I have observed atheists. They have a striking similarity. They think the existence of a Creator God is impossible. I mean, why? What is so uncanny in a God? There are lots of things we don't know about, and don't understand. Maybe God is the Ultimate Unexplained? Why do ya atheists fear the *idea of a God*?
It may be just another reality, like the rising of the sun every morning.
I don't fear the idea of a god, I just don't see any evidence of any gods and all sorts of things that used to be ascribed to gods and other supernatural sources have been explained by science. So really, there's no reason to believe in a god. I know some people find the idea comforting, but for me, I find it kind of creepy thinking there's an invisible dude watching me touch myself.
And how do we know which god is the right one?
You have not seen any evidence because there are some places you have still not looked into. See this link.
http://atheistpill.blogspot.in/p/eviden … isted.html
This site will guide you to see evidences.
It is delusional and dishonest for one to jump to conclusions of gods just because they don't understand something.
Athiests DO NOT fear the "idea of God'. Only believers do. Come to think of it, I don't fully understand the electronics that makes my laptop work in order to type this comment. Oh I know! There's some sort of god behind it!
Your computer is a result of a creative mind. (human)
But you, who are infinitely more complex, came about by mere chance.
An accident of nature.
Followed by billions of positive beneficial, micro-incremental changes, all upward, all by chance.
I recon that's worth believing. Nothing to do with faith in the impossible, unlikely ,and improbable.
No intelligence behind it at all.
No, there is no intelligence behind that explanation, it is false.
I have no interest in false faith followed by billions. History had shown countless times that the majority was miserably wrong.
That is exactly your problem. Your looking at the wrong place. Even I do not understand the electronics behind the working of a laptop. But I don't need to understand the electronics to know that the laptop was made by an intelligent designer.
There is an obvious flaw in your logic. When one does not understand something one should continue looking, not stop looking and say "well I don't understand it so God done it". Just because you in particular can't imagine another way doesn't mean other can't imagine it.
We did not stop but looked in the right direction, you can't look in that direction because you don't want to.
I've looked in that direction. I was once a Christian, but I continued looking, as you should because Christianity creates more questions that can not be answered.
I don't think so. You just have not have the correct study..
If we happen to find out that our whole "reality" was created by a far superior "a;ien" beings from another world light years away...There might be some surprised or P'd off people...and of course there will always be the ones who just flat out refuse to believe what the "facts" that are right in front of them.
God does not send anyone to hell. See this link.
http://atheistpill.blogspot.in/p/god-do … -hell.html
You need this pill to correct this problem in your thought.
These links are embarrassingly ignorant. They provide no substance and lack thought.
if you believe in existence outside time and space (that there was something before the start of the universe) then there has to be God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) Another reason why atheists don't expect anything to happen when they die. There's no hope in that, hopelessness is the source of many problems. How does an atheists view of life lead to hope ?
People can lie steal and cheat without others knowing. If there is such a thing as true justice there has be a judge who has the qualities of God.
Science explains spiritual things ? that has to be a joke. When it comes to near death experiences, miracles, visions, even alien abductions the only thing science comes back with are attempts to explain it as coincidence, psychiatrists calling the people crazy. if you found yourself living on another planet science would be useless. even the history of man used by science, macroevolution is flawed and unproved.
True, there's no hope in that, but that also means there is no false hope. I can hope my wife can come home from work tonight with the suitcase full of cash a drug dealer dropped accidentally, but that's a pretty false hope. As an atheist, I have plenty of hope, but it's realistic(ish). I hope my kids do well in school, I hope the economy improves, I hope the next president (whomever he may be) is wise, fair and just (OK, that might be a false hope), I hope my wife still loves me when we're in our '80s.
Wishful thinking does not make something true. If God actually did something useful, it would prove he doesn't exist. This is a god so powerful, so awesome, that he refuses to be bounded by the arbitrary requirement of making a goddamn difference in the world.
Makes no sense. Please explain.
Here is a link for you.
This will explain why God does not act the way you expect.
Why would anyone deny the possibility that an intelligent something (named by humanity as "God") might exist? That's about as silly and irrational as claiming that it absolutely does exist.
True, some of the attributes given to "God" are pretty hard to swallow, but the Christian religion, at least, is coming to realize that their source of all (spiritual) knowledge (the 2000 year old book they deem holy) is deeply flawed and must be "interpreted" to match mans knowledge of the world around him. Take away the omniscience, omnipotence and the ability to be present in every quanta of space and you are left with a knowledgable and powerful extrauniversal ET that created this one.
Unlikely? Of course. Impossible? Certainly not.
Hmmm... there are many stars in the horizon of the wilderness.
Very nicely put, @wilderness.
Instead of the Bible being flawed, couldn't it instead be the interpretation that is flawed? That would at least be one possibility. Certainly, interpretations of the Bible must include reality -- and science is, by-and-large, reality.
For instance, Archbishop Ussher gave us the traditional date for Noah's Flood at 2348 BC. Ussher also gave us the dates for the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. He was a methodical and exacting scholar. But the really early dates are based entirely upon the timeline in Genesis. Big problem there. Three years after 2348 BC, the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt was founded. Thirteen years after his date for the Flood, Sargon the Great conquered Sumer. If Noah and his family were the only ones on Earth after the Flood, then where did all those thousands of imperial subjects come from? Clearly, Ussher's date for the Flood is wrong, if the Flood was a literal (not metaphorical) event. Ussher did not know of those other events and their dates.
Let us say for a moment that God does exist. Would it be silly to say that He does? If God were to exist, stating that He absolutely does exist might be silly from the standpoint of proof, but not from the standpoint of Truth.
Truth can be one thing. The provable may be something else, and reality may be something else entirely.
Instead of the Bible being flawed, couldn't it instead be the interpretation that is flawed? That would at least be one possibility. Certainly, interpretations of the Bible must include reality -- and science is, by-and-large, reality.
It is written that God walked and talked with Adam, Enoch and Noah. And God told them of the creation of all physical things. I would think that God would have had to "DUMB it Down" in order for them to understand the story enough to re-tell that story.
And even then, they would have been influenceing the story with their understanding (interpretation)of what they understood when they heard the story.
And over the ages this story has become more complicated than it really is.
The bible has truly withstood the test of time. With thousands of scholars and millions of people scrutinizing the bible every day and over the course of thousands of years and the only ones who really hold the view of flawed are the atheists of whom i have been to many of their sites and found their flaws to be completely explainable and i have found their attitudes to be totally unchangeable, whoda thunk. But more to the point, Noah wasn't metaphorical if you do the research you will find it has secular atestability. Let there be light can refer to a large explosion and our rare yellow sun with circular orbits which are even rarer, not near any supernovae, rarer still, with protecting planets and asteroid belt for protection, rare again, with a moon - exactly the right size and distance to keep our axis and affect our tides, made mostly of titanium for shiny brilliance (nullifying that it came from our planet as a knock off of some asteroid) just to name a few of the occurrences besides gravity and magnetic field and natures colors being soothing.. we can certainly see that God is indeed, not impossible. Never mind all the personal experiences of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear changed by the power of God working in their lives - again, God is no where near impossible.
If the only ones who think the bible is flawed are atheists, then why do so any theologians argue about the bible so much? Why does it have to be interpreted at all? It would seem to me that if it was divinely-inspired, it would be total unambiguous, and not at all subject to interpretation.
There are many reasons for theological arguments, ranging from sensationalism - the desire to sell a book, to bad theologians - those who do not follow the ways of Christ - not all theologians are christian, some are merely historians. Some become proud of their knowledge and refuse to acknowledge truth - just like some pastors and some denominations.
It would seem that God should make himself so readily and easily available if not conspicuous and obvious but that nullifies a lot of what is necessary from Gods perspective. The bible should be ambiguous as we can see the language of that time in every book. Moses had a language, isaiah, hosea, matthew, each bearing colloquialisms and metaphors of their time, 2,000 yrs plus ago. So how should it not be unambiguous? Jewish custom in the NT plays a large part of understanding it's contents as does Hebraic custom and understanding of their outlook from their time period. God needs to eradicate sin and to do this God insists that his people lean on him, which means they are to inquire of God for the answers, the power and whatever else to overcome the tendencies of the flesh.
The bible might contain the colloquialism and metaphors of its time - in the original languages (Aramaic and Hebrew, I assume). But the bible we have today has been translated a few times since it was written, so one would assume translators would have changed the ancient metaphors and such to reflect contemporary understandings. The NIV is a further rewriting of the KJV, so it has been modernized even more.
But let's look at "Thou shalt not kill" as an example. The fashion now seems to be to say that what the authors meant was "thou shalt not murder," and that killing in self-defense or as punishment is OK. I don't want to argue whether or not killing is OK, but merely show that as an example of how an interpretation can change meaning rather sharply. If God had intended it to read "murder," why does it not say that?
The Bible has not changed. You in your blindness cannot see the truth.
http://atheistpill.blogspot.in/p/bible- … anged.html
I hope this helps.
Well, the fact that it's very poorly written didn't help, neither did the fact that it's not a neutral source, but...
So there's no difference between the original Aramaic, Hebrew and other language texts and the KJV and NIV, plus all the other versions? There is no possiblity that anything changed in translation?
That's because you don't want to be helped.
I did not say all the versions are accurate. There are many versions of the Bible versions that have errors which have been deliberately put int there. But God has preserved his words accurately in one version and that is the KJV.
More accurate than the original Aramaic/Hebrew?
To which you don't seem to have an answer. A better answer would have been "Of all the English translations, I (we) accept the KJV as canonical."
Interestingly, Muslims don't consider translations of the Koran to be "true" Korans. Only in the original Arabic can it be considered a "true" Koran, because that is the language in which it was dictated, and any translation risks the possibility of misinterpretation.
If you are interested in reading the complete basic history of the english translation of the bible...Check out this site. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-engli … e-history/
"Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It is truly the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation.”
"This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press."
"The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. "
"Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible."
"Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration)."
I am not seeing anything that says the Original Hebrew/Greek versions was used in the translation of the KJV bible. Hmm...
That was interesting. Thanks! So Tyndale's was the translation from the original text? Wikipedia differs on this. It says the KJV was translated from the Greek.
I had said that God preserved His words in the KJV Bible. You are saying that the Geneva Bible was the one that was translated from the original texts. You also say that the KJV is 95% close to the Geneva Bible. I do agree that The William Tyndale bible was the first translation into English.
The Fact remains that God's words were preserved in the KJV and the older versions from which the KJV was based.
Someone certain has BLINDfaith here. Care to guess which one is BLIND.
This is further evidence of a man written bible. "Thou shalt on kill", but God later instructs on how and when to kill. Governments also instruct on how and when to kill. We don't call these killings murder if you are on the killing side. Omar Khadr is a good example of this.
That's the misunderstanding there. The Bible does not need interpretation. It needs understanding.
When we can gain an "understanding" acceptable and in line with current mores and knowledge only by changing the meaning of the words to something other than what they actually say, that's "interpretation".
When we decide that creation of the universe didn't take 6 days, because a "day" isn't a "day", that's interpretation.
When we decide that Noah's flood was only a local affair instead of covering the earth as is plainly stated, that's "interpretation".
Twosheds1 is right; if the bible is truly inspired and written by God, through the hands of man, and is intended as a guideline to teach us what God wants then it should be unambiguous and completely factual. It should say exactly what it means, with no changing of the words or "interpretation" necessary.
That it clearly does not should tell us something.
All a matter of opinion! None of us have any ability to know for sure either way. All of it is faith driven either way.
Once you meet Him, your "opinion" will change to certainty.
Until then, you will argue about it all day long.
I find it interesting that there are those whose idea that God's existence is predicated on the idea of proof. Granted this is a valid question but now for me here is the confusing part. There has been no evidence that life exists on other planets-no green men running around and no War of the Worlds has ever taken place yet there are those who staunchly and without question believe there is life on other planets with absolutely no evidence-What Am I Missing?
Consider; 100% of the planets we have truly investigated (I'm not counting the tiny bit we've seen of Mars) have life.
We know of hundreds of other planets, and extrapolate from the existence of millions of other stars in each of millions of other galaxies that there are billions more.
While it would not be reasonable to conclude that every planet has life, it does seem reasonable that out of billions of planets there will be another one like earth - not exact but close enough to support life. Nature does not normally deal in single cases; if it happens once it will happen again given large numbers of possible planets.
On the other hand, there is no evidence of even one God. Note that I said "evidence", not "proof". There are lots of things we can imagine that can't exist, that nature will never provide, and God is apparently one of them. That does not mean that He cannot exist, just that the all evidence to date is negative in spite of thousands of years of trying.
Now, there is no more reason to claim that life absolutely exists elsewhere than there is to claim that God absolutely does not exist. While available evidence points to both as being true, you are entirely correct that neither has yet to be proven.
You have a logical problem The below link should help you better understand what evidence is.
http://atheistpill.blogspot.in/p/eviden … oblem.html
http://atheistpill.blogspot.in/p/eviden … isted.html
You will understand only if you are honest.
Are you serious? The authors of those links state that atheists don't accept the "truth" because they ask for evidence, while the author states emphatically that there is no evidence because of Gods ways. They don't explain how they know the "truth", hence they are intentionally deceiving; lying.
From the site: "First it assumes that God should have evidences that are man expects. In other words man expects a spirit being to have physical evidences. Highly Illogical expectations."
Why is it illogical? To assume that God is some sort of non-physical, "spiritual" being is a cop-out. It says to me "I don't have a good definition of what God is, so I'll give a nebulous non-answer."
"To make such a claims the person making that claim should has examined all parts of the universe, which is an impossible feat. If you insist that there must be a physical evidence for God, why should that evidence exist on earth?"
There's no evidence on Earth, but there's evidence on Jupiter?!?!
"The person making such a claim is not bothered about the truth. All he or she wants to do is to just hold on to his stand."
A blanket statement, and I would argue that quite the opposite is true. If one is asking for evidence that a god exists, it stands to reason that the asked is concerned with the truth.
Re: evidence for a historical Jesus: "I am not here to show you any evidences."
Why not? Why shove it off on someone else? He wants me to study the history of Israel starting with 2000 BCE. OK, I have plenty of time to do that. There is evidence (though it is rather shaky) that someone named Jesus did exist in Judea during Biblical times, so the author is just being lazy. He couldn't even bother with a Wikipedia link?
I've been through that site, and honestly, it's awful. I hope the author's first language is not English, because it's very poorly written. I can't blame him for that, but if you're going to make arguments on such a weighty topic, it would help to run your text by a native speaker for editing.
That is not an assumption but a fact.
Seems so to you because you assume that the spiritual word does not exist.
Do you know for sure that there is no evidence there?
I would appreciate you if you were concerned with the truth. But you don't seem so. You don't accept what evidence there is, but you expect certain types of evidences. That is where you err. Let me give an example. Suppose you are investigating a case and you are at the location of the crime looking for evidences. You then need to take what evidence there is. Instead you are like one who insist that accepting only finger prints as evidence and because such evidences are not available you conclude that there are no evidences.
It is you who are lazy and want everything to be spoon fed to you. Also Wikipedia is not all the history.
Of course Wikipedia isn't "all the history." But it is the minimum of what I would expect from someone doing research. If you can't do the minimum, is your argument worth making?
"Suppose you are investigating a case and you are at the location of the crime looking for evidences."
Thanks for making my case for me. As an investigator, if all you have is fingerprints, all that can do is place the owner of said prints at the scene, which is circumstantial evidence that the person actually committed the crime. You would think that would be fairly strong, but prints don't fade with time, so it is possible the maker of such prints was there well before the crime took place. So, without further corroborating evidence, you don't really have a case. Assuming it was a murder, you'd have to find prints on the murder weapon (which would also be circumstantial evidence, but stronger) and possibly blood on the suspect's shoes, for example. Witnesses could place the suspect at the scene near the time of death, the suspect may have had a motive and no alibi, etc. In other words, there has to be several pieces of evidence that intersect and corroborate in order to build a case.
I don't want everything spoon-fed to me, but if you're going to make an argument that something exists, the burdern of proof is on you. Don't expect me to do your homework for you. I'm pefectly willing to accept evidence but: 1. The Bible is not evidence, any more than Lord of the Rings is evidence that elves or hobbits exist. 2. Extraordinary claims require extraoordinary evidence. That there is a god is probably the most extraordinary claim one can make. In order for me to accept that a god exists would require extraordinary evidence across several disciplines. 3. If evidence is "not what man expects" then it's not really evidence, is it? That's a cop-out. Is God hiding? Is God preventing us from finding evidence of his existence so that we believe on faith alone? I fail to see the logic in that.
Yes it is. Your not thinking so does not make it so.
That is just your opinion and it is not true.
I am not trying to make you accept a claim that God exists. I am questioning your claim that God does not exist.
Reveals you ignorance and incompetence to understand a point. You are saying "I need evidences and I need them just the way I expect it." All I am saying saying is that there are evidences but not the kind of evidences that there should be.
Also you have muddled up example as atheists always do. What I am saying is simple. In a murder scene there would be all kinds of evidences. But you people are like the ones who insist on only one type of evidence (for example finger prints). When you don't get the kind of evidences you expect you reject the stuff.
http://atheistpill.blogspot.com/2012/09 … first.html
That is because you don't have the proper understanding.
And since we're exchanging links, try this one:
Oh, he won't look at this site, but I did and bookmarked it. Thanks. Just can't move mountains with prayer. Can't cure cancer either. Either Jesus lied or didn't say those things.
Sorry to disappoint you. But I did read that stupid site.
Well, I always saw the "moving mountains" thing as a metaphor. But I think a lot of times people confuse the power of belief with actual divine intervention. I'm not saying belief doesn't have value, but I am saying that belief does not equal existence.
That is a complete nonsense. The author has no understanding of God and Bible. He has no understanding of what prayer. It is fools like that author that is deceiving people. He has a silly nonsensical idea of Christianity and he is debunking that silly idea of his.
Of course we don't know for sure there is more life out there, but when you do the math it becomes apparent that if there is life here there must be life out there as well. It may have come and gone already or it may not yet exist and it may not be intelligent, but it's most likely there. Fortunately traveling between the stars is impossible. I say fortunate because most likely wars would take place and if Aliens were able to reach us they would be able to destroy us. There is no reason to think that they would be friendly, when humans are certainly not friendly.
by PhoenixV 6 months ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by Jesse James 7 years ago
This is another religious topic, but unlike most that are posted. The basis of this thread is to gather the thoughts of atheists, evolutions or scientologists and christians can even chime in. Most evolutionists believe that the world wasn't created by a God, but rather formed through many...
by Comrade Joe 6 years ago
If the bible is the word of God, and God is all powerful why did he choose such a bonkers way to produce it? It seems odd that an all powerful entity would choose to possess the minds of multiple men, over multiple generations. These men would record their visions or accounts, some...
by ragnaworks 8 years ago
Why is the existence/non-existence of a higher power dependent on the validity of any particular religion? Are we as humans really so arrogant, that we think if none of our gods are real, that must mean there is no such thing as a higher power at all anywhere in the universe? Isn't it possible that...
by The Demon Writer 7 years ago
Can you, without quoting or referencing the Bible give me solid arguments as to the existence of GodDon't even mention the Bible! It is totally irrelevant and is not a credible source. It was not written by God, but men. So, without aid of your Bible, prove to me that God exists!
by Yves 4 years ago
Atheists, do you despise Jesus or just religions (in general) that worship God?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...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|