious views and that hub you pointed to. You obviously didn't look at it critically or you wouldn't have pointed us to it. There is nothing accurate about the description of the formation earth of the earth or the universe in any of the holy books. You'd think it's dimensions and shape would have been given. Instead we have the description of a stationary earth and a description of the sky as a tent.
To be honest I posted it here to invoke a genuine reaction and I am happy with what your replies were.
I wanted to make sure that the response I got was not based on just the 5 capital senses so Its a good topic to read and more importantly it got me a little closer to understanding in full the real cause of ATheism in the world.
I have always argued that the single greatest cause of atheism in the world is we Christians. We often acknowledge God with our lips but deny him with our lives.
However this is a only a small part of the big picture isnt it? There is hurt from prayers unanswered. People feel that religion has betrayed them and more importantly their leaders have also denied them of civil rights which ultimately was not denied by the bible or the early christians.
Also I think I need to say this so that I might not be called a hypocrite and misunderstood. I have doubted the existence of God on several occasions. On several times I have even managed to almost walk away from my faith but the same thing that caused doubt in you raises faith in me (i.e reasoning)
You see for me no only is it hard to prove God exists physically it is also difficult to prove he does not exist.
I also should point out that I was born to a Muslim father (full muslim origins) and a Christian mother. My parents believed in different things yet in love they found common ground. They agreed to let us chose that which we will accept.
I chose Christianity amongst other religions because
1) The First Law of Thermodynamics
What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?
The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it.
2) That pesty thing called my conscience. A very open moral view of right and wrong. A moral compass everyone is born with is to me evidence of an intelligent design. You see I dont believe I was a product of randomly created or humanity for one was.
3) Evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics as well.
4) Recent research on fossil records. A notable quote that summarizes this is "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).
Feel free to read more on his works.
5) A very rational and convincing few books by Ravi Zacharias (Can Man Live Without God, Jesus talks to Buddha, Jesus talks to Krishna etc). I would strongly recommend. He is a rational thinker and does not push forward random talk. He has a few videos on you tube. He also spear heads a christian chat called "Let my people think". Its not about just faith.
Now he echoes what I feel and know so please fee free to watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTVOufIzyPY
Finally no matter how much people say it is not true I believe God because he healed me of my Asthma. I am testimony of Gods healing after years of intravenous injections for Chronic Asthma and one day it was all gone.Yes, just as difficult to prove leprechauns don't ride unicorns.
Wow, I hate to be the first one to tell you this considering you based your religion on it, those premises are entirely false, fallacious and fabricated. So sorry to have disappointed you.
No, a god did not cure you of your asthma. That is just silly.You asked for a miracle I gave you one yet you say No. And what proof do you have he dint?
For the most part, The cause for atheism is lack of sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God. A lot of the other things you mentioned are reasons that some have decided to leave Church, but leaving the church is totally different from becoming atheist.
I also struggled some with my faith when I took a closer look at the bible. Once I took a closer look, I also tried to look up what else could possibly be said in the bible. As a result, I have found several things that still resonate deeply in me regarding my beliefSorry you don't understand, but science doesn't say all matter just appeared. It's states it was compressing into a singularity. Only the bible states it came from nothing.
You were getting treatment for asthma, but you credit the recovery from God. I'll get to the rest later, I need to watch a hockey game.No I wasnt getting treatment for Asthma. You dont treat it like you do cancer. YOu simply wait till an Asthma attack to take drugs so No, I wasnt getting treatment.
Also did you watch the video?Are you an active person, Daniel? do you exercise at all?
I'm only going to butt in to say this: People with asthma do indeed receive daily treatment, depending on the severity of the illness. My husband is on a daily maintenance inhaler, takes allergy meds to keep them from flaring into an asthma attack, and has a rescue inhaler (that's the one he ONLY takes when he has an asthma attack). So, you are incorrect when you say that asthma need only be treated when symptoms flare up. Daily treatment for those with severe asthma is necessary to keep those symptoms under control.
Thank you, and sorry for the off topic response.Mo!! Hey!! My son is on a nebulizer and has a daily maintenance inhaler too and a rescue inhaler as well.
Asthma's a bitch, I tell ya, Deepes.
I remember once that Michael and I had to run (really run) to catch a train while we were living in Chicago, and because I'm out of shape and smoke - once we hit the train, I literally could not catch my breath. It scared me to death, to the point of panic - which, of course, made it even harder to catch my breath. My husband calmed me and once I could breathe regularly, I told him how scared I'd been, but that it made me realize how he felt every time he had an asthma attack. I asked if he felt panicked like I had. He said that he did as a kid, but not anymore as an adult. He'd learned to handle it, of course.
It really made me think though - that there are kids and adults who regularly go through feeling like they're dying - and I felt a whole new empathy for those with asthma, little ones especially.
No I dint exercise as this would trigger my asthma. I reacted to cold and dust also. I lived in Africa and there is no way around dust so you can say this however you want but its insane to tell a person that from hospital beds to never needing even an inhaler again was a matter of luck/chance or just happened.
You answered my next question, which pertained to what your allergies and reactions are to. By no means do I make light of your asthma. I have a child that has asthma and allergies as well (though his are mostly food) I know that for some, by exercising for short periods of time helped to increase their lung capacity as well as strengthen their lungs. This is the reason for my question. Also, considering that you had sought medical treatment, the treatments also would play a part over time in your healing as well. While I personally do not discount God's healing capabilities, the fact that you had sought some type of medical treatment over a period of time would also suggest that you operated in the principles of seeking help for your asthma, which in itself is a principle that is in the bible. Now atheists will state that God had nothing to do with it, of course.
No it wouldn't be insane to assume that this happened by chance. Who are you to set standards as to what can be relegated to chance? You are just making up stuff to validate your fictitious beliefs.
When I was younger I had a serious heart condition. I was hospitalized several times....up until about thirty years old. During my last episode, I spent a week in ICU, and was essentially on my deathbed. Today there is no sign of the defect, and my heart beat is finally regular instead of irregular. NO SIGN....and I attribute this all to odds and probabilities......or chance. No silly superstitions required.
You see deepes mind. I would have thought that was it but I was seriously ill for a long time and I pray to God to heal me and he did. I never needed an inhaler again. Asthma is not a joking disease.
This anyway is just one of my many reasons for faith in God.
I have read the Bible more times than I can count in multiple languages, and each time I read it, it makes me feel just a little bit more disgusted by it and incredulous that people in this day and age still believe it to be true like I used to.
What part of the bible disgusts you?
I'm really fond of the book of Ruth. In fact, it was part of my wedding vow to my wife.
Now that explains why you dont like Christians.
Do you think Ruth was Gay?What reason are you implying that she dislikes Christians?
Um...no, why? a) why do you think I dislike Christians and b) why on earth would I think Ruth was gay?
There is a very strong belief that Ruth and Naomi were in fact gay.
I guess it could be argued that I took a rather rash jump assuming this could be why she maybe loves her in the bible.
Ruth is one of the most controversial characters in the bible. Strict Jewish people even go as far as believing she should not be in the bible. They are of the assumption she must or might have had inter course with the King prior to her wedding day.
It is only my assumption (which I might add could very well be wrong).Deepes asked me what part of the Bible I liked and was not disgusted by. I answered him. Why would that lead to any assumptions at all?
If I were to think that any biblical character were gay, I'd be much more likely to point to David and Johnathan. Not Ruth and Naomi.
My apologies. I took a rash conclusion. I guess I was wrong on that one.
So might I ask why Ruth?I just find it beautiful and moving. I find it a genuine expression of human interaction and loyalty and I don't find any of it morally repugnant.
Does this mean that you like it and as such think that part is true and okay but the rest you think its repugnant.
If in fact the above statement is true does that mean that for it to be true you must agree with it?Not at all. Are you capable of not making assumptions about people?
I think its a beautiful story. That doesn't make it true. I like it like I like other books that I read. I don't make assumptions about it just due to where its located.
Dont misunderstand I only ask. Also do you know the story of Ruth is based on historical fact?
I don't believe that, just because something is in the Bible, it automatically makes it historically accurate. Some stories in the Bible may be true, but I'm not going to say that the book is true just because some things in it are accurate. Some things in spider man are accurate. It doesn't make the whole story true.
What about Jesus? Do you believe he did exist and do you believe it to be historically true either?
I don't know. I think that the contradictory gospel accounts combined with extremely limited and questionable extra-biblical evidence (and no contemporary sources at all) makes it difficult if not impossible to know for sure. While I don't think its possible to definitively say that he didn't, I also don't think its entirely honest to assert with certainty that he did.
I'm fine with saying its possible that a man named Jesus may have existed in the first century in Judea. It doesn't particularly matter to me.And a true atheist. Since I cannot know with certainty that Jesus existed, and all of christianity hinges on his existence, I lack a belief in christianity, which makes me an atheist. Agnosticism talks about what you know. Atheism talks about what you do/do not believe.
There were plenty of folks like Jesus walking around back then trying to sell philosophies and get followers. Some of them were crucified because they were considered a threat to Roman rule.
So what?
As for Jesus we must remember that we are not talking about scientific fact we are talking about historical probability. This is the same with the bible. The bible is written as a book of history and not just about faith in God. If you look at the book of Kings where the names of the kings and their sons are listed all the way down. It is not about love of God but historical facts.
The existence of Jesus is a very important one. The Quran affirms his existence and there are lots of non christian books confirming it. Also the fact that the stories in the bible differ a little in the accounts of Jesus is in fact a good pointer to historical credibility. It is a lot more suspicious if they were all the same and the stories exactly word for word. In most case when two people experience the same events over 3 years it is only normal to have different versions. However the core of the story remains the same and they have majority as almost the exact same account which again points to historical reliability.
You see if Jesus existed and he lived how they say he did then he is one of two things.
a) A complete mad man who claimed to be the son of God or he is in fact real.
or
b) The son of God in truth
Did you get a chance to watch the video link I sent/posted?
I love this as he echoes my thoughts in a clearer way as when writing a lot of the time meaning is lost.
This is why I ultimately believe in God and will never stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTVOufIzyPY
This is why I know there is one God and I have not bee deceived nor did I pick the wrong religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phVakkGSle0
And this is why I am not an Atheist. I have asked so many questions and arrived at the same answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eB2rfD5dX8
(if you must listen to one listen to the the one directly above)I will address this later, but let me just say - when you're talking to a history student and theological graduate, YouTube doesn't exactly pique my interest as far as proof and/or evidence is concerned, and it doesn't make your case look any more credible.
Ok, all I ask is do me a favour. You say you are a theological graduate then ultimately let your curiosity guide you. Video one and three and arguments from a philosophical and historical perspective.
You can watch/listen to the second one last or if it is in fact a question you ask about how we know Jesus/Christianity is in fact the one true religion.
There is a lot of historical evidence and logical thinking involved. Like I said a few times, I do not believe in just faith alone. God is real to me because he has shown (not speaking literally but metaphorically) himself to be so.Do your videos contain any of the following:
Ontological argument
Transcendental argument
Kalam cosmological argument
Evolutionary argument against naturalism
First cause
Argument from design
Pascals wager
Meaning of life
If so, I'm not interested. I've heard it all and argued it all before, and these arguments do not work, not for professional apologists, and not for you. There are dozens upon dozens of sites that refute them outright.
Here we go again. Yet, another believer who claims they're "special"
So sorry to have to inform you that I don't make up terms, especially ones already defined. Do you not have access to a dictionary?
You have no idea if heaven exists, no one does. It is probably a myth.
Yes, we read books. And, not just one.
Education usually leads one away from believing in myths and superstitions, not the other way round."
"Education usually leads one away from believing in myths and superstitions, not the other way round"
You will find this to be untrue. Think of the giant squid that was just a myth until not too long ago.No, it is very true. Your posts are evidence for that.
Have you watched the video link I posted. I mean if you are genuinely looking for truth the give it a shot. What do you have to lose?
Athiests are under the belief that God allows children in Africa to starve and does nothing about it. He has done something about it. He created YOU to do something about it.
Atheists are not under the belief that God allows anything as we don't believe in God at all. Not angry with him, just don't believe in him. We just can't understand why one would claim that a loving, powerful, prayer answering, all knowing, forgiving God would allow children to die?
Fine, then don't praise your god for things you did or someone else did themselves.
He thinks we are angry at God for being powerless, but thinks God's powerful but impotent and most likely thanks him for Sunday dinner.
The more people operate in principle, the less they need miracles
Have any of you ever asked a Christian "If God is real, why does he allow children to starve"?
And we continue to ask because we don't get a reasonable answer.
Is there any reasoning with atheists when it comes to God?
Children in Africa starve because their leader steal their wealth and rob from them. Africa itself is rich in oil, food, livestock, raw materials, gold and diamonds. Is that not riches from God?
Now we have leaders that rub you directly. Not even in part or hidden. This is the wickedness of man and very often the leaders are repaid with horrible death and they die before their time eg Sani Abacha, Idi Amin, Gadhafi and so many more.
Africa is corrupt, God has provided more than enough resources for the continent. People have stolen it. Even in the bible this happened quite a lot.
We must remember that just as God has given every man free will, he will not deny us the consequences of our choices.
Africa today is a consequence of man made choices and not God.
If I gave you a million dollars (God) and you chose to use it on drugs, prostitutes and much more rubbish (man) and you are broke in 2 weeks and poor again (consequences)? Whose fault is it?
Is it the giver of wealth or the user of wealth when the person is poor?
And, we always get the same lame, contradictory fabrications, similar to this one...
"Children in Africa starve because their leader steal their wealth and rob from them."
And, the many who continue to spout it each time they appear here are shown that's not true, but they harp on continuously using the same lame, contradictory fabrication, then they thank their god for finding their car keys.I am from Africa and I have seen corruption destroy a village first hand. The chief in the village having 15 cars with houses abroad worth millions of dollars. This is infact a very true statement.
And how silly is it that your all powerful God can't even stop these mere human beings from preventing His will from being done? But He can surely cure your asthma, right? These absurd beliefs are completely bogus.
So what? That doesn't account even remotely for the tens of thousands that die every day, not only in Africa, but around the world in countries that have absolutely no chief in their villages with 15 cars.
I mean read about Sani Abacha and how much was stolen. Over 5 billion dollars stolen (from one country alone) and the Abacha family till date even after recovering so much ill gotten wealth are still one of the richest families in the world today.
And Sani Abacha does all of this evil while your powerless God just sits and watches. What a useless character. Oh, but He springs into action when it comes to curing your asthma. This is psychotic.
Your God is all powerful and powerless at the same time.....and completely ridiculous.So what? He was a believer, a Muslim, who was buried in traditional Muslim style, despite the atrocities and human rights violations he committed. Africa is full of believers, Muslims in the north and Christians in the south.
However, Nigeria at the time back in the early 90's were doing much better than they are now with feeding their people. Your point is absolutely moot, dude.Daniel, never answer a heathen's question if you know they are just going to mock your answer. You cannot expect to find warmth from what is cold (without God).
Yes Daniel, listen to the other believers who will do all they can to alienate and divide mankind, treating others as their enemies. Well done.
So now asserting a logical and rational response is mocking? Could you show where this mocking occurred? Thank you
When you tell people that their beliefs are lame and rediculas, it is mocking their belief. All you want to do is create divission. There is nothing productive when I read your posts.
You're mistaking helping for mocking. Attempting to show and explain the delusions is helping not mocking. Do you tell you're schizophrenic fellow human that the person they are talking to doesn't exist?
You say you are helping. Do you extend the courtesy to allow yourself to be helped also?
Rad Man, I never asked for your help, nor do I need it.
And I've never asked to be preached to nor do I need it.
We never asked for your help either but here we are.
Nobody is mocking you. Pointing out the foolishness of your assertions is not mocking. That's called debating.
That's outright defamation. You have no evidence that shows any proof of that statement. Just in case you don't understand, I'm merely debating. Do you understand the rules of debate? I'm not here to agree with everything that you say. That's would not be a debate. That's pampering.
There is nothing productive because you refuse to listen to reason. Therefore the communication problem is definitely on your end.
In order to keep these silly beliefs, you continue to evade reason at all cost, while pretending to be intellectually and morally superior. How utterly absurd. You won't answer my questions because your argument stands no chance of winning. Why? Because your beliefs are just lies, which you MUST support to keep the psychotic beliefs intact. How disturbing.
Please stop trying to assassinate my character. ThanksLet us get something straight right now. I dont debate God with atheists. When you call a belief foolish, you insult the one who believes by indirectly calling him a fool.
And haven't you, yourself turned around on multiple occasions and called atheists fools and/or swine?
That is why I try to avoid them as much as possible JM.
So what you're saying is that you directly have the right to call atheists outright and to their faces fools, swine and heathens, but you don't think that atheists should be able to indirectly say your beliefs are foolish? You don't find that the least bit hypocritical?
In addition (as if that wasn't enough) you say that you try to avoid them as muchas possible, but you've intentionally sought out my hubs to tell other Christians to stop conversing with me, you intentionally came to this forum with the same intent to keep a believer from bothering with the "heathens" and you start forum topics calling us swine. It seems your actions don't exactly match what you're claiming.My actions are results of the many insults I recieved from atheists, so dont play the victom JM. You believe what you want, and leave me to believe in what I want.
1) its victIm
2) I'm not. I'm pointing out blatant hypocrisy, not taking offense to it
3) you're more than welcome to believe anything you want, but in a public forum if you choose to express your beliefs, not everyone is going to agree and some may criticize your beliefs. You're not okay with that, but you're okay with directly calling those with no beliefs pigs.
4) Daniel is perfectly capable of handling his own conversation. He opened this forum topic to converse with atheists, and he did not ask for your help, yet here you are telling him not to talk too us.
He seems to have this incredible need to silence the opposition through bullying....by discounting the person as irrelevant and assassinating their character. What a vicious and childish bullying tactic. And only because he can't truthfully answer our straightforward, and very reasonable, questions. He should be ashamed.
It is how one disagrees that can be insulting JM. I'm done.
I agree. Although I debate with theists frequently, I have never, in over 10 years, called one a pig. Thanks for the lesson - and for proving my point perfectly.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since you're a universalist, you believe that all will ultimately be reconciled with god, correct? If so, why would you differentiate between atheist and believer in the present at all, if (according to your belief) we're All going to end up in the same place anyway?
Then again, I've seen how you talk to other Christians as well, so this is probably a moot point.Okay. As the editor of this hub. I have to politely ask everyone to feel free to continue with the debate. It can get heated and it is okay to get heated as it is something mixed with passion. Its our belief and it is ultimately something that shapes us.
I think the complexity of that human nature ultimately is further possible evidence of creation by an intelligent mind and not evolution.
I understand where both parties are coming from but ultimately if you tell some one that loves his wife that only fools love their wives, you have called him a fool. At that point it is no longer debate but name calling.
The same exact statement can still achieve the meaning expected in a debate by phrasing it correctly i.e I think that a man loving his wife has made an error. The "think" part and "Error" say the whole statement without being confused for insulting.
Going back to the topic at hand. I asked about Atheism and why people do not believe because I personally feel that even if Jesus came down from heaven and sat next to an Atheist in some cases he still will chose not to believe. I ask to find out who or which one of you (i.e Atheist) is actually seeking knowledge and not just trying to prove something as to the existence of God.
In research it is ultimately a pointless exercise if the researcher is biased and only seeking to prove his hypothesis. To learn anything in life one must first take the view of a null hypothesis (non directional hypothesis, looking at all possibilities).. We can only then try our hands at rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis.
Only then can we look to accept an alternative hypothesis (directional hypothesis, claiming a direct cause and effect).
Since you believe in nothing being responsible the question is are you ready for someone to show you that there is a significant probability we were in fact made by God?I'm ready, with an opened mind. But, with all due respect, what does a "significant probability" prove?
Furthermore I think you mean "POSSIBILITY" and not "PROBABILITY"
Of course, I could be wrong. I'll wait for you to guide us to this knowledge.
ThanksI always try to be open minded, and I'm continually researching and looking for new information. I didn't bother with your videos because I've heard those arguments a multitude of times, and its simply not convincing. Demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility for god.
But, the complexity of some living organisms did not happen overnight or even a fortnight, they took millions and millions of years, not the snap of fingers or the wave of a hand, like the creationism fables espouse. That's the flaw in many believers magical thinking, they only really know that God made everything in a week, so they automatically conclude evolution can do the same thing.
Your analogy fails because the wives are real people. And, no one is calling anyone a fool.
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
No big deal.That's wild, considering that God laid down His life for every sinner on earth.
I bet I could make a long list of what that makes them who mock Him, starting with
ungrateful........No, he didn't, that is entirely false. Gods can't die, Christians were fooled by a lie.
OK. IF God lost his life, as you stated, then who was operating the universe? Since it is God who causes the planets and all other bodies in the universe to run properly, who ran things while He was dead?
Apparently we don't need God, because, as you stated, He died, and the universe was just fine. So stop calling us ungrateful, as by the use of common sense one can see that your God hasn't done anything.
You have an extremely irrational sense of entitlement. If your beliefs are foolish, and someone states that they are foolish, you must prove that they are not foolish. You have no more entitlement than that.
I dont need to prove anything to an atheist.
So what you are saying is that you are going to disrespect all atheist....no matter if they are decent people are not. You have already prejudged every atheist, and concluded that it is alright for you to discriminate against them. Do we not even have the right to ask you for proof? Is that a crime? Sounds like outright religious bigotry.
Disrespect atheists? You disrespect us when you arrogantly think we want to read your two cents.
I don't think you understands the concept of an open forum where everyone is free too express their opinions and beliefs regardless of what they are. The same freedom that gives you the right to express yourself gives us the right to disagree. It works both ways.
Also, disagreeing is not attacking or insulting. Its disagreeing. While I apologize if you've taken anything I've said personally our have been hurt by it, ultimately it is your choice to get offended.If I may interject a little bit.. I've been following the conversation and I can see where both sides are coming from, so I am trying to address both sides as objectively (or equally as biased) as possible.
On the one hand, Disagreeing with a person's opinion in a debate in itself is not necessarily a personal attack. However, expressing your feelings about the other person's opinion is where it can be viewed as personal. For example (JM I hope you don't mind me using you as part of my example) ***DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO IS HYPOTHETICAL IN NATURE. IT MAY NOT ACTUALLY REFLECT MINE NOR ANYONE ELSE'S ACTUAL BELIEF***
Let's say that the topic is the big bang theory.. I give the statement that the Big bang was God clapping his hands (SEE ABOVE DISCLAIMER)..
Non-personal response from JM: I disagree, The big bang came about by........ Science proves this.
(debate goes on)
Response that can be viewed as personal: That's the dumbest thing I have heard in my life and I've heard some dumb things.
(Note: I don't take it personal that anyone offers their personal feelings about my opinion. But there are some that do take it personal)
The difference between the two is that in the first scenario, we both are sticking to the subject at hand. In the second scenario, the subject moved to my actual opinion of the topic of discussion.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
As believers, we are called not only to give the word, but also to let our lives, words, and actions toward others reflect the example of Christ. Christ did not go around telling others that it is a waste of time for others to try to reach unbelievers. He gave the word and whatever help he could then moved on. He didn't tell anyone else not to try to offer whatever help they could. That is also what we are called to do. Help others. It does not reflect well for any Christian to tell another Christian that they should not engage an unbeliever because who knows, the second person's efforts might yield better results.
Ultimately, as it is pointed out, this is an open forum and as long as HP allows it you have the right to say whatever you choose. But at the same time, the golden rule also should apply here. We should treat others the way that we wish to be treated. Now of course at times there is a flaw in the application of the golden rule. We have a tendency to treat others as we want them to treat us ONLY as according to our own values instead of treating others' values with the same respect that we want our own values respected..
JM, You hit the nail on the head.. It is your choice to get offended or not, but at the same time, we all want to be respected and not attacked personally (as according to our values). You (not just you specifically.. generally speaking to all who is reading this) may not mean any offense by your words, but others don't share that same perspective. so sometimes it helps to try to show a little consideration for the views and opinions of others (I'm talking to everyone.. including myself)
On the flip side, name calling is what it is.. offensive all around. From a Christian perspective, it is not in line with Christ's example at all. Ultimately, if we can stick to the subject at hand without directing our personal feelings toward the other person, and then agree to disagree, we can all continue to gain understanding of each other and ourselves.
Hope I made some type of senseThis problem always arises when someone thinks his/her opinion is the only one. He/her think he can preach the word to us and tell us how wrong we are, but we can't tell him he's wrong. Telling them they are wrong is offensive to them, but not to us. Most likely no one has ever done that to them before so it's a shock. The next thing you know they are call you pigs or satan or some such thing.
And I understand your viewpoint. But again the issue lies in calling it absurd or irrational is where it gets tricky. I think one of the biggest issues I've noticed from Christians here isn't in you telling them they are wrong.. It's in you calling them delusional, absurd, irrational, irrelevant, etc.. The belief may be that way to you, but it isn't that way to them.. It is no different from them calling your beliefs (and you) heathenish, satanic, evil.. etc.. or them calling other Christians of differing views heretics...
Heathen describes me well. I don't really get upset by any of those because I know where it's coming from.
Here is the problem, either there is a God or they are deluded.
delusion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.
So we can't even disagree with them because disagreeing implies delusion? While they are able to threaten us with hellfire and call us pigs?I'm with you on the pig comment. I know where that is coming from.. But hey look at it like this.. it could also work in reverse to a degree.
As far as the hellfire thing. Yes there are some that use it specifically as a threat.. There are others (like SOM) that mention it as something that is in the bible, but only as information (BTW SOM does not believe in hell). Whenever a believer mentions hell, not all of them are using it as a threat.. At the same time, I know it is offensive to you because you do not believe in it. I'm working on a hub about that.
either way it goes, i do not agree with using it as a threat toward anyone. If Hell is the topic then each side can debate the subject without Christians directing it to you stating that that's where you are going. This threat is also ineffective (IMO) because it places them in God's position.I don't find the threat of hellfire offensive because I don't believe in hell. I find it offensive for two reasons.
1. It's extortion. Asking for worship by threats of eternal hellfire is the equivalent of asking for money to protect you from the broken legs you'll get if you don't comply.
2. These same people claim it's okay for God to extort because we aren't able to understand him. That's mind boggling. They rationalize extortion, while extortion is immoral, unethical and illegal.
I have to ask something here. You said it's either one or the other (and I agree with you). Another problem (for some, question for me) is that I've seen you tell others that they are delusional (or at least their beliefs are). Wouldn't this put you at sort of a stalemate with some believers? I mean after all, you are asserting that they (well, we) are delusional because of our beliefs. Now on the one hand, I can agree with the idea that immediately going to "GODDUNNIT" without acknowledging principles is sort of out there, and according to our current reality there is more scientific explanation than religious evidence (considering experiential as well as interpretation do not qualify as proof to all people, nor does scientific theory). Since there is no absolute definitive proof one way or the other that would suffice for all people as to the existence (or lack thereof), wouldn't it then be up to you to prove that we are delusional? (and no, stating that reality is doing that right now does not totally suffice because there is no proof for all that can accept it)
Just curiousOnly the ones who claim to have conversation in their heads. The ones who hear voices and claim the voices are God and God gives them stuff.
See the difference?
And no I don't have to prove them delusional, they are claiming to have conversations with God, but can't supply evidence. If I claimed I speak to Santa, I don't expect you to prove me wrong.
Our beliefs? We are talking reality, they are talking fantasy. If believers consider reality heathenish, satanic, evil, etc, they need to seek professional help for whatever mental disorder is rotting their brains.
Not sure if you caught the overall gist of the whole conversation, but what I was referring to in this whole statement was giving your personal feelings about someone else's beliefs. Not necessarily the subject that is being discussed (unless the subject is someone's personal belief).
No one is going to laugh at a kindergarten student attempting to answer the question regarding the Big Bang, but an adult who acts and believes as a kindergarten student will most certainly get laughed at, that is, unless it is determined they have a mental disorder.
But wouldn't giving your personal opinion of someone's beliefs distract from the subject? If the big bang is the subject then leave it on the big bang. If someone say one thing about the big bang and you disagree, then giving your point on the big bang keeps things on subject. telling them how you feel is shifting things from the big bang to how stupid and absurd a belief is.
(I'm speaking more objectively here based on the reactions I've noticed from others.. you often tell me my beliefs are absurd, I'm used to it, but we stay on subject)If someone comes into a discussion about reality with opinions that are ignorant and childish, they will get laughed at and then duly ignored. If they keep coming back with continued ignorance and childishness, they will be mocked and ridiculed. That person is obviously not talking about the subject matter and are obviously talking complete nonsense. That's how it works.
Sorry, but disclaimers are not going to get you any reprieve for making a ridiculous statement like that. We're not ignorant children here, hence there is no need to make comments that rival a kindergarten schoolyard.
If someone comes along to state that God clapped his hands and the universe "poof* came into existence as a response to a scientific question, most certainly they deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. Would they actually think they won't get laughed at?
Please learn the art of argument before engaging with intelligent people. Your attacks seem to lack any maturity or intellect and shows a lack of understanding of life itself. In fact, you seem to do everything possible to not confront life's problems. This isn't about respect or disrespect....it's about you showing proof of your assertions. If you can't do that, then you have lost every ounce of credibility, and should be relegated to the realm of irrelevancy. Fair? Please respond with something other than a personal attack. That's so one dimensional, and immature.
Sad indeed.
Ok then, It appears we are finally moving forward.
Now that we are in some agreement of the way to learn we must first of all put down are pre supposed notions based on feelings at the door in other to have an objective view.
What I am simply saying is, If I took on a research to see if people suffering from violent psychotic episodes could be integrated successfully back into society (null hypothesis) but I had unfortunately had an experience in which my grand mother whom I loved had been violently raped and killed by my representative subjects my research will always have experimental bias in it and as such a predictable outcome.
Objectivity can only be reached when we are really asking. I believe genuine atheist (not experiential atheists, i.e as a result of some sad thing that happened to them) are in a good position to be objective if their main motivation was to see if there was a "genuine possibility/probability".
I would like to point out that probability is the likelihood of something occurring, so for the sake of this particular conversation possibility and probability are in fact inter changeable.
I feel that if you are seeking knowledge and not a chance to argue then I ask to listen to this video, even if it ends up being purely for your entertainment and to understand Christianity and our thinking better.
You have made several requests from Christians and now we are trying answer. My belief and reasoning is long to write down here. This talk addressed three very important things. Things I believe Atheists have often asked of us
a) The intense philosophical problems that arise from the denial of Gods existence.
b) How then do we demonstrate Gods existence
c) Why is the christian faith unique in representing this particular notion of a God?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIw6ngIqaD0
So we can have an educative conversation I would also like to plead with the Christians here to listen to the video as well. We cannot argue with someone and say "you must believe in me or take the highway". We have a duty to explain as best as we can without prejudice just as they have a duty to respect a person for who they are (this includes race, sex, age and belief).When I get a chance, I will certainly rake a look at it. As we continue to further this conversation, Please keep in mind that I am a Christian, Getit was a Christian (and as such I am sure he knows the word, and JM not only was a Christian, but also is a scholar in the subject with degrees.
Thats fine. Just as with any discipline we will still differ on the main subject and our expertise will also differ as well as levels of understanding. This is human nature. So it is fine and okay.
Amen. I agree. Just wanted to remind you so that we can enter this conversation with a clear understanding of each other and the fact that we all have some biblical learning and understanding. This way there aren't too many preconceived notions
Sorry The correct link is , my mistake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTVOufIzyPY
I don't understand. Why did you show us a video about some preacher, and his view on homosexuality? Where are you going with this? So far this has made absolutely no sense to me.
My deepest and most sincere apologies, This is the right link.. I think I deserve a pie in the face for that mistake.
So it took awhile, but I watched the video, which is about an hour long. I can see where he makes many good points about the origin of the Big Bang and the Singularity, but to conclude that this makes a stronger case for your argument is just flat out false. And this preacher cannot be trusted to discern logic, since he basically asserts that since there are things unknown to science, there must be a God. You have to watch for tricks like that. This preacher can't use conjecture as a conclusion.
You need to put your critical thinking skills to use, instead of trying so hard to believe every word this deluded minister utters. His credibility suffers even more, as he concludes that the Christian God is the God that fills the gaps left open by science. Mere whimsical wishful thinking....that a fairy tale is somehow true. He only uses science to trick the unlearned and indoctrinated into reinforcing this mental psychosis called Christianity. He doesn't care anything about actually finding out who God might actually be....if there is one.... His ultimate aim is to promote his hateful fundamentalist religious views as the truth...which it is not.
He is either a raging psychotic, or a brilliant actor and charlatan, imposing his nonsense on the minds of the weak and fearful. It is clear that he is a highly educated and great orator, but he has done nothing to convince me that his position is any more valid than before I watched this. In fact, I'm quite perplexed that you would think that something this absurd would have.
Would you guys make up your mind? See, the problem is the bible says "you must believe in me or take the painful highway". Are you saying the writers of the bible were wrong?
sorry the correct link is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTVOufIzyPYI will not click this link because the last one was offensive.
Te Christian stance on homosexuality is a much debated issue and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. He was asked a question and he gave an explanation that he felt suited the question. It is open to criticism but in fullness is not the same issue as the existence of God.
I do not want a situation in which the point of this hub is side tracked by another topic which is still highly contested. Let us stick to the topic at hand and with that I apologise for diverting with that video. I mistakenly put the wrong link up.His entire premise was flawed. He said sexuality should be sacred, sexuality includes homosexuality which would make homosexuality sacred. Claiming God made us all and then saying must have made some of us homosexual just so we can not act on it is ignorant. Should he marry a women he doesn't/can't love and wreak her life?
But I'll leave it.
correct link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTVOufIzyPY
Hi guys, please ignore the last video link. The correct link is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTVOufIzyPY
So sorry.Okay, now that you have posted your argument. I post a question towards Atheists.
Now please explain to us how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life?You know this is very basic stuff right? I'm gong to be busy trying to make a living today, but I'm sure someone will explain why evolution has given us these qualities (which are not unique to humans) for survival. Or you could google it and avoid the religious links.
Sorry, but that would require a tremendous amount of work, something you should probably do on your own, that is, if you were actually interested, by I suspect you're not at all interested.
I asked a simple question simply because Atheism has no answer to it. I will wait for the answer you have whenever you are ready.
You understand we are emotionally attached to family and friends for survival which was given to us and almost all creatures by evolution. Without if mothers would leave there children behind at birth. The babies who do get carried away with their moms survive and pass on their genetic emotional attachment to the next generation. We can't survive without it, that's why we have these attachments and emotions.
I think you might have misunderstood the question. At least I will assume you did.
please explain to us how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life?
This is about a moral basis of life not emotions. Morality is certainly not passed on genetically. Or wouldnt you agree?You don't think a mother leaving her baby behind is a moral issue? You don't think love and compassion have anything to do with morality? Evolution has given most people and understanding of how to take care of other. Most, but not all. From time to time we get the psychopaths which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
The thesis that evolution explains all moral conduct requires that such conduct be genetically determined. Morality rides on the genes, as it were, and one generation passes on favorable morality to the next.
One of the intriguing problems confronting evolutionary ethics is to solve the apparent paradox of altruism. According to evolutionary theory, natural selection entails that in general only the fittest individuals in any given biological population will survive and reproduce. An organism’s evolutionary telos, or goal, seems to be to promote its own fitness in order to survive long enough to reproduce. In situations where an organism confronts a choice between enhancing its own fitness and enhancing the fitness of others, it would seem to follow that the organism will (or "ought to," or should be expected to) choose to enhance its own fitness.
What is the evidence, though, that moral virtues are genetic, a random combination of molecules? Is the fundamental difference between a Mother Teresa and a Hitler their chromosomal makeup? If so, then how could we ever praise Mother Teresa? How could a man like Adolph Hitler be truly guilty?
I used mother Teresa for what she achieved (Regardless of what you think of her later, she did feed millions)morality evolved through society. It explains why different cultures have different ideals of what they consider to be moral. For example, cannibals in New guinea see nothing wrong with eating human flesh. It's celebrated. In North America, the idea of Cannibalism is repugnant. Morality began to evolve when human beings had to start working together for survival, when they realized that they had strength in numbers, and they could survive better in groups than they could alone. As they started to form groups, it became necessary to make rules in order to make living together more feasible. for example, don't take your neighbor's stuff. Don't kill people. etc. None of these laws originate in the bible - in fact they predate it significantly. It's rules that govern human interaction and behavior, and it has nothing to do with any first-cause, amoral or moral. Morality has nothing to do with a belief in god.
Since you like trying to get people to watch videos, I have one for you, that I'm sure you will not only watch, but comment on accordingly.
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-t … ty-4192742Ok now we are getting somewhere. So based on that what is good or bad? Does this mean it is what society determines? In other words, if I took you to New guinea then it is okay for me to eat you/murder you? Does location make a thing right? Is that what Atheism ultimately believes? That murder is okay if it is committed in the right society?
did you even watch the video? It answers your questions far better than I can by someone who has gone around the country giving this speech to various groups.
Okay. I will watch it. This is a difficult problem for Atheism.
Give me a while if that's okay. I will get back to you after I watch it.it's actually NOT a difficult part for atheism. In fact, it's a very SIMPLE part of atheism. Who told you it was challenging?
Well without watching the video yet. I am yet to get an answer. Or do you have one without me watching the video to find one?
By your explanation society determines morality . In other words, whatever society accepts is morally right is therefore good. So if cannibalism is accepted in New guinea then it cannot be termed to be wrong.At least for the people of New Guinea that is. This is taking into consideration that the only constant regardless of society is people.
No, that's what the cannibals think. Don't you read? What society does with what evolution has given them is up to the society.
Rad Man, this is what she said. "morality evolved through society. It explains why different cultures have different ideals of what they consider to be moral".
This is not about people but society so what people think doesnt matter. It is what society accepts that matters. I think you are still missing the question. Take a second and look at it properly.The fact that we can raise humans to become pretty much anything is because of genetics. The human brain is still developing until age 25 and for good reason. If humans were hardwired like some other animals we wouldn't be able to adapt. Society does play a big role, but on a primitive level our emotions keep the group together and safe. A mothers love won't leave the baby behind if it does the that flawed genetic trait doesn't get passed on to the next generation.
Okay let me flaw a few things said.
First of all, as a student of Psychology I can honestly say this premise is not true
"Society does play a big role, but on a primitive level our emotions keep the group together and safe.".
You assume emotions are not as a result of society, you take the assumption it is only via genetics. Using an earlier example, Nigerians were said to be the happiest people in the world (According to the BBC) yet it is a country turned upside down by poverty and conflict. If you ever go to Nigeria you will see that the reason why they can remain happy is because they have come to accept suffering as part of life. This is true socialisation and not genetic make up (after all this was not always the case) . Their emotions is guided by socialisation and not genes. This is a country of over 160 million people. Its too many people to say its just a coincidence. If the same suffering had happened a few decades ago it would be a country in revolt. This is again buttressed by its civil war in the 1960's. This happiness has nothing to do with genes.
Another thing to note is that, there is a reason why it was possible to teach the past military men (such as in the days of troy, spartacus and Alexander the great) not to cry or exhibit certain emotions. Emotions and their outward expression are controllable. This is not based on genetics. It is also false to assume one plays a role more than the other (i.e socialisation or genetics). It is argued till this day which is more important but the general consensus is that of agree to disagree and just assume they are both very important. I am of the school of thought that socialisation is slightly more important but that is another topic.
Also I need to point out that you contradict yourself when you say "we can raise humans to become pretty much anything is because of genetics" . This is another false statement.
We can only change/adapt behaviour because of conditioning (be it positive reinforcement, operant conditioning, punishment or negative reinforcement). This is an attribute of socialisation and not genetic make up. If it was genetics then the more appropriate claim would be the opposite (i.e we can not raise humans to become pretty much anything is because of genetics). It means that people with certain genetic make ups cannot do certain careers as it will go against their genetic disposition.
Also that statement earlier pointed out to goes against social Darwinism.
I need to point out that you cannot in fact make a person to be whatever you chose. It is a false argument which is directly flawed when we see kids that come out of hoods where all they knew is drug dealing, murder and stealing and they "chose not to have a life of crime" and become CEO of multi nationals or great movement leaders. A person predisposition to certain external stimuli is what is responsible for what the chose. Another problem is based on your explanation you assume that identical twins who are raised the same way will go on to become the same thing in life. This is in fact not true at all for obvious reasons.
There are several other reason but that should hopefully pass my point across.
Finally you said "A mothers love won't leave the baby behind if it does the that flawed genetic trait doesn't get passed on to the next generation".
What about mothers that do leave their babies behind? or mothers that dump their babies in rubbish bins or try to kill their babies after birth sometimes through out the life of the child? Where do they fit in your explanation? Or do you also assume that the "selfish trait" will automatically be passed unto the child and thus the mothers "moral code"? Are we saying we are who we are as a result mostly of our genes and socialisation plays a small but minor part? Are you saying we chose our moral code based on this as well?
Also looking at the extreme opposite how do you explain Altruism using evolution and natural selection?
Also in the strictest of sense the human brain never really stops developing. It might retrogress but this is not non development. It does however reach full maturity in what is assumed to be around 30 to 40 years old and not 25 (No idea where you pulled that number out from).
You need to be careful what you believe in and what is in fact shown to be true.
Society plays a massive role. I still stand by my statement that it seems only JMcfarland fully understands evolution and what it actually claims( I do not mean this as an insult by the way).Yes, they need to learn to suppress certain emotions that they were born with. Suck it up Nancy.
Contradict yourself much. We have to condition the changes our genetics gave us. No Sh^t batman.
First you say it's society that conditions us and then you say it's genetics. Contradiction.
There are several other reason but that should hopefully pass my point across.
You should listen a little bit because I've addressed this right at the start. The flawed gene doesn't get passed on because the baby dies. Evolution 101.
Psychology 101 http://www.examiner.com/article/a-child … -by-age-25
Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting but your constant contradictions are not helping your credibility.
You posted a link to me by college students to prove a much discarded statement about full maturity at 25 years old .
I have a counter post then
http://phys.org/news/2010-12-brain-full … -40s.html.
Also I never said genetics plays a more important role than socialisation or vice versa. I simply pointed out to how much of a role they both do and how you can not legitimately discard one in favour of the other.
Also a counter question. What happens when the baby does not die? How about mass murders or serial killers? Are we to assume psychopathology is passed unto their off springs when a serial killer marries another?
You still haven't sufficiently answered the morality question.
She didn't feed millions helped poor people to die a painful and sometimes needless death because the thought the pain brought them closer to God.
But that's neither her nor there.
A male lion in only concerned for himself as that's all he needs to survive however humans are weak and need a group for survival, in this case we look out for our young and our peers for without them we parish. It's really not that difficult. You have been spoon feed a lie, time to put some thought into it. A look into how other animals that rely on groups for survival and you'll see the same things we have. I wish I had more time for you today, but I've got crap to do and that crap is different than this crap because I get paid to do that crap.Ok, Like I said forget her and your opinions on her and lets try to keep it to the point of the question.
My questions hasnt been answered yet by yourself but I will watch the video I was asked to.
Also I dont think you fully understand my question. It seems like only JMcFarland does (so far).Oh, I understand completely. It's your lack of understand humanity that's the problem. You don't understand that our genetic makeup is what helps us learn how to stay connected to our group, no matter the group.
Having to explain the simplest of concept to someone with your level of arrogance is somewhat humorous.You my good man have no understanding of genetics at all. if you claim it explains morality then you really need to go back to the drawing board.
You have started getting personal again instead of sticking to the topic at hand. You answers dont make sense to the question posed.
You claim it is as a result of lack of understanding humanity. How exactly is this humanity defined according to evolution? Is it survival of the fittest? the strong trumping the weak? Do you even understand evolution in full or did you accept it only because you were "told" it goes against the bible and thus supports your belief that God does not exist?
Also where is the arrogance in my statement? You did not answer the question. You answer was neither here nor there (at least in relation tot he question posed) and that's why I said you did not understand the question. Do not let your pride speak on your behalf.
You still clearly don't understand what was asked.
Just before you go unto the discussion on social darwinism. Iunderstand it is not something we must accept or live by as humans are not puppets.
Evolutionists may be right when they argue that we're not compelled to adopt the morality of evolution. The danger of social Darwinism, though, is not that society is required to adopt the law of the jungle, but that it is allowed to. The exploitation of the weak by the strong is morally benign according to this view.
What Darwinists cannot do is give us a reason why we ought not simply copy nature and destroy those who are weak, unpleasant, costly, or just plain boring. If all moral options are legitimate, then it's legitimate for the strong to rule the weak. No moral restraints protect the weak, because moral restraints simply wouldn't exist.
By the way just so that I can put it out there. You can be an Atheist and not accept Evolution. Accepting one does not mean you must accept the other. So please let me know if you fall into that category and then I will have further questions.I am an atheist who happens to accept evolution, although I have not studied it as in depth as I would have liked to. I'm getting there, and reading daily, but with everything else going on, I don't have as much time to devote to study as I used to.
Okay, fair enough. You see the problem I have with Atheism and evolution is that there are a lot of things not explained. I asked those questions to get a reaction from Atheist that discard the "possibility"of God.
To be fair to you JMcFarland, you seem to be the only one that fully understands what Atheism claims. In your incomplete (as you put it) understanding of evolution, I can honestly say that the part you do know about it, you in fact properly understand (unlike a lot of the atheist here).
Evolution has no legitimate answer towards the development of morality and what is good or bad.
If it claims it is what society accepts then it has shot itself in the foot.
If it claims that people are ultimately good (i.e born good) and so no need for a moral development it has also shot itself in the foot.
If it claims social Darwinism then it has infact shot itself again.
These are the three killers of evolution "for me"
a) Evolution is the result of random events (genetic mutations, deletions, duplications, etc) that are acted upon through the process of natural selection
b)The ultimate (please pay attention to the word ultimate) goal of every species in evolutionary theory is to reproduce successfully through continued evolution and adaptation to their environment.
c)Humans are a collection of chemicals fashioned and controlled by genes. Morality is an illusion. Ultimately, the only important behavioral law is survival of the fittest
The truth is in the absence of God as a moral reference point. Man is forced to allow society (Relative to wherever you live) to decide what is morally acceptable (As JmcFarland correctly pointed out). So you will find societies such as the one in New guinea where cannibalism is in fact "morally" right.
Here is what Darwinism says about morality
"Like genes, memes that evolve are "selfish," existing only to replicate themselves. In this view, not only are we lumbering robots controlled by our genes, but we are also controlled by our memes, which do not always agree with our genes."
The serious implication of this type of thinking is that there are no hard and fast moral laws. Any behavior that fosters the survival and reproduction of the individual with the best genetic make up is evolutionarily selected. This even includes immoral acts such as rape.
Now I must add that I am only speaking about rape below to buttress a point and not to take us away from the topic at hand
In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."
This then raises the question (assuming rape is in fact evolutionary) If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?
We must also remember that people are ultimately the same, it is society that often makes them behave (Outside of God).
A little thing I observed that is most prominent with Africans which might help give an example of my point is that, when Africans live in Africa they have no problem throwing dirt on the street floor, eating and throwing the packs down on the road or out of a moving car. However, when the same individuals move to Europe or America its a different story. This "very untidy" behaviour is immediately eliminated. Society becomes the dictator of what is acceptable and years of habit is immediately gone. No one throws dirt out of a moving vehicle any more or indulges in such behaviour. This is simply because their new society does not allow for it. In other words they did as much as they could until the were told they couldn't. This raises so serious morality questions also.
You are correct in saying society determines morality(outside of God) and thus shapes behaviour but this is a real problem if society is immoral (by our own standard) such as the New Guineas cannibals. We then have no right to say to them what they are doing is wrong because "their society allows it and this makes it morally right" (in other words it raise no problems with their conscience).
I also need to add for the sake of objectivity that Evolutionists can explain reciprocal altruism ("I scratch your back, you scratch mine, one hand washes the other"), but have had difficulty explaining altruistic acts done by humans that are not likely to be returned by the recipient.Daniel - while I admittedly have only limited (but continuing) understanding of evolution, I seem to understand it better than you do. The problems that you've listed are not problems for evolution, and the fact that you've listed them all out like this demonstrates sufficiently to me that you haven't really examined it. Not even on a surface level. We can talk after you watch the video. As for everything else you've said - I do not have the time or the energy to walk you through the baby steps of just a basic understanding of evolution. If you really wanted to know the answers, I would think that a person that has 3-4 graduate degrees would know how and where to study to uncover your own answers.
The way it appears to me (and this is solely my opinion based on what I've seen thus far) is that you had evolution explained to you, and you read christian apologetics on the subject by spin doctoring, presuppositional apologists like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Ken Hovind and you failed to recognize the fact that they either a) blatantly lied b) ignored evidence that didn't fall in line c) spun out of context what an atheist or evolutionist claimed d) ignored all of the explanations that other had explained to them. The answers are there, Daniel - if you want to learn about evolution, you cannot rely on the pseudo science by these blatantly false apologists. They're dishonest and their methods are laughable. You have to actually read the science - and listen to the people who actually know what they're talking about. You know enough about evolution to sound smart - but you haven't even scratched the surface, and you seem to be asking atheists who are neither scientists or microbiologists to go step by step to explain it to you by bringing up "problems" that aren't really problems at all - only regurgitated, common crap from would-be apologists. I don't have the time or the desire to walk you through everything, I'm sorry. If you want to know the answers, you have to actually do the work yourself - just like I did. Just like every other atheist I know did. What I'm guessing is that you don't really want to know. You just want to develop your own talking points against your idea of evolution (which isn't correct) to try and stump atheists so that when they refuse to take a good chunk of their time to walk you through it (which you'd probably ignore) you claim victory in that these areas can't be explained. They can. You just haven't looked for it.
Lastly, I think you have a misconception about atheism and evolution. They are not connected. My atheism has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution. Even if evolution was disproved tomorrow, I'd still be an atheist. You need to learn how to separate the two and treat them as two different issues - because they are.First things first, I haven't insulted you so no point doing that. Now going back to the topic at hand.
I never said Evolution and Atheism are the same as a matter of fact I said the opposite of that. Do you remember you replying me saying you were infact both?
You claim I have not studied evolution, I argue the same about you.
You claim I am asking Atheist here about evolution. Why not? They claim it is what disproves the existence of God. I think they make it a valid question.
You say I am too lazy to study it, I have a counter argument. I have studied it in depth and actually know its limitations (hence me pointing to evolution and morality).
You say I am too lazy, I say you don't have a justifiable reason and hence put up a smoke with insults about education. Its the same for Radman.No atheist I know believes that evolution disproves the existence of god. It doesn't even addressthe origins of life, so how could it.
I've admitted that I haven't studied evolution in depth several times. So what? If you've truly studied evolution in depth, why are you focused on one of the most ridiculous, child like arguments against it, morality.
Asking atheists about evolution is silly. I'm not a microbiologist. Why not ask a scientist our sociologist if you wasn't an in depth explanation. Interrogating Assn atheist with self admittedly limited knowledge and not even examining the video I linked you to shows me that you're not really that serious about finding the answer. You wanted all of us to watch your video, didn't you?I will watch it and get back to you.
I wasn't directing the question at you to be honest, you just happened to be the one answering. It was directed and many of the readers here who has since argued in favour of evolution as supreme to a belief in God.
Morality is actually not a childish argument especially when morality is often cited as proof that God does not exist or that our religion is false.
Do you remember people talking about lack of morality with witch burning and numerous other atrocities Christianity was blamed for here?
I only spoke about it because people here spoke about it first. It is also in relation with the original topic of this hub.
Contradict much?
You've getting your information from religious sources. Open a secular book.I dint discover God in truth till a year plus after my first masters degree so you cannot say I only get information from that. I already had an undergrad degree and post grad one before I found God so God is a very late influence in my thinking. I will admit a part of my belief is total faith in something I do not know (Afterall I have never died and come back to know Heaven is real). I do however trust the person who claims to have done that but that's a different topic, let us not digress. We will eventually get to that.
Really? You claim to possess more than one Masters Degree, yet you trust someone who tells you that they have been to heaven? Did the colleges, that you attended, teach you to think in such an illogical manner?
I'm going to try to sell him some prime southern Florida land I inherited a while ago. Right by the water!
Probably gets them from any one of the many online diploma mills.
Lol. I have posted even the universities I went to but thats another thing.
I still dont know why you all keep going on about University but when I speak in return I get accused of being rude or giving a personal attack.
Is attacking my education not a personal attack that refers to me as either a liar or not very educated?
Anyway I will ignore that one more time (such as I have tried to with the many times this has been raised even though none of you claim to have any degree worth mentioning).
I understand someone making jokes about the reliability and even validity of someone going to heaven (thus the more appropriate question is how do you know there is anything after this life) .
However based on your own joke. How do you as an Atheist know that there is nothing after this life? What is your proof that there isnt? We are speaking about proof the same way you demand from Christians. Or is this also an illogical question to as of someone who says there is no God and thus no life after death? Do you not make this statement as a matter of fact?
I would also like to apologise to JMcFarland, I havent had more than a minute or so with work engagements to get to watch the video link you posted. I promise I will listen to it and get back to you on it.Two things.
1. You are making the claim that God and the afterlife exists therefore it's up to you to support your claims.
2. The human brain holds our personality, consciousness and memories, when it is turned of either for surgery or coma all consciousness stops. Time stands still and no thought occurs. Which means when the brain dies so does consciousness and memory. If you think you have a soul that will carry on after you die it will have to do so without consciousness (aware of it's self) or any memory of this life. However no such soul have ever been shown to exist.Two problems.
First a soul by definition is the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. This by its own definition can never be shown to exist. This is like asking water why it is water. Its definition already explains its attributes.
You said I made a claim as to afterlife. I need to correct that and say I infact did not. I even said I take that part by faith in Jesus afterall how can you prove the after life without actually dying and coming back "personally". There are several 100 accounts of people dying and coming back who claim an afterlife but Atheist claim that to be some hallucination so each individual atheist has to experience that personally to "believe" it to be true as other peoples accounts do not seem to satisfy their doubt.
Atheists here seem to believe that by being an Atheist they are not actually making a claim.
When it comes to belief in God there are primarily three major views
a) God exists (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc)
b)No idea if God does or does not exist (Agnostics)
c) God does not exist (Atheists)
By being an Atheist you in fact claim a position, just as it is the responsibility for Christians (or anyone that supports religion of a supernatural deity) to show a reasonable possibility God is in fact real.
Think of it this way, If I wanted to test a hypothesis that men were better than women in mathematics. I have three possible outcomes.
1) There is no difference between both sexes in maths
2)Men are better than women in maths
3)women are better in maths than men.
The last two are directional as they take a positional stance and thus need evidence as to the reason for the conclusion. I hope this makes the point clearer.
It falls on the Atheist to show that their belief (God does not exist) is true. Unless you claim not to know?
It is not good enough to just insult others and say they are foolish. Unless there is double standards you are bound to the same thing Christians or other believers in God are.
Logic dictates that if you say a Christian is "MAD" because of their belief and lack of evidence supporting it by the same virtue a Christian can say Atheists are "MAD" because of supporting evidence showing God in fact does not exist. Or how did you reach that non existence, directional conclusion?
This is the situation at hand. Atheism is in fact a directed belief system just as Christianity is. It claims GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Only Agnostics can say I am on the fence and thus need either an Atheist to convince them God does not exist or a God believer (Christian or otherwise) to show that God does.
Lets bring this down to the elementary view. Anything short of an actual video proof or personal encounter with God will not convince an Atheist so all one can do is show the flaw in Atheism.
You might think of it as a foolish statement but let us take a moment to think about how evidence is provided when one needs to look at a historical account of an incidence/event in the court of law.
Reasonable doubt is the difference between a guilty verdict (direction one) and not guilty(direction two), there is however a third plea which is not proven. One side must prove guilt, while inevitably the other side must prove innocence (or that the evidence provided has other possible explanations or is incomplete).
Going back to the point at hand. I am speaking about morality and the non existence of God because I am trying to prove that the "so called evidence provided is incomplete".
Please also consider when replying that "the absence of a thing does not necessarily prove the existence of its opposite". i.e the fact that I am not sad does not mean I am happy. The fact I am not cold does not mean I am hot.
This means it is not a valid argument or conclusion (As logic dictates earlier) to say that because I cannot see God it must mean he does not exist. There needs to in fact be more to prove non existence than just our 5 capital senses. This was why I asked originally why there was doubt in God existing.
There are a lot of things we cannot see but they exist. Even the idea of immortality has today been proven to actually be true/possible in animal life form (referring to Turritopsis nutricula).Very well said. Now, of course, the atheists response to this is to say that since we Christians are making what is known as a positive claim, the burden of proof falls on us. There is no way to prove a negative claim. (ATM is especially fond of mentioning the invisible purple dragon in his garage as evidence and Rad may or may not mention the flying spaghetti monster and you may see a comic from Getit).
When someone is making a positive claim, it is up to them to be able to produce physical evidence of the item that they are claiming to exist.
For example, if I said I have $5 in my pocket and you don't believe me, it is up to me to reach into my pocket and provide the $5 bill. I can't ask you to prove that I don't because that is fairly easily explained. You can say "until you show me different then I am correct" (which is similar to what atheists are saying). I can easily reach into my pocket and say I can feel the $5 bill, but for all you know it could be any denomination of bill or even simply a piece of paper or nothing. There is a way of explaining just about anything away in order to dismiss it..
Atheists cannot prove that there is no God nor are they willing to. At best, Atheists claim that Christians are either delusional or suffering from some type of mental breakdown of some type.. Since THIS is a positive claim, this is something that they CAN prove, but won't because none of them will be willing to pay for a Christian to undergo a psychiatric evaluation because we still have to produce a GodYou're mistaken on your definition of atheist. Most atheists I know (myself included) are NOT making the claim "god does not exist". That position is referred to as "strong" atheism, and it's very rare. You're right though - if we were making that claim, the burden of proof would shift to us.
Atheism, as I understand and live it is by definition "without theism". It's the default position. I lack a belief in a god until a god can be proven and demonstrated to exist. Therefore, since I'm not making a claim, the burden of proof still rests on the theist.
additionally, there is a flaw in your courtroom analysis. No verdict is ever "innocent". Your options are guilty or not guilty. I find god "not guilty" of existing, because the evidence has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he exists.
Additionally, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. While it's impossible to be both a Muslim and a Christian or Jew, it is possible (and I'm an example) to be an atheist agnostic. I lack a belief in god, and I don't think it's possible for a god to be definitively proven.This was an enlightening and entertaining post.
First you say a soul exists, but can't be shown to exist, then you appear to make the same claim for God, then you claimed I made the claim that no God exists and I should supply evidence and then you claim I think all theists are mad.
I will as you asked consider "the absence of a thing does not necessarily prove the existence of its opposite" in my response.
As JM has already pointed out you definition of Atheism is flawed as I see no evidence for a God or a soul, while I constantly ask for said evidence. You, in fact are making the positive claim that a God and a soul exist, but admit you can supply no evidence.
Tell me, do you think this invisible immortal soul is affected by heat and do you think it contains consciousness and memory?
As Deepes predicted, I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can you prove he doesn't exist?Either I am a Genius.. or I've been hanging around you and Julie too long... I say it's the first, but I'll settle for the second..
OK, so with that logic I would presume that we should now stop doubting the existence of Rumpelstiltskin, Peter Pan, Hercules, Vampires, Werewolves, Medusa He-Man, etc. Thanks for enlightening me.
Really? Please don't use the oxygen or atom analogy, as those things can be detected by scientific instruments....your God is only written about in a dubious book of abject nonsense. hmmm?False. Water has been shown to exist, souls, never. This is like asking how I know the invisible purple dragon in my garage is purple.
That is baloney.
d) Believers believe in myths and superstitions because they are indoctrinated.
No, I would be making a positive claim by stating there is an invisible purple dragon living in my garage. If I were to use your logic, you would need to prove there isn't one there.
False, men, women and math have all been shown to exist.
Which god do you refer? Would that be the one that states emphatically that He shall have no other gods before Him? Can we find one believer here who would honestly state other gods exist?
Such as what? Perhaps, your many masters degrees can help you here.
No, your posts here show that, so it's very hard to accept you've got an education. Usually, those with an eduction don't come into forums talking and acting like a child.
Now can everyone see why I lashed out the last time. See the madness in the statement.
Any by your speech do you claim to have any?A troubled man@ You have a weird way of thinking. I think you are sometimes too fast to reply that you do not seem to take time to read and understand whats being said.
You go again with how Maths, Women and Men exist. You have missed the point completely. Its like water on a ducks back when talking to you. Its like you really just wanted to talk only regardless of whats said. I think only Radman and JMCfarland are actually reading before replying.
You also abuse a book you do not understand. You say we need to accept the existence of any other God. The bible does in fact say if you worship or think of anything as greater that God you are worshipping it. An example is if you love money more than God , then you have made money your God.
Also if we believe in a good God then it stands to reason that we also believe in an evil Devil. The topic on the devil is another thing entirely so I wont digress.
Also with regards to JMcFarland. I think you mean Positive and Negative Atheism and not Strong Atheism but I wont nit pick. I understand your point clearly. I addressed those here that claim God does not exist. They are in fact making a claim but I guessed they would hide behind your reply (Which by the way I respect).
Getitrite, Atroubled man and Rad man do not infact say God might or might not exist but I need proof to believe he does. They say he does and use evolution (As with earlier posts) to show the non existence of God. This is why I asked questions earlier.
Let me paint a scenario (this is not directed at Radman as he has already stated what he needs). If I was to tell you I have been to the lost planet of Atlantis and you doubted me. Asides taking you there physically, what evidence would you need to believe?Perhaps, thinking is foreign for you?
I understand fine, thank you.
The point is that you fallaciously compare real things with your fantasies. Sorry, that doesn't really work.
Are you referring to the Bible? I abuse it? Hilarious.
No, you don't need to accept anything, but then, that would mean you couldn't use that argument against non-believers. That's the point.
Worshiping, in general, is not healthy and only serves to cause conflicts with others.
Yes, the amount of supernatural fantasies you believers hold is astounding.
Here's how it works, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Going to a lost planet is most certainly an extraordinary claim.No I mean strong atheism vs weak atheism.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … ng_atheism
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … ak_atheism
I suppose that positive/negative atheism can also work - but I've encountered many atheists that use positive/negative atheism differently than strong/weak.
I don't know what is happening to make your perception so distorted in these exchanges. You have totally misrepresented our positions here, and if you continue with this type of nonsense, you should just forget about any meaningful debate. Your statement is nothing more than the introduction to a libelous straw man fallacy.
First I would ask anyone, claiming to have gone to Atlantis, to take a psych eval. I'm quite sure it would end there.Just the simple fact that your God has never been objectively experienced, or has never made his existence known.....is ample proof. There is no need for ATM, Rad Man, or Getitrite to use evolution to show nonexistence. Your God has verified His nonexistence for us.
You are just desperately pleading at this point. This type of behavior is alarming and disturbing. It suggests a myriad of issues. None of which are good. Why must people trick themselves with this foolish childish nonsense, steadfastly refusing to mature into rational adults and admit that what they believe is nothing more than ignorant writings from long dead ignorant nomads, who knew nothing whatsoever about the universe.....and who or what created it?
While I understand that most of what you have said is largely a matter of opinion. The question still remains.
What will it actually take? We have discarded several years of history, we have discarded eye witness testimonies and even evidence to the possibility of the supernatural. SO what will it take to believe it is possible? Or using my example before. What will it take to actually believe I have in fact been to Atlantis?What are you talking about here? Are we talking about the existence of god? What eye witness testimony do you have? The gospels are not eye witness testimony, and neither are the epistles of Paul. Additionally, there have been changes made to "scripture" throughout the course of church history, and all of the writings available are open to seemingly endless interpretations - depending on what you want them to say. It is practically impossible to verify any of the life of Jesus historically. There are a handful of references by extrabiblical sources, but some of them have been discarded as early church forgeries (josephus) or they're referring to christans - not to christ. There is no evidence of the supernatural at all - only claims by those that want to believe in a supernatural source. If you've experienced what you consider to be a miracle, it's not verifiable. You attribute it to a god, but even if it COULD be proven to be supernatural rather than natural, there is no way to connect it to a specific supernatural cause. It's every bit as likely that Zeus did it as the christian version of god, and god doesn't seem to be interested in providing a driver's license to accompany his miracles.
I accept that the existence of god may be possible, but I find it improbable. Personal experiences are claimed by many from an endless number of religions worldwide. All of them attribute the source of their experience to be the god that they already know of and/or believe in. You would need actual evidence of what you're claiming to be true - and that evidence would have to be examined, critiqued, discussed and it would have to be falsifiable. Even if we could not determine a source doesn't automatically mean that it was from a god - let alone your god. It means that we wouldn't have an answer, and the most we could say is that we didn't know.
If a god existed and it was truly an all-powerful, all-knowing god, that god would know what it would take to convince me. AS of yet, that god has not done so.
as for your atlantis example - before you could convince me that you'd been to atlantis, you would first have to convince me that atlantis ever existed in the first place.Anything. At this time, you have absolutely nothing but thin air to show us.
Baloney, you have offered no such thing.
It's called evidence, and I am shocked that someone who claims multiple degrees doesn't even know that.
Another senseless ramble by A troubled man. Try to let your statements have a point to it.
Now JMcFarland you said "
I accept that the existence of god may be possible, but I find it improbable. Personal experiences are claimed by many from an endless number of religions worldwide. All of them attribute the source of their experience to be the god that they already know of and/or believe in.".
I have only question with regards to that. What about Atheists that converted to Christianity? Is the general consensus that they simply went crazy? Please bear in mind they also did not know God or believe in him.
How about people like Nobel prize chemist Christian B. Anfinsen? What about Anne Rice?
Today there is an estimated over 2 billion Christians in the world? That is at least 33% of the world. Is it really a legitimate argument that they are all crazy?
Also bear in mind that the idea of "craziness" is in fact relative, just as morality in a world without God. Craziness is defined by society. Think about it, was homosexuality not seen as a sexual perversion by society until recently (1973). Sigmund Freud and subsequent psychoanalytic thinkers considered homosexuality and paraphilias to result from psychosexual regression to an infantile state. Has society not now redefined this again? What happens when and if society redefines sexual deviation again to also exclude paedophilia, bestiality or maybe Necrophilia? How then do we define right or wrong independent of society? Is it going to become individual based?
After all as you just pointed out if I was in New guinea with the cannibals and I ate human parts. I would cater to the norm and thus be normal but doing the same in a civilised society makes me "crazy.
To cut the long story short, in the strictest form of craziness, anything that goes or skews on the left side or right side of the normal curve is a deviation from normal and thus "crazy" by the arguments I have been reading. So 2 billion people (i.e Christians alone, not including all other forms of religion or belief in a God regardless of form) would be in the normal curve and thus (only in the strictest form of the world) Atheism and Agnostics will be skewed towards the right or left side of the curve. We are talking about a normal curve as used in quantitative research. Atheism and Agnostics would legitimately be termed in strict educational circles as being the crazy one if normal is defined by society alone.
I mean think about it asides yourself and religions position. About 85% of the world believes in God. The remaining 15% is made up of both people that either do not know or are not sure. Who then is really outside of the curve of normal (believers in a God or Atheist and Agnostics)?
This means even calling a Christian crazy is an illogical statement (I know not everyone will understand what I just said but it is in fact addressed to those that are of a discerning mind and see things from a logical, God asides perspective).
The problem with Christianity for centuries has not been Christianity (as demonstrated in the book of Acts of what Christianity should look like) but the rise of religiousness in the church. The holier than thou attitude and mis-interpretation of Gods laws to suit man kinds greed, perversions and ambitions (but that's another story again so I wont digress).I don't know what was enough to convince atheists that later converted - and did you really use ANNE RICE as a prime example of your point? Seriously? What about serious pastors who deconverted and are now atheists/agnostics. Frank Templeton use to tour with Billy Graham - hardcore agnostic. Matt Dillihunty was about to enter the seminary, now he's an atheist activist. David Smalley was active in the church. The list goes on and on. What about the Clergy Project - which helps preachers who are still in the pulpit but no longer believe what they're preaching. They can't just walk away, when they have no real employment skills other than preaching, and often times their housing, their families, their communities and their jobs are all wrapped up in the ministry, and they need help stepping away with it?
You also need to define what you consider to be a christian. Sure, 33% sounds good, but how many of them would really be christians? If you ask a lot of people about their religious beliefs, they'll tell you that their a christian or a catholic. When you ask them why, a lot of them will say that's because of the way they were raised or that their parents were. How many of them actually practice that religion. Not to mention with over 44000 denominations and sects within christianity, a large majority of those denominations believe that they're right, and they're the "true
christians - while others that disagree with them are lost. Some protestants say that catholics aren't real christians at all, and some of the catholics say the same thing about protestants. Not to mention, this WHOLE argument is an appeal to popularity. Islam is the largest growing religion in the world - since a lot of people believe in Islam and it's rapidly spreading does that mean that you believe it must be true?
I never said that christians were crazy. How many christians do you know actually read the bible, or study the history of the church? Do they go to church once a week and call it good? I'm thinking that there's a direct correlation between atheists that have deconverted and those who have actually studied christianity in depth and followed the evidence. You keep going back to the absence of morality without a god as the moral compass - and that idea is not only true it's humorous. I've provided backup for that - but it doesn't seem as though you're really interested in learning about it. I think you try to make yourself sound smart - but your circular logic, rehashed and regurgitated arguments really don't do anything to help your case. This is apologetics 101 stuff - not something I would expect from someone that claims to be of your caliper. Can't you come up with something BETTER than stuff I encounter from high schoolers?You raised a few point up until the the last maybe five sentences. Let me try to explain away then.
First of all, It is difficult to reply everyone as I seem to be the only Christian here for some reason, either that or everyone else who is a Christian is just silent. The part about being called a "fool" was not addressed to you JMCfarland but to Getirite and the likes. It seems an illogical statement to claim Christians are fools and I only tried to explain why.
Now when speaking about Christians and percentages. I genuinely believe that if only there were as many as only 500,000 genuine Christians, they would change the world. We do have a lot of people that do not understand the message of Christianity nor do they even try. We have even more that acknowledge him with their lips and deny him with their lives. So in that aspect you do have a valid point.
This however has nothing to do with believing in a Christian God. They believe in him even though they argue on how best to go about the situation. The belief factor is essentially the same even when they were raised to believe in it.
I must add that when it comes to talking about catholics, protestants and others, This is infact besides the point. I said about 85% of the world believe in a God. I did not specify that to include only Christians. This is simply belief in a divine deity and as mentioned earlier was directed at getitrite and some of his statements about Christians being fools.
The fact is that according to the standard of qualitative research we (believers in a divine God) do not fall outside of the norm. Atheists and Agnostics do. I did not propose this as a means of conversion and do not believe it is a rational means of proving God exists. It is just to explain why it is illogical to say Christians are crazy by the same standard which Atheists uphold (A standard absent of God).
Your video does not provide conclusive evidence of morality outside of God and it uses mis-direction a lot. There are a lot of ideas posted but no evidence supporting the credibility that it will in fact or has in fact worked. Or is evidence no longer a requirement in Atheism? You say you provided evidence, where is it? That wasn't evidence.
Look into the history of societies and people outside of a belief in God and see what they see for evidence of morality outside of God.
Two people come to mind every time.
A) Jeffery Dahmer
B) Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche believed in a morality independent of theistic belief, and stated that morality based upon God "has truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with faith in God. The product of this belief was Adolf Hitler who was student of Nietzsche's ideologies.
You claim I have what you described as "circular logic, rehashed and regurgitated arguments" yet in response to something you all say you are I find nothing but ideas and at best "possible explanations".
I believe that the first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything.
There may have been a time when people found it easy to believe in anything. But we are finding it vastly easier to disbelieve anything.
At the end of the day no matter how much we try to disguise it, A world with God (An independent of man being) is going to be subject to all sorts of moral definitions which will ultimately be defined by man and in order to define it as "fair" it will have to be made according to what the majority wants.
This means if the majority want a day in the year in which all crime is legal. It could in fact be passed into law. Who then defines right or worng for you?
What makes it right for you and wrong for another? Is it ever really going to be more that what society dictates (outside of God)? Who are you to say to the people of New Guinea if you ever visited or got stuck with the cannibal tribe with your partner that the killing of you or your partner for food is wrong?
I have read and heard the many arguments of Atheism in a bid to disprove the existence of God at a point in my not too distant past. I said earlier, I wasn't always a Christian though I was a church goer. I did not obey the laws of God, nor did I care much for them. I was born to a Muslim father and a Christian mother who both practised their religion yet in that God was nothing more than something I was taught to accept.
I found God on my own and I know that just as it is not really possible outside of a personal experience with God himself to prove to an Atheist the existence of God. It is also impossible to prove he does not exist.
NB: I did not use Anne rice to speak about someone who is a "good Christian". I only used her to make a point about strong atheists converting. The label "Christian" no longer hold up to what it originally meant.
look at this example in Acts of the Apostles Chapter 2
The Fellowship of the Believers
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
This is what the Church is meant to be, even this idea of different churches is man made. Christian just meant is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.
The term was not one we gave ourselves but one that was given to us based on how we acted (in the past). I weep for the Church today, so much has gone wrong.And Yet, Christians are well represented in prisons while Atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population.
But the trick is also to find out who was Christian when they went in. There are several instances of conversion while in prison
Usually, when prisoners go IN to a prison, their information is gathered, not when they go OUT.
True, but at the same time, most of those represented in prisons were not Christians when they went IN
I don't know. I do not have all of the statistics. However, in spite of the commonality of Christianity you still cannot fairly and accurately assert that everyone in prison that is a Christian was actually a Christian when they went in. It's very fair to state that a majority of them might have been Christian (I'm not denying that in the slightest), but also remember that being raised in a Christian household does not a Christian make. Want proof of that, look in the mirror and look at JM. Two examples of people raised in Christian households but are not Christian.
True, but JM and I do not hold any belief in that deity that was imposed by our childhood. But I have noticed that when pushed, most people do still believe in the God of their upbringing....even if they are not practicing adherents. To me that is no different from being a practicing adherent. Since it is not the rituals, but rather the belief itself, these people are no different than the ones who practice rituals?
I have a friend who became a born again Christian, but he never stopped living his life just the way he has always lived it. He is still just as immoral as he has always been.....but he practices rituals now, and praises God routinely. What's the difference between my friend and a non-practicing believer in a deity?The difference is just that "the practice. I honestly think if you don't change you never really converted. I say so because it is impossible to tell a person you love them and not back it up with actions. In a secular world, this would be regarded as hypocrisy or quite simply a lie.
A declaration of faith should be followed by a change in actions. We (Christians) act differently or at least are meant to based on "love for God". It is an open declaration of love when we love his people and his laws. It is a false declaration when we don't. If you believe that love changes a man in a very practical sense (i.e a drug dealer giving up drugs due to the birth of his child and so forth) then it is not fair to say that he is astill the same as other who never gave it up. His actions are meant to be a reflection of that love. Not one of Gods commandments as demonstrated in my posts today goes against the laws established today. As a matter of fact it upholds it (e.g Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal etc).
What kind of person confesses love to anything and does nothing to show that? Your friend I am afraid is not different from and other non believer no matter what he claims. A true Christian lives his belief (even though to be honest it is easier said than actually done ) .And that is only YOUR opinion.
Yeah....actions....like drowning a whole bunch of people that you LOVE. Got it.
Again....your opinion only.
Who said anything about "true Christian"????
My friend, just like you, identifies with the God of the bible, and believes that the God of the bible is the Lord. That's enough to label him a Christian.
(Before I respond, please note that I'm drawing on my past Baptist church indoctrination and evangelical background.)
The difference between your friend "practicing the rituals" and a non practicing believer is in the lifestyle. Practicing the rituals does not guarantee you heaven (working on the idea that all of this is real). I raised in the Baptist denomination and was a "practicing" Christian for several years. I was raised to believe that once saved, always saved and that it didn't matter what I did that all I had to do was to repent and I was ok.. Needless to say, some of my teenage years were kinda wild (to say the least). Once I got older and started to read more and go to different churches, I became more evangelical to the point where I understood that You have to live the life of a Christian, not just practice rituals. If you lived as an immoral heathen for all except the two or three hours you go to church on sundays that did not exempt you from hell because God judges you by what's in your heart, not just your actions...
So, from an evangelical perspective, the difference is that If your friend is living like Hell but going to church one day a week to practice the rituals, he would still go to hell. A person that doesn't practice the rituals, but still lives a life pleasing to God then he or she would still get into heaven. From a Baptist perspective, it doesn't matter because all he has to do is repent and he gets into heaven. From a Deepes Mind perspective, I have no proof of God, heaven, or hell and even if I did have proof and he is real (as listed in some parts of the bible) I would not even attempt to speak for him.So since you can't speak for my friend....if he goes to prison, he should register as a Christian? If not, why?
He should register as whatever or however he chooses to register himself. If he identifies as Christian that's how he should register. As you stated, He believes in the God of the bible and in the bible and as such he got a word somewhere that he became born again. It is not up to me to say whether he is or is not a Christian. The first couple of ideas (baptist and evangelical) was simply me offering how there is a perceived distinction between the two. The only people I can say are not Christian are those who say they are muslim, hindi, any other religion, atheist, or agnostic.
Uh, yes they were, because it was written on their prison bios when they went IN. That's the point and that's where the prison statistics were generated.
Now we're getting somewhere. I think we were debating semantics regarding the representation of Christians in prison. I was thinking from a point of those in that are Christian. You were talking about those who were Christians going in.. My bad. we were talking about two different things.. My apologies, ATM
That statement is neither here nor there. Besides a lot of people start to believe in A God when they arrive in jail. I mean Jeffrey Dahmer is a famous example.
He famously said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia. He died a reported convert to Christianity.
Also as there are more self confessed Christians than Atheists, The comparison is incomplete and more importantly were did you get the stats from? Surely you must be speaking about American prisons. Or are you one of those people that thinks the world is just the USA (surely hope not)?http://current.com/community/92831935_a … -up-75.htm
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_pro … ous_people
From what I understand the surveys are taken on the way into prison, not on the way out so you can't claim forced conversion.
You should be aware I'm not American.
15% - 16% of North Americans Identify as being Atheists while the prison system population is made up of less the 0.2% Atheists.
Ethics and morality is understood by most Atheists because they understand why they should be good, while most Christians think they have to be good because God is watching. That's why the first question Christians ask Atheists is "what's stopping you from killing or stealing?"To be honest. Your statement reads like you are trying to find a link between crime and Christianity. People very often commit crimes regardless of what religion they believe in or not. It is a human condition. Even the bible speaks about this several times over.
It is also quite a very tall task and to be honest almost impossible task to find a correlation between Christianity and people in jail. The simple reason is there are too many other variables involved in the mix (As per how someone ends up in jail) to isolate it to just one (Christianity). In other to do this you will need a controlled and experimental group and the ability to isolate things like, background, history, genetics, race, culture, education, age groups, sex and so many other things. There is no "known" and provable correlation that Christianity results in many more people being in jail. On the other hand there is with Christianity and people changing their lives for the good, there is with and reformation of character amongst inmates. There is with Christianity and Altruism.
Now you said "Ethics and morality is understood by most Atheists because they understand why they should be good, while most Christians think they have to be good because God is watching".
If you make this claim then the direct assumption is either Atheist have their own individual code of conduct (Specific to each person and unique to them alone) or it is defined by a collection of people (Society). The real question is not "Whats stopping you from killing or stealing?" but more in the frame of "In a society that allows and even endorses killing, paedophilia and cannibalism, what is genuinely stopping you from doing those things? and if you do engage in such what makes it wrong (especially if it doesn't raise any questions in your conscience or society)?
Are you saying killing is fine if you kill in the right society? Or rape is okay if done in the right place? Or maybe Paedophilia if one only goes to the right place to do it? Or worst case scenario is it all fine if you (Since you might not be restricted by God) decide so?
You say Atheist understand they should be good, how do they? If every human being is born a "tabular rasa" (blank slate) . Who defines right or wrong when they come into the world? Do they as individuals? or does society?
Jeffery Dahmer is one of the many serial killers that defined it themselves.
The cannibals of New guinea is a possible result of society defining it.
After all, in all truth who is to say to you and be justified that you are wrong if your morality is dependent on you alone? What right do they have to judge you when you don't judge yourself?
Who is to say the cannibals are wrong if the society they live in says it is right?
For Christians it is true that God is our moral reference point but one thing I love about the "laws" not advice on Christianity is that they are not given for individuals but society.
I mean how can you genuinely fault the 10 commandments.
Exodus 20
New International Version (NIV)
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Jesus then seals it with this.
Mathew 22:34-40
The Greatest Commandment
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The last statement summarises the motives for all the commandments written in the bible. Though I acknowledge that Christians do not always live this in their lives. It is still important to mention that being a follower of Christ simply means obeying what Jesus asked . This is "meant" to be our moral code, regardless of society, regardless of individual inclination, regardless of possible suffering. We live in a world that teaches greed, lust, debauchery and all manners of pleasure which not only hurts each other but very often destroys relationships, bodies and leaves people ship wrecked in emotional turmoil.
I believe that if everyone spent time caring about the person next to them and not always about themselves the world will change. Look at the example I gave earlier about the acts of the apostles. " They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need". This was a community of brothers and people who loved each other just as God had commanded. This idea of an evil God who wants to see the world destroyed is not true. It is only made true by the evil men do all the in name of God. Men that neither know their God nor understand their God and the thing about the bible is that it even teaches that there will be many men like that. This problem is not going anywhere soon.
This was Jesus addressing todays Christians in Luke 13: 24-27
He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
This is the God I know and my reason for acting in what God defines as morally correct. Regardless of what you think you know about Christianity, God does not like the blood thirsty. He does not love wickedness nor does he asked this from his people. Mankind has made God a liar by calling themselves followers and denying him with our everyday life. We (Christians) have forgotten our first love. This is what David writes about God.
Psalm 5
New International Version (NIV)
For the director of music. For pipes. A psalm of David.
1 Listen to my words, Lord, consider my lament.
2 Hear my cry for help, my King and my God, for to you I pray.
3 In the morning, Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait expectantly.
4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome.
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;
6 you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest.
7 But I, by your great love, can come into your house; in reverence I bow down toward your holy temple.
In the absence of God what is right or wrong for you and how do you come to the conclusion of it? No more theories or postulations. You are a self confessed Atheist and in some cases Agnostics. You all live this life everyday and you are all independent and for some of you intelligent people. How do you decide what is acceptable or not in your personal lives? I am talking about a practical application of your belief or non belief.Interesting, nothing about slavery or extortion. What stops you from claiming slaves and or using extortion to get them?
Three destructions of the earth are described in the Bible....one past and two yet to come. The first destruction came when the Flood covered the earth in the days of Noah, sparing only eight righteous people. (Gen. 6:8) In one of the best-known promises in the Old Testament, however, signified by the rainbow, God promised Noah that He would never again destroy the earth by a flood. Nevertheless, two passages in the Bible predict that God will yet again destroy the earth.
One, destruction will come by fire, after which He will restore all things. (Isaiah 65:17-20) speaks of a restored earth, and (2 Peter 3:4-14) describes the judgment of fire reserved or kept in store "for the day of judgment."
Two, the other destruction is described in our text. "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (Rev. 21:1)
It appears that you are one of those people who doesn't understand your God.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but KILL him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
How evasive that you have totally ignored the fact that you have been informed, by the atheist on here, that morals predate your imaginary God. That alone totally debunks your shallow and willfully ignorant opinion that your God commanded us to be moral. For the majority of the time that Homo Sapiens have been here your God wasn't even invented yet. How do you explain that?
Whatever we use to decide what is acceptable is certainly superior to your bloodthirsty tyrant of a God. I would never murder the young innocent sons of an entire nation in order to persuade the leader to change his policy. It seems that your God knows nothing about diplomacy....or, better yet, mercy. Nor does He know anything about justice....as these young innocent boys had not done anything at all to deserve this cruel act of extreme violence.
It is totally here and there, it shows well beyond a shadow of a doubt that believers are the ones who fill up the prisons.
As usual, another comment that makes no sense.
- Sure, prisons aren't full of believers. They just say they are, but since they're all criminals, they must be lying.
Point of correction, people starve in many places around the world, not only in Africa. The world is a difficult place and it's even worse for animals. I think your understanding of God is a guy in the sky who controls and knows everything. Read this article, hope it helps http://www.planetadvert.com/post/visito … xist-2279/
John Bull81. I have to ask, who is this addressed to? There are so many statements made here over the course of about 5 weeks.
I mean this as a genuine question.It is obviously addressed to the person who asked the question which i believe is you. Did you read the article?
Okay John Bull81, Not only are you a bit rude. You really should have read what I said properly before posting. Did you even read the post at all or did you just see what you wanted to see?
I never said God is responsible for anything. As a matter of fact I said the opposite. This was also continued in other conversations on that regards.
Also the bible says God is omnipotent and Omnipresent so he is everywhere and sees all thing. You really should have read the post first before replying. It doesn't show you in a good light.
A word of advice. Don't be too fast to tell us your opinion before reading someone else's statement.getitrite, why have you refused to make any sense in the last 48 hrs?
Maybe it's because I have been responding to an extremely nonsensical thread, created by someone who has made no sense at all during the duration of this thread. I find this whole thread nonsensical, as all of these assertions have been debunked. It is also highly improbable that anyone stating such shallow nonsense holds any degrees from any REPUTABLE colleges, but even if you do, it is clear that your abilities are no match to the atheist opposition on here. You have been defeated by everyone one of them, and I'm sure that not one of them believes your fabrications about your intellect and education, as neither has been displayed here.
You are a clown, not worth replying. You clearly have nothing of value to add or say. You just rant and rave and add no value. Its a shame you have lived up to my expectations of you...
They say empty barrels make the loudest noise.Personal attack. Not nice... We don't call each other clowns here.
Tell that to the others. Its getting ridiculous. Who have I asked for university degrees here? When JMcFaland said she did not know something in full was I critical of her? Did I say she was uneducated?
Its getting more and more ridiculous that with every sentence instead of having an actual point and something that adds to the conversation. I get personal attacks over and over again. Even when they are wrong on the post they send and clearly show this It still doesn't stop there.
I have said this several times and I still stand by it. YOU DO NOT NEED A DEGREE TO HAVE A SENSIBLE CONVERSATION. ME HAVING FOUR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. I went to school to read about something I enjoyed and I ended up with multiple degrees for it. All a degree shows is you understand the topic at hand. It still takes a brain to apply it logically.
For whatever reason they feel it matters to have one and to be honest it points more to their lack of education that anything else. If a person challenged me on a topic I claimed to be an expert in, my first statement would not be "you are a liar and don't have a degree", it will be to show I am equally capable to handling myself on that topic
I had just started to enjoy this hub again and then we go down hill again with this very sad people.
Point your finger to them.
Is that someone with multiple masters degrees says on a public forum?
Daniel. I think I am going to report you for this violation of the forum rules. There was no need to respond with such a blatant direct ad hominem.
You must understand that I simply pointed out the obvious. If you disagree, then disagree, but calling me a CLOWN just because you don't like the truth is not the way to go.
This is why I could never stoop to the level of a Christian. It seems that your God just can't teach some of His followers any self control.Daniel, Please calm down. Don't let anyone break you to the point to where you have to throw out insults.. Your faith is strong. It should not be easily shaken to the point where you have to go there. Come on back.. Take a deep breath
Its fine if it was faith being questioned. I have no problem with that. Salvation was presented to me as a choice so I will never force it down someone.
As my wife will testify my anger lasts only about 10 mins and that's it.
Besides like I said earlier "Empty barrels make the loudest noise". So I am just going to ignore any comment that makes no sense or adds nothing to the conversation in anyway.That is your distorted view of reality, which is insulting, disrespectful and arrogant. You have completely misrepresented me with your fraudulent accusations. By claiming that my comments are adding nothing to this conversation is just a bare faced lie. I put much thought into my replies, and I'm simply stating what I am observing. If you disagree, then show WHY you disagree. If you see no relevance in my comments, then, please, prove to me that my comments are irrelevant. Just saying that something is not worthy of a reply is a trick that people use frequently to assassinate the character of another, while trying to make themselves look superior.
So could you please explain to me why my responses have been so worthless? I think you owe me, and the rest of the participants in this forum, that. If my comments are of no value, then you should have no problem deconstructing them. At least show me that they can be deconstructed to the point that they have no value, and maybe we can all learn something. Just dismissing something without an explanation is very suspect, and suggests a pernicious motive.Okay, Fair enough,
Lets start with this "It is also highly improbable that anyone stating such shallow nonsense holds any degrees from any REPUTABLE colleges"
Maybe this quote from you might help "I'm sure that not one of them believes your fabrications about your intellect and education, as neither has been displayed here".
You claim I have been defeated and by the Atheist here. This wasn't an argument so the fact you think there is a winner and loser when it comes to people stating their own "personal" views on its own says a lot. I am glad you at least use the term "them" when referring to this "defeat".
I have never forced anyone here to accept God. Not once, I have explained my position and why I chose it and that's it.
You have resorted to personal comments that do not raise a specific point or anything at all. You keep going on with personal attributes and so much other stuff that is neither here nor there with regards to the topic at hand. I don't mind being shown to be wrong if I am. It just cant turn into a childish argument about degrees.
When did I ever tell someone here he must have a degree to be intelligent or even to have a valid point? How is that a requirement to have a point? If you keep picking on small irrelevant things then it makes it difficult to not only respect your opinion but respect you as an intelligent person you most likely are.This is a discussion on opposing viewpoints. You can try to define it as whatever you want. The fact is that your views were defeated
Here is direct evidence...an exchange between you and me, where I directly refuted your claim.And I don't think anyone here has accused you of forcing them to accept your God. You, for some reason, are reading things into this discussion that are simply not there.
That is completely absurd....as I have just shown you examples of my direct and pertinent rebuttals of your assertions. What you see as personal attacks is my defense of myself toward YOUR personal attacks. If you go back and read this forum, you will see that it is you who starts most of the personal attacks, then you cry foul when we defend ourselves.
That doesn't exactly fit with the behavior I have seen. When you have been proven to be dead wrong, that's when things turn childish. Oh but I'm sure it's the atheist turning things into this childish argument, and definitely not you.
Just in case you don't remember, you were the one that came to this forum spouting that you had all these degrees. You were the person who made it a part of the conversation. Now you want to completely disown your assertions. If education is irrelevant....as you say, then why did you feel the need to bring it up?
Sorry....but if someone makes claims that don't appear to be remotely true....then discussing and scrutinizing those claims are very relevant, because therein might expose the problem.
You did not direct you replies against the topic at hand. you direct them at me. I can understand if you think it was addressing the topic at hand but it wasn't.
I don't know if it was a tactical error on your part but you did not address the topic at hand. I re-acted based on you going on about degrees. Did I say something to you about degrees in my post? If not what exactly was the reply direct at? was it the topic (surely not as it was never mentioned) or was it me?
I never came here. I started the forum and more importantly, I never claimed anything for any other reason than to buttress a singular point which has been addressed weeks ago.
How can you be defending my personal attacks when I was speaking about a topic to so many other people. They were all talking about different topic and I was trying to reply all. Why would I direct an insult at you ?
Did I no state to yourself and A troubled man recently to stop all of this talk and focus on the issue? You seem to believe you have raised a point but I don't recollect when. Did you not just raise a point as "others/ them" proving me wrong? You cant prove someone wrong based on an opinion.
Just as with the last time I defended a position and when I said you are a clown. I simply meant you are a joker. is that a personal insult?Whatever Daniel. Like JM, I'm done as well. This is hopeless. I see where the problem lies...and it is not with the atheist on here.
It would be futile to continue arguing with you, as there appears to be a severe problem with cognizance.
Good day.To be fair, According to HP.. Yes it is. Even if you don't see it that way yourself, Calling him a clown basically gives the impression that you had nothing else to go on and as such resorted to name calling. Unfortunately, this behavior is similar to behavior shown by believers (including myself at times) here on hp. The reason why it is so much more glaring when we do it is because since we proclaim ourselves to be Christian, we get held to a higher standard of behavior which means that once we lose our cool, it leaves us open for others to pounce on. This is part of why I made the statement to you regarding keeping your cool
Getitrite: Like I said a million times to you. You have not contributed anything to this forum and Its fine that we disagree. I am okay with it. This is not the first time you have pulled this stunt and it most likely wont be the last.
You clearly did not think it was inappropriate after I have addressed your speech to you several times. You keep raising personal things that have nothing to do with the topic.
I have said that I did not mean it as an insult but as a matter of fact. Its my way of saying "you must be joking" or me saying you are a joker. You can take it or leave it. Besides if I did insult you would you not have deserved it? I have told you to stop this several times in the last week and you refused to listen. You are very tedious to speak to and reply to.
The only Atheist that has shown any maturity in this conversation has been Rad man through out. JMcFarland sometimes speaks clearly and then goes on to address things not said to her at all.
NB: I am exhausted. I have spent too long talking about things that dont matter. Anyone that wants to talk about the topics at hand. Please feel free. Enough of all of this.
And what he said was polite talk? I did not mean it as an insult to be honest but when he acts like he is holier than thou and white as snow. I don't like the hypocrisy in that.
What in Gods name does degree have to do with anything. How about " there appears to be a severe problem with cognizance.?I'm not saying his talk was polite, but at the same time, we are only responsible for our own actions. In our case, it is highlighted more because we have to make sure that our actions are in line with what we claim and God's word.
Like I said, As God is my witness. I did not mean it as an insult. He is free to take it as one but that was never the intention.
The whole conversation seemed kind of angry in context based off how it was worded. This is why I told you to calm down and each of the others accused of making a personal attack. Calling somebody a clown isn't necessarily the nicest thing.
You might not have meant it as such, but look at the flip side. The atheists don't mean any direct insult against you with most of their posts, but you took it as such. The same principle also works in reverseAre you being completely honest with us and yourself when you say you didn't mean to insult him when you called him a clown and empty?
In my opinion, not only did you mean to insult....now you are being brazenly disingenuous about it. And using God as your witness to be disingenuous....Is there no limit...?
It's in the hands of the Hubpages staff now.
I have nothing further to say.
. .. because the God is called Bill Gates, and he prefers to pursue his own agenda . ..
I read somewhere that it would take just $185 billion to eradicate world hunger.
If Bill God Gates really wanted to help the starving in Africa, he would use his billions of dollars to empower them to help themselves. Not give them money or worse (vaccines), but teach them how to grow food, install proper sanitation, clean and reliable water sources, teach them skills so they can create their own wealth, and above all make it THEIR OWN PROJECT which they own and therefore take pride in.
This is the only way to truly help anyone. Empower them to help themselves.
Are you listening Mr Gates?Wait, what? Sounds like you need some required viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0IvM8c-Pew
Daniel, I'm done with you. You have claimed to be highly educated but have not demonstrated that to be true in the least, and when backed into a corner, you just insult everyone else and say we're jealous. Of what, exactly? Circular logic? Twisted, repeated arguments? Hardly. I would recommend other atheists do the same. This may be a moot point, due to you being reported for personal attacks. Goodbye. I don't believe anything you say, and because your credibility has been irrevocably damaged, I can't take your arguments seriously. You caused this, and I'm done with you.
And when exactly was I backed into a corner that I did not reply? What are you even talking about? Where did you get this false idea from again?
You all talk about degrees and then when I reply I am made to be the enemy. Did I not mention several times over the last couple of days when I was receiving personal attacks. Where was your moral high ground then?
I don't need anyone to believe I have a degree or multiple ones. I did not go to school so I can "win" an argument on hubpages. I have said this till the point, I think I sound like a broken record now. I don't care about my degrees and I mentioned it once several weeks ago and you all made a big "song and dance" about it regardless of how many times you all have acknowledge that at the most only one other person here has even an advanced degree. You use it any time you don't have a point and refer to it to insult and not prove a point. JMcFarland, when did I ever question your degree? Please tell me? When you stated it, did I say anything in return? Do you not think its childish to mouth off about something like that?
You say my credibility has been irrevocably damaged, By who? By you? You openly acknowledge your limitations on the subject you argue about (which was something I respected at first) and then claim to live the life of an Atheist and Agnostic but when confronted you say nothing but go and watch a video of one mans view to explain why and how I live my life.
I watched the video and responded. I asked question of all Atheist here and never made it personal. I never asked any one to prove their credibility as a person or speaker here (with the exception of when speaking about evolution because you do in fact need at least a basic degree in science to understand it fully).
I responded when someone claimed JAM and the Red cross were not founded by Christians? Was It not false? Did I not say it to prove a point that Christian organisations do a lot more for the world than Atheist ones? Was I wrong? Another double standard.
I responded when it was said that Christians fill up jail cells and other factors such as Sex, Age, Race, Education, Genes, Socialisation, Culture and even location do not play a role. Is that not a crazy argument/stance? How can any logical person even say this when any one of those variables could be more responsible than religion.
Did I not point and mention the bibles view on morality? did I not mention and point to Gods view on evil men? Did I not address the point about God being evil and man good?
I asked about Morality and Atheism and all I got is that " we don't need God to decide what is moral", then I asked again if you don't. How do you decide considering humans a born as blank slates? who decides morality for you? You say I have the same arguments yet show nothing or say nothing to counter it except that video of a persons opinion with no verifiable facts. Where is the objectivity you all crave for or ask about? Where was your answer? was your answers not again about University degrees again (what does that have to do with anything again)?
We have people here saying Christians are essentially evil yet ignoring all the evil done by Atheism. Another double standard. Deepes mind even tried to explain the difference between an actual Christian and a person who just claims it so you know there is a difference.
I haven't asked you to believe me because I write, I have asked from an everyday in your own personal life perspective what exactly do you believe constitutes wrong and right and what makes your know it is right? Is it society of just your own person opinion? Look at the replies from A troubled man, look at the replies from Getitrite. Is this the first time he has done this? Are they not childish responses directed to insult?
When I spoke about jealousy was I addressing you JMcFarland? Was I not responding to someone else? Did you look at who it was addressed to? Maybe I need to take a picture of the certificates and put the name Daniel Prideland from hub pages on where the name is to prove I am in fact very educated and silence everyone on this boring irrelevant dribble. Will that help? I wont stoop to that level because as I have said a million times.
AN EDUCATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION AT HAND. IT HAS NEVER BEEN IMPORTANT.
SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARD. HOLD YOURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME STANDARD YOU POINT FIRST.
Just to clarify the where does God come from question.
A common argument from atheists and sceptics here is that if all things (including but not limited to man) need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?
The question sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
Definition of God by Oxford dictionary
noun
1(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Even the definition of GOD speaks to the question and makes it a flawed question.
NB: It is good to see other Christians actually defend their beliefs now.
HAPPY SUNDAY TO ALL. CHRISTIANS, HINDUS, AGNOSTICS AND ATHEISTS ALIKE. HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A BLESSED WEEK AHEAD.I love this. We understand that the universe must have had a beginning. What was before that. we don't know. Was there nothing? No, because all matter was compressed into the singularity. Are there many universes, perhaps. My 14 year old gave me a run down on the many theories just a few days ago.
But some attribute the beginning to a God that has no beginning and they use Nothing as the explanation as if they know that nothing existed before the universe began. Just a lone entity in nothingness for eternity.
Sorry Daniel, you clarified Nothing.I know you are trying to point to the problem of infinite regression but I think you have missed something I said and merged other parts with what someone else said.
Like I said earlier but will repeat. "We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence".
The question is similar (but not the same in application) as the question of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?
In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight.
Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.One problem, you or anyone else can't demonstrate that the eternal "something" is not material in nature, nor can you demonstrate that something non material in nature even exists or that it can create something material in nature.
Further, nobody is saying that all this came from nothing.@ Rad Man. Interesting statement. I like the way you think.
Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” Now I know that we have had the conversation already about trying to prove that Spirit does exist but I will explain further based on "available" evidence.
The question now becomes — what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?
Scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” , thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist.
Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” . There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.
In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material — which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) — an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.
Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin.
Also the idea behind Who created God is also only valid if bound by time.
The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was created along with the universe from Moses:
"And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: 'Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place.' Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses (This might be an assumption but it is still a very valid one)?
How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.Which is yet another term called the "non-existent"
No, spirits have never been shown to exist, there is no evidence whatsoever.
Sorry, if the good Dr. Jastrow is miffed that scientists are basing their understanding on evidence rather than a holy book. That's how science works, incidentally.
That is completely bogus logic, based on false premises and conclusions.
No, your false premises and conclusions testify to that.
What is exactly valid about that? Plato's concept of time is merely a representation of properties of the physical universe, it has nothing to do with Moses.
However, the concept of time that physics explains is a property of the universe, along with other dimensions, and it is this in which Christian apologists now create their wacky interpretations.
Unfortunately, that is a meaningless statement since anything outside of time must be outside of the universe, which would mean gods are not part of our universe, which means they don't exist in our universe, hence they are meaningless.
That's putting the cart before the horse, time is a measurement of cause and effect, hence it is time that could not exist without cause and effect.
That is backwards. Cause and effect would have to occur first in order for time to exist.
Cause and effect would have to exist first before time can exist, this is explained in Genesis where God created everything over a period of six days and rested on the seventh. Obviously, God must have a calendar in order to keep track of his causes and effects.That's what I thought. You don't understand the concept of what the singularity or the big bang was. The problem with your logic is your attempting to prove the existence of God using logic instead of trying to understand how we go here using logic. How did we get here? God done it. Any number of things may have happened before the big bang, for instance all matter may have been condensing rather than expanding and perhaps we are currently in the expanding phase or perhaps the theory of bubble universes makes more sense, but claiming it's logical to assume a God created the universe while outside of our universe for us is not logical at all. Why would he put us on the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies? Do we need more than one galaxy? Why did he bother making more than one planet? Why did he make planets around other stars? Why are we not the centre of the universe? Why do we need parasites?
Using comments from a 1977 book is not helping your cause. Our understanding of the universe has changed a lot since 1977.
Also I forgot to add
God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
- THAT'S the clarification?
You're talking semantics, dude.@ A troubled man. LMAO. I am sorry but this is laughable "You're talking semantics". I am going to assume you did not complete the sentence or has the meaning of semantics changed?
Semantics
1. the study of the meaning of words.
2. the study of linguistic development by examining and classifying changes in meaning. Also called semasiology, sematology, semology. — semanticist, n. — semantic, adj.
Perfectly true.
True
As something cannot come from nothing, all those things that are in existence now, was in existence for ever. So what was god doing?
We also call it universe
How come a "thing" suddenly became a "being". "Being" means organisation. If such complex organism can have eternal existence, then all the simple organisms too have eternal existence. It is not a "being" that has eternal existence but the matter that make up that being that has eternal existence.
Related Discussions
- 142
Why do Evangelical Christians say we all deserve hell?
by Disappearinghead 10 years ago
According to received Church wisdom, all of humanity deserves to be sent to hell? Why? What have we as individuals done that's so wrong that eternity of torture or annihilation is the reward?I'm sure the average Hubber here has never murdered a child, sold crack to street kids, committed genocide,...
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 4 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 282
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?
by JP Carlos 9 years ago
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?I've heard people try to convince atheists that there is a God by quoting the Bible or some other holy book. But quoting from such materials won't work. You have to believe in them before you can accept them as plausible...
- 252
Ending Christianity won't mean no more religion
by lizzieBoo 12 years ago
Some people like to comfort themselves with the idea that if they get rid rid of horrible-old Christianity from the world, we will be left with nice, peaceful nihilism. I would like to point out that if you trample away Christianity, we won't be left with the unity of blissful non-belief, we will...
- 119
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.
by charlie 6 years ago
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.It seems most people professing to be Christian do not have a proper grounding in the scriptures. They drink the milk but do not seem to be able ( or maybe no desire?) to eat the real meat- understand the deeper things of God, in spite of the fact...
- 9
Name things that Christians think about Atheists that are false. :)
by Catherine Mostly 8 years ago
Name things that Christians think about Atheists that are false. You know what this question is about - let's have another responding question to the other self-ingratiating questions up here; because that is how silly HP has this 'most popular' front page laid out. They SHOULD be actual Hubs that...