Such God worshiping religions would include Judaism and Islam. Also, did something happen to you to make you angry about "God" or is this just a scientific decision you made in college?? Many atheists demand that Christians prove their beliefs. How do you prove yours... or do you? Believe it or not, no sarcasm is intended here. I just want to know what you think of Jesus and how you came to your conclusions about the non-existence of God. I ask that we stick to the question, for the most part. We are all entitled to our beliefs, but I ask that we suppress any desire to be vulgar in any way.
sort by best latest
Darren68. I totally understand your choice to "refrain from commitment..." I believe a certain amount of skepticism is healthy, whereas anger is not. I do not attend any single church. Mostly I read historical accounts of Jesus & listen to debate
I don`t consider myself a skeptic when it comes to religion.I am not 'undecided'.I jumped off the fence a while ago now.But something I`ve discovered just recently about "Zoroastianism"!??Enlighten me savvy.Do you know anything about?
Darren68, I don't know much at all about Zoraster, except that his name comes up during allegations of virgin birth parallels. But those (Z) beliefs began in the 9th century AD, long after Jesus & thus too far in time to be considered reliable.
A scientist can prove something he has found out while a believer who has attained enlightenment and thus claims to know God cannot do so. This is because God is the most abstract feeling and like all feelings,it can only be expressed and not proved.
I'm not convinced that jesus as an individual existed, but I think a lot of believers are so concerned with spreading what they think to be his message that they miss his life example and have become similar to the leaders he often railed against.
Agreed JMcFarland. Jesus despised the Pharisees. I agree that more self-proclaimed Christians would do well to take the hint. Needless to say, I don't lump all Christians in the same category, nor am I suggesting that you do..
B4 becoming a true believer, b4 I saw the light of Christ, I was like Julius Cesar, wearing a mask, not willing to take responsibility, passing d burden 2 others, JMF. As I have seen God's truth in Jesus, I saw true FREEDOM in His light.
What does that have to do with what I posted or any of the responses? We are here to answer a question, and it seems like you are here to preach and spread your beliefs to us? Why do you feel the need to proselytize to those who aren't interested?
savvy: Then why do you lump Atheists into 1 category of contempt and anger?
IDONO, point taken. What I should have said is that most atheists on forums are quite adamant about expressing their contempt for Christian beliefs in no uncertain terms, and I wonder why.
I am an atheist, I don't hate god or gods of any kind, I also don't hate religion or religious people. If anything I hate the evils I see religious people perpetrate in the name of their belief and nothing more.
Great comment artblack01.
Your impression of things is only as good as far as you will yourself to believe in jonnycl. Humility opens up more truth than what pride dictates, which like material things, is but passing with life.
Greetings Edwinoel. I visited Pampanga in the early 1980s, lovely people, full of hospitality and kindness.
jonnycomelately, as far as I know, you always express your beliefs in a respectful manner and I appreciate it. That being said, there is ample proof for the existence of Jesus; actually more than any other historical person--even Julius Ceasar.
I must be missing something, but I don't think Atheists dispute the existence of Jesus. They don't believe that he was the son of God. How could they? That wouldn't make sense. They never state that Jesus was a bad person. Why the spin?
Some scholars dispute the historical validity of the person of Jesus. The majority of scholars do not - because the majority of biblical scholars are so because they believe in the bible. I believe she is trying to imply that they're invalid.
Whether "Jesus" ever existed in reality or not, I am not debating that....for me it does not matter. What I am saying is that any person who "believes" such a person existed long ago imagines his/her own preconceptions of that Jesus's personality
Johnny, I do not imagine Jesus's personality because I can read about it in great detail from the scriptures. JM, I am not implying other scholars are invalid. Skeptics are equally committed to their bias. All one can do is study both arguments.
Savvy, however much detail your read in the text of the bible, you still add your own interpretation(s) to what ever you read, and manipulate any meaning to suit your preconceived ideas. You are not alone. But what you believe is yours, alone.
Not entirely jonny, as most NT scholars lack adequate training in Hebrew & Aramaic paraphrasing. Thus they make improper parallels regarding Greek literature & Hebrew & Aramaic texts. A compelling case is made for Jesus thru proper schola
you're saying that most NT scholars (which are largely Christian) lack the proper training for their profession? On what basis do you make that claim? I think these scholars would be surprised by that assertion from a layperson.
JMcFarland, I'm a layperson who has access to material as do all. Some scholars willingly produce publications that lack all criteria because they need to publish. I know this from my brother who publishes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwV__gW5v4
if the need to publish is so great that they neglect all the criteria for doing so, there is a process in place called "peer review" that would stop the publication in its tracks. Genuine scholarship in all fields requires peer review.
"studies of peer review have identified numerous problems, including confirmatory bias... favoritism for established investigators in a given field ... and ideological orientation" Also, I meant "not all."
That's absurd to me. How can they continue to make a living in a field with no cross checking guidelines for actual scholarship?
"....and ideological orientation" is surely the domain of most christian propagandists?
JM, A rated journals are rigorous, and scholars know which one's they are. But garbage is still published. For every article, you can find a counter--so peer review is helpful, but not a guarantee..
Hi Meg Moon. I agree that Jesus was very forward thinking & quite radical in his message to accept all. As for the magnet, it's clever, but untrue. Christians feel as if atheists expect us to be perfect. Everyone is flawed. l do support Gay righ
I'm sure you do but you can't speak for all Christians. I agree though many atheists are shocked when religious people do anything a bit naughty like you're not people too.
Meg Moon, great comment. Every word you wrote I agree with. Using Jesus as a shield from that which is "different" or unsavory to them seems to be common. Certainly not with all Christians, though.
Meg Moon. It's true that many Christians are prejudiced against Gays. This is wrong. I believe many are taking the Bible out of context, and I always speak to them about this. Torn, by Justin Lee is a book I recommend to Christians about this matter.
chef-du-jour, "....and debate the subject of God or no-God with them if they wished to do it sensibly but I would suspect that we'd soon hit the bedrock of faith, and there's just no reasoning with that " puts it so well, thank you for those words.
Hi Chef. Debates can and are done sensibly by SOME debaters, thus I see the "bedrock" argument as a dodge. But I do commend your lack of "grudges," especially since Christianity, as opposed to Marxism, allows many to take their comfort for granted.
God is spirit and He makes my mind and my heart connect to my spirit, onto infinity I can see the truth in Christ and the truth in creation.
Cre8tor. Yes, of course atheists have morals & I do Not see them as you suggested. It's just that their response to God & the Bible are usually wrought with contempt, and this is my effort to understand why.
Maybe you see a group in the United States that labels themselves Atheists. You might be judging all atheists in that light. Is this so? I am not a person to respond with contempt, usually. Fundamentalist Atheists might be an exception.
When having a conversation on belief, most Christians want to save me. Convince me. Win me over. Offer me something that I feel I already have. Like a vacuum salesman. I try to politely say no but then the pedestal comes out. Yes, now I'm upset.
Do you agree that the desire to convert someone to whatever belief indicates a personal insecurity?
And that ultimately, it does not matter. If I am secure in my own understanding that I can live with, it does not matter?
Mormoms and Muslims are taught to convert people so they are following "instructions." Christians are taught to spread the "good news" about Jesus, respectfully. To "condemn" is disrespectful & doing so is wrong and misguided, johnny and Cre8to
Perhaps some but not what bothers me & is perhaps natural. It's the force & tactics used that get me, which often lead to disrespect and judgment, often by a stranger & now it matters. My beliefs don't require restraint IF provoked or thr
Not sure I understand Savvy... have I ever "condemned"?
Savvydating. Just look for a minute at the attitude of your question and all the assumptions you made. I'm not attacking you at all, but when you ask or imply with contempt, how can you expect anything other than contemptuous responses?
according to Christianity, what will happen to me if I die & never accept Jesus Christ as my savior? Am I not condemned if u say it out loud or not? I don't feel this of any religion but most feel it of me. Poor label to carry if I believe or not
johnnycomelately, I was not referring to you. You have never condemned anyone as far as I know. What I was saying is that Christians have no right to condemn, nor does anyone else.
Hello dashingscorpio. Yes, my favorite cousin is an atheist and she is laid back, as you described... as long as no one "preaches" at her. Since I don't do that, I forget that some people do "preach" uninvited. Good point.
As in Ecclesiastes dashingsc, I have learned how fast time flies, and how meaningless life is with all things material becoming center, but as I put God, love and faith in Jesus at center, I saw the truth in God's light.
Before my miracle experience, I feared death, MTD. Living my third life, in Christ and with Christ, I have seen hope in His truth. Trusting Him more has opened new horizons of truth in this life, in His words come power over all evil, forever, Amen
M.T. Dremer, yet the Bible has given us a standard that did not exist before, but which non believers credit themselves as having. Again, I quote I quote Dostoyevsky again)."If there is no God, all we're really left with are arbitrary preferences."
If that is indeed what we are left with, is it such a big problem? Maybe if/when we adjust to the situation it's quite satisfactory?
No, jonnycomelately. Arbitrary preferences create dictators, as in all communist regimes who have a record of ignoring human rights and forcing their beliefs upon people, at the threat of murder or imprisonment.
and the history of the church from its origins up through the Renaissance didn't have a history of ignoring human rights and enforcing their beliefs, often causing murder, death torture and belief by force?
JM. How long ago was the Renaissance? What happened then was Evil, but now Christians nations have freedom of religion without fear of torture. We tend to take our freedom for granted. Not so in Communist & Islamic nations, which despise Christia
Christian nations? I don't know of many (if any) Christian nations, and many Christians worldwide are still being persecuted, which is why I find it morally repugnant that so many American Christians claim persecution over nothing but disagreements.
God is not the counter to arbitrary preferences, survival is. Morality comes from our desire to live, and our desire for those we love to live. It existed long before religion and in species that aren't human.
Not to mention, discounting the 1500 years the church held power in the 700 years after they lost it is a bit disingenuous. How much progress in human rights, science and technology has happened since that was previously thought heretical?
Is this morally repugnant JM. I don't think you know the first thing about religious persecution. http://www.prisoneralert.com/
Oh I don't? After spending time in the mission field in a country that is now torturing and burning people for witch craft? I don't think you have any idea what I know, and being condescending towards atheists in your comments doesn't help.
JM Who is torturing these people? Were you sympathizing with Christians? If so, then I missed your point. The site I pasted is about persecuted Christians. If you are saying that Westerners don't know the first thing about persecution, I agree.
in Kenya (I was a MK w/ my parents there), it's often christians doing the persecuting. What I was saying was that Christians in America have no right claiming that they're being attacked or persecuted just because they're disagreed with.
JM, that's interesting about Kenya. Do you remember what year it was? I don't know of Christians who claim persecution, except underground Christians who are tortured. But I agree that US citizens have freedom of speech & as such, are not persecu
I was in Kenya between 1992 and 1994. The Witch hunts started later. Many Christians on hp claim that they're being attacked and persecuted whenever someone disagrees with them or when they're asked to not mandate public school prayer. Absurd.
Thanks for your answer regarding dates, JM.
Hello getitright. Your answer explains a lot. Being poor and not receiving any help would make most people angry..Thanks for being honest. Your answer gives me a better understanding.
Understand that the anger was just the start. I was also angry at Santa for not ever bringing us presents, and I think you will agree that being angry at Santa is absurd. Santa and God are based in the same childish fiction, with trickery to deceive
G., it sounds like you are angry with God's claims who you equate to be a failed Santa. My reasons for believing: "If there is no God, anything is permissible." If there is no God, all we're really left with are arbitrary preferences. --Dostoyevsky
God doesn't have any claims. Man says that there is a God who makes claims, just like man said of Santa. At least man came clean about Santa. Your reason for believing is lacking any real meaning. Man doesn't need God to be good.
True, at least due to our expectations in the U.S. But is morality "subjective" and therefore "not binding," as in many Asian governments?"
"I prayed for things that God should have given me." I suspect that at the root of some atheists' belief system is an underdeveloped sense of self and the relationship between self, God, reality and the universe. It is disappointment in life not God.
Retief - Can you back that claim up? Can you even define what an atheists belief system is?
JM, Perhaps Relief is asking the question: What is your belief system? Relief said he is speculating. I don't think he made any specific claim.
You have taken those words completely out of context. I just wanted to emphasize that there was no reason NOT to answer my many prayers. Why bother praying for something you don't feel you deserve....like FOOD? What nonsensical logic.
God gave me life out of unconditional love, that I may give back n share this uncond'nl love w others. Little did I know, He always tested my faith in Him every time. He created me along with others, that I may see in us all, His love and blessings.
That is nothing but pure DRIVEL! When someone's head is hopelessly immersed in an ancient fairy tale, the only thing possible is to regurgitate mind numbing nonsense.
U C savvy, the "Retief"s of the world R Y the anger. Direct w/ his "superiority" as so many. (not all) I now "suspect" and over developed sense of self w/ a lack of respect and intelligence. This is a religious rep & I'm supposed to appear friend
Cre8tor, To clarify, Relief did not use the word intelligence or lack thereof with regard to atheists. Atheists use that phrase constantly in referring to Christians, by assuming we all believe blindly without having studied anything. Works both ways
The intelligence part has nothing to do w his or my religion. It's an observation based on the statement he made and lack of fact within it. Admittedly, agitated by the intent of his remarks but my intent wasn't to link intellect w religion.
IDONO, I know atheists feel no need to prove; it is the stance they have chosen which strikes me as rather convenient. But as I've stated before, I just wanted to know more about their feelings to better understand.
There IS NO PROOF for either side so why would it be convenient for one and not the other. One side says there is nothing there so there is nothing to prove and the other accepts on faith so no proof is required. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
Savvy. The word "despise" leaves no space for understanding. My responses would have been much different if you used the word " resent". A person can resent someone they don't believe in. Not who they are but what they stand for.
It's not that atheists "feel no need to prove" as if they chose that stance out of "convenience". You do not need to attempt to disprove something unless something has been proven first. It would be different if we made a positive claim. We don't.
Cre8tor, this is why I included Jesus in this question. He represented God on earth. There is more than ample proof of his existence, which is found through a great deal of historical documentation, in the books of scripture. History provides proof.
Was talking about your comment of convenience, no Jesus there. Christians say "faith" for what they can't prove. Is it convenient? I could C it that way dont U think? Why does it "strike" you and shouldn't me? U learn more being objective.
Even if there was indisputable proof that a man named jesus existed (which is debated by many reputable scholars on both sides) that does not automatically make the claims that are made of him true.
Cre8tor. I haven't used the faith argument, though I think faith is a fine thing. Also, you can listen to a debate between Ehrman and Evans. Evans uses his knowledge to debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr6KX3wM71s
When a Christian has "no need to prove", they claim faith. Why doesn't this "strike" U as a "convenient stance" like U say of the atheist? Point is, it's not a matter of convenience and you shouldn't be "struck" by it or unfair about the claim.
savvy: Looking beyond all the bickering, sarcasm and anger in a bunch of responses, I recognize something. You are the only 1 that consistently displayed patience, tolerance and composure throughout. Rather than argue, I want to know how. Open minded
Thank you IDONO. You are very kind to say so and I appreciate your comment very much. Sometimes I struggle in trying to figure out how to respond properly without losing sight of my feelings of responsibility toward my belief in Jesus.
Thanks for stopping by, marshacanada. You've pointed out two recurring reasons that atheists give: 1) God is a myth and, 2) religion causes evil things to happen. I maintain that most wars are caused by a desire for profit and power, religion aside.
Again savvy...the word marshacanada used was EXCUSE. Interjecting the word CAUSE changes the statement.
blake4d. Truth is not relative. Individuals may not be inherently moral. Also, I have never condemned an atheist, a christian, or a pagan. I don't have that right or that desire. I think "do as you will, harm none" is a moral motto.
Truth is relative, savvydating. The individual decides what they believe is true, based on their experiences, their convictions, their morals or lack there of. There maybe absolute truths, like life and death, but human truth is based on beliefs.
Blake44. I tend to equate truth with morality, so this is where my distinction lies. People do have many beliefs regarding morality, but some things are morally true or morally bankrupt. (Not talking rules here)
Just because something is moral, does not make it true. It is moral not to lie, but people tell white lies to children to protect them from ugly truths about life. It is not immoral to eat meat, but I am sure cows would disagree with the practice...
blake4d, that is Robert Powell in the title role of the made-for-television film, "Jesus of Nazareth". Sorry, reading the comments when I saw your question. No personal comment on the question..though an interesting discussion! Bright blessings all.
Thanks Beth! Always nice to hear from you!
Since I was a child, I was fond of asking questions. For me, it was part of growing, peeples. I opened my heart and my mind to everything, until I realized I have a spirit that I can't see yet I can perceive and it connects me to my God my Creator.
You are trying to convert, Edwin. Constantly. This is a window on your own psychology, nothing more.
Edwin: We get already! Your testimonial is a wonderful thing. You should surely write a hub on it. But please, not here. We all need a chance to make our own decisions.
Greetings stuff4kids. I appreciated your answer. A bit ironic about the actor. Lol. As for his assertion that he learned nothing about the character of Jesus from the Bible, this tells me he read next to nothing. Jim Cavaziel felt differently.
This tells me you read everything into it, Savvy! Your answer is appreciated as much as one can. You will obviously never change your view.
What I'm saying Jonny, is that the character of Jesus shines through bright and clear in the New Testament.
Hi bipolartist, regarding my question, I addressed this with IDONO & I apologize for coming off that way. If you'll read atheists responses on forums, you'll see.
Christians believe in separation of church & state. That's why this nation wa
Hello Borsia. Thanks for stopping by. For anyone interested, Bruce Metzger's Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian-- might shed some light on the "massive oversimplifications" believed about Jesus and god myths.
Beverly Stevens, I asked that we suppress any desire to be vulgar. "...poorly written, inconsistent, nasty book" qualifies as such. If you are representative of most atheists, then Peter Hitchens observations in "The Rage Against God" are correct.
How is commenting on a poorly written, inconsistent, nasty book vulgar? Sorry, I don't see it. If I were commenting on any other poorly written, nasty book, would you also think my comment is vulgar? I was trying to answer your question honestly.
Beverly, I appreciate that everyone, including you, is trying to be forthright. The definitions of nasty is: physically repugnant, obscene, disgustingly filthy. (Merriam Webster) The Bible is actually one of the best pieces of historical literature
I saw the bible too Bev, as filled with contradictions, until the Holy Spirit enlightened me 2 God's truth, that man himself has refused 2 better understand these contradictions as all meant 2 b, that God can never be outdone, He remains in control.
savvydating: If you want me to re-write my comment without the word that offends you, I'll be glad to do that.
Beverly, not necessary. You made your point. The point I was making is that distinguished scholars consider the Bible to be one of the best pieces of historical literature in the world. They should know, as they fully understand historical context.
The problem there is that most biblical scholars are religious. Of course they're going to make that claim, and they have an agenda to uphold and protect. Everyone has biases, which is why looking on every possible side often yields better result
JM said:"The problem there is that most biblical scholars are religious."
I know u r trying 2 say they r biased, but then; the problem with most doctors is that they are MD's, the problem with most bankers are that they are financiers. dsnt make sens
most doctors are MDs and not research fellows, teachers, etc? What is a doctor biased against? You cannot expect a biblical scholar or the scholar of the Koran to be open to the idea that they're wrong - they'll lose their livelihood.
but it's a catch 22 because most people are not interested in studying bibles if they don't have a vested interest. n this case, u r the rare exception
Hardly. There are secular biblical scholars who either started by believing and changed their opinion or recognized the need for a balanced, independent approach. They're outnumbered, but that's expected.
I agreed that they exist, just not in droves. Typically one enters a field they r interested n. Medicine, teaching, etc. But to enter n2 politics or religion field requires personal commitment, so typically people enter w/ a bias.
montinfro, that's a novel reason to hate religion. I don't get it. However, Jesus may have had darker skin, or not. He would look Jewish/Middle eastern, from the lineage of David. I liked this photo because of the long face & nose, and intense ey
I firmly agree.So do you consider yourself to be of the 'athiest' persuasion or 'agnostic'?
As do atheist communist regimes, such as Stalin's who claimed religion needed to be removed to attain the ideal communist society. He killed approx 20 million people directly & indirectly.
Well probably agnostic, because even though I try to resist it's hard not ponder if you're right or not.
I consider myself an atheist agnostic. I lack a belief in a god, which makes me an atheist, but I do not know with absolute certainty that no God exists, which makes me agnostic. They're not always mutually exclusive by default.
So I take it Savvy that you are comparing my humble opinion to Stalin. However I guess I may be interpreting this all wrong and just getting a history lesson.
Josh, your opinion is nothing like Stalin's. Yours was nice, though broad. I was giving a specific example of war & religion based upon radical Marxist views. During the Renaissance, Christian catholics also committed heinous crimes.
What about the anti-Marxism in USA ? Spread and used by who consider themselves superior by virtue of their christianity? Hypocrisy?
Jonny, it's not by virtue of their Christianity. It's because Marxism does nothing good and never will. History has shown us this. Christianity has nothing to do with it. Even a secular person can see that.
I must say thanks to Savvy for the explanation. We talk about atheist and other denominations faith regarding "Gods". Shouldn't we really discuss why war is the back bone of faith. You know good vs evil what would faith be without chaos.
Guys. I think by using examples 4 both sides we have established that beliefs do not cause war, people do. Whether u r Christian, Muslim, or atheist, there are good people and bad people. There are those who make decisions thinking it is 4 the good
Whether I`m right or not,I pretend to be neither josh.
Mklow1 - I agree people cause war. No doubt or argument. BUT...Why do you think religion has so often been used as the excuse to condone it?
War is about power. Anyone trying to gain power uses anything they can that can be used as a vehicle to attain that power.
Anyone trying to kill can use many means as well, yet the gun seems to be the weapon of choice. Why do you think those who want to obtain power through war have chosen religion as that vehicle so often? Perhaps more than any other.
Really? Please enlighten me on how many wars have been declared by a religion, what percentage, and give me your sources. It sounds like you came up with your presumption by feelings and not logic because you use the word "perhaps".
Stick and move. Stick and move. Bob and weave. You a boxer? Why not answer the simple question? Are you afraid of what you'll have to say?
Cre8tor, Mklaw1 is correct. Most wars are not caused by religion. The majority of wars have been for profits or power. Also, the Crusades was the last Christian war. That being said, Islam is still conducting wars to create an Islamic state.
I said religion was used as a vehicle & excuse to condone & asked why. Not a cause though it has been. It's wrong 2 say perhaps if I'm unsure of %? What % is OFTEN exactly. Hitler claimed to work for god. Why would he say this to support his
R u referring to Hitler, the gentleman that liked to use propaganda (i.e. lies)? What he did and why has been and will be debated forever, but the fact remains that he did not declare war due to religion or because of it or in the name of it.
When u interject "declare" u change my statements & question. Yes that Hitler. Apparently terrorists aren't using Islam as a vehicle & Christian belief didn't back near extinction of Native Americans & slavery. What, not war? Lets ask the
What happened to Native Americans and slavery were not a product of religion. They were about money and power. Those instances would have happened whether religion existed or not because those types of things have happened since the dawn of mankind.
So when the leaders began 2 kill off natives, they gained support of fellow CHRISTIANS by telling them it was justified by greed & power? Interesting. Same w/ slavery? "It's ok. We're lazy." Very interesting.
"They were about money and power." Those who wage war USE religion to gain money and power. They know that humans flock to religion in times of fear and famine. Still happening today especially in christianity.
Jonny, do you have specific examples. I am also responding to another comment you made: ....and ideological orientation" is surely the domain of most christian propagandists?" That response is propaganda, used often by atheists. It lacks integrity.
Deflected again. Well perhaps the question here and much of the conversation that has followed explains a lot. Please though, don't deflect my frustrations toward God or Jesus or any other deity.
"they gained support of fellow CHRISTIANS"
and atheist, and jews, and pagans, etc.This is a people issue,not a religion issue,which is what u arent quite gettin.Yes religious people happened to b involved, but it was not a religious issue
Cre8tor, you are accusing others of that which you do. That's why I ask. You seem to blame most wars and evils on Christians without proof. The last "Holy war" was during the Crusades, long ago. Read "Rage Against God" for more perspective on wars.
savvy - I've deflected nothing and you keep injecting whatever words you like. Did you even read my question? Mklow - LOL! You're a percent guy. Just how much of the population then we're Jews? .5%??? 4% today. Don't blame them!
Again, for the umpteenth time u missed the point. I see debating with you if futile. Have a good one.
You only want to debate thats the problem. I was seeking an answer, not a debate. (Just like my other question on choice)The question was simple. I know avoidance by complication. Are you involved in politics?
Wow, u have short term memory. I answered your question right after you asked it. I said:
"War is about power. Anyone trying to gain power uses anything they can that can be used as a vehicle to attain that power."
Now, who's the politician?
Weird cuz I don't recall asking what war was about? Do you? Hmm. Perhaps there's a glitch in HP. Let me clear that up for u. Why is religion often used as a vehicle to CONDONE, EXCUSE, SUPPORT, SELL, GAIN FOLLOWING...for war?
Cre8tor, you'd have to check in with the Supreme religious leader of Iran, for one... but keep in mind, he isn't Christian.
u asked why is it used to condone, i said it is about power. what part of that don't u understand? i don't think i can say it any clearer.
Mk-war is about power/greed but it's not what the leader says to get his people to condone/support/follow him. Savvy-do u say Islam is the only example? I point 2 no specific religion. Once call out Christians but not w my question.
I agree, please see my response to your question about 20 posts up. I said religion was a vehicle. This is what I have said the entire time.
You say "anything CAN" not "religion is" but we're getting there. Now. WHY is religion often used as that vehicle? Savvy- Note: I do NOT say Christians here. Never did. Not even implied. Nor do I imply Islam or voodoo. Just religion.
For power, Einstein. Anything bad people can use. I mean, u say "we are getting there" like u r trying to teach me something, but u aren't quite understanding that I already know all of this. My point is that religion is not the bad guy. Bad people r
Yes. It's called reading comprehension. My 10 yr old is learning it in 4th grade now. He struggles too. People choose certain words for a reason. Like people choose religion to condone war. There's a reason this vehicle helps them gain power.
Money is what they r after, but I dont hear u saying it causes war so we should rid the world of it. Science builds the weapons, but i am sure u aren't anti science. my point is there r bigger factors in war other than religion.
MK - I can no longer run on this wheel w u. Either there is a language barrier or I'm on candid camera. Oh & it's because religions r full of people who feel superior, want a greater purpose & r led. Ease the conscience, you'll have an army.
I don't think there is a language barrier. I think the best I could have answered your statement about 4th grade reading comprehension problem is that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Keep fighting that good fight
It was a joke Mk. My boys are actually quite intelligent. Well above average in some cases. I am glad to see you agree w what I've said about religious choices though. Apples in fact do not fall far from trees. I couldn't have said it better.
The apple reference was about reading comprehension. I hope u c the irony in that! lol
I have yet to encounter a strong argument for God's existence. What I can debate about, however, is the character of the god portrayed in the bible or the Koran or in other holy books, and the claims that believers make - which doesn't equal accepta
Maira818, I have found this to be the case as well. I think the problem is that many westerners take the bible out of context. They believe it must be aligned with modern western thought. The bible is a middle eastern book. Customs were different.
In my experience, those that attack one another in heated debates generally attack the followers or non-believers. They also tend to attack the words written in the Bible and perhaps mock Jesus just as believers attack atheists.
I've yet to be presented with a single piece of tangible evidence that any gods exist, let alone a strong argument. conversely I see abundant evidence that they don't exist.
Borsia, I agree with you 100%
Funny that a belief is "nothing" if it doesn't include a book or deity to tell one how to "believe".
Cre8tor, please enlighten us as to what an atheist believes in that differentiates them from other beliefs. My take was that the only thing binding atheists was the lack of a belief or denial in a god, which is the definition of an atheist.
Coolcasing. Thanks for commenting. Atheists seem to take issue with the Bible, which is part history, part prophecy and part inspirational poetry, as in Proverbs & Psalms. It needs to be read as such to have a clear understanding. Context matters
Not fair 2 ask me 2 answer in 250 words & I know I want w b clear w you. Let's just say, I'm still motivated by something 2 wake up, not kill people, sleep in peace & make a good life for my children. No book required. Label me what u will.
First of all, the lack of characters is a cop-out. U want to criticize coolcasing's definition of belief, but you won't offer 1 of your own. I gave you the definition of atheism, which is the lack of belief in a god.
Second, I never label people.
Be reasonable. My beliefs & the differences in 250 words? Easy for you, "Read Bible". "BELIEF: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction." I can't have this without a god? I have a dictionary too.
It's a shame u r leaving it at that. Pity since your first post to coolscasing had so much potential. Maybe you should write a Hub. I would love to hear it from an expert.
Leaving what at what? I'm saying not believing in a god or being part of a religion doesn't deny someone the ability 2 have a belief as CC implied. That's incorrect, not criticism and I blame no one. Enough w remarks. I'm remaining cordial yes?
U r remaining cordial, as am I. U said u can't fully explain w/ 250 characters and I suggested u write a Hub.
"Who are you if compared with His unlimited sovereign power?" If one does not believe in him, or chooses another God as his or her deity, how does this even make sense? What I mean is, to me, Jesus is a mere man, buried long ago. I am MUCH more.
I am talking about religions that worship ONE GOD . There is nothing called '' another God '' . I do agree with you that Jesus was a mere man but I believe that he was a messenger whom the God had sent with a message that had been replace by Islam.
It's all in your mind, Mahmo. I despise no god, because there is not one. Only that which you chose to believe in your mind. My mind is no better, no worse than yours.
I hope we meet together in the day of resurrection to tell me how you came to life again ? I know it is difficult for you to believe but did you come to this world also just by mere unwise haphazard act and without wise act of wise power ?
No offense, but your statement appears to be mere drivel..blatantly making stuff up to suit your already absurd conclusion that Atheist can actually hate something that doesn't exist. You probably also think that Islam is the religion of peace