Atheists who attack Christianity

Well, I know someone who died and came back to life and they said there was no heaven or hell.

Welp, guess that settles that.

Briana Dawson

I offer a possible answer, yes. It is the right answer for me, may not be for you though which is the beauty of free choice.

To me that's like using Lord Of The Rings to prove Gandalf exists.

I can also consult The Hobbit and The Silmarillion.

have fun with that

Too bad that free choice is being used to deny basic human rights and force non-sensical laws on people who choose differently.

Fine, if you want to TRY that, go for it -- but I can cite for you scores, if not hundreds, of inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies that will invalidate your Bible as a "proof" of god. It's an ancient text, written in a time of superstition and no science, and if that's the best you have your argument is already in trouble.

At least Tolkien admitted he was writing fantasy.

Yeah, I mean what's up.. the federal government denying states the right to approve medical marijuana....

Mari ja wana is good.... Mmmm'k?

Briana Dawson

They were refuting the 'evidence' that the claimant brought forth. Then you jump in and say they have to prove god doesn't exist.

The athiest side was debating properly.

Then we would want you to validate your sources as 100% true if you wished to use them in a debate. As you are trying to use the bible to prove god exists, god cannot be used to validate the bible.

Yes and beleife is not knowledge, we have said this over and over. Beleif requires the act of faith. I know, categorically there is no transcendent divine god, it is not a part of my faith, nor is the possibility of god there. When confronted with the notion of there being no god, you talk about beleief, and suggest I cannot prove that god does not exist. But in the world of christianity, god abosulutely exists..or do the christians accept that faith in the almighty power of Odin is a pathway to salvation? I put forward they do not.

The christian says beleive in god, or go to hell, there is no salvation without christ and through him, God. You cannot be an athiest and be christian. thus christianity tells me "fine, you can beleive what you want, and right now we are no longer burning pagans and heretics because that is politically incorrect, be we do not truly allow the possibility of salvation through jesus." thus to the christian, imposing thier values on society, acceptence of god is a funadmental absolute. We must teach creationism in school because the bible says it is, and evolution is heresey, and in fact, wrong.

As a Budhhist I say, "why are kids taught christian myths in school, but not buddhist thought?" Thus it is not necessasary for me to disprove god, you assert as a christian categorically that he exists and I assert he does not, it is there fore up to you to prove your point. we are not debating the "possibility of god" like the "possibility of time-travel" we are debating the existence of god.

Make me a rational, scientific argument for the possibility of god (and not one founded on intelligent design) that is a solid as the rational sceintific arguments for the possibility of time travel, and i will listen. But right now you are baasically telling me there is a possibility that middle earth was real and tolkien physically went there. I don't need to accept this possibility, middle earth is a work of fiction, created by a man. The bible is a work of fiction created by many men. God does not show up in nature. Hell if he would come down, and hold a press conference, i'd convert is a heartbeat. But he does not.

God only exists in the minds of men (and women-I'm an athiest not a sexist). Its nice to beleive gandalf is real, but no matter how hard i argue that gandalf might, in fact be real, he is not. As with gandalf, so with god. Men made him up to fill a need. It was a nice myth while it lasted, but now its time to get back to the regularly scheduled course of human evolution.

Joshua is the english form of Yeshua.

No, Shinto beleives you can communicate with your ancestors.

In buddhism there is no after life, life and death are simply changes in shape. the wave rises and falls, but the water is always there. Life, as you know it, is largely illusion, and thus death is the termination of illusion..it is excessive attachment that makes us cling to life and fear death.

But if we are here before we are born, and we are here after we are dead, so birth and death are really meaningless. Ass for reincarnation..well a "soul" if you will does not go away and come back, as in the christian sense, rather the "soul" is like a wave: the water rises and falls and the rises again, its part of the mutability of existence. I do not live, I do not die, so therefore I cannot be reborn.

You haven't proven that statement, or even made an argument against His existence. But it was fun while it lasted. Your faith says there is no God. That's all you have until you prove it.

As I read your post I was remembering a childhood friend in my neighborhood who denied the existence of China. He told me if I can't show him China he won't believe it exists. He rejected anything pictures, said they may be faked. He rejected books, people wrote the stories, just like they write about the Cat in the Hat.

The only way to convince him was to take him there.

The fact I can show you things that naturally wouldn't occur without intelligent design doesn't mean anything to you. Until I show you God you will reject it. I think even if I showed you God you would still reject it, thinking it's a trick.

But you can't show me naturally anything that would not occur without intelligent design. However i promise you if you can bring god to a press conference and having him work a legit miracle, i'd believe.

But everything you can and would show me is the product of a person who is filling in the empty spaces with something that makes him comfortable, not someone who looks and sees.

The problem is not my openmindedness but yours.

I am not the one claiming to know the ultimate truth, as you are. Your mind is clearly set.

I don't think there is any way you can know for sure that there isn't a god. The best you can do is point out the logical inconsistencies in how others view him and thus debunk their personal religion, but even that is pretty hard to do.

Your belief that there is no god may be more plausible and rational than Kevn's belief that there is a god. But it's still just a "belief."

(I propose anytime someone use the word 'prove' in this thread they get fined L$2! This is (a)theology, not geometry class.)

We live in one universe which contains all things.

Including our wildest imaginings.

Either all the universe was made by a divine creator...

or its entirety is godless.

Even in our most fevered dreamings... all ideas will be influenced by the existence or lack of a divine creator. All of them.

We can not show that god exists, because we can not find a place where god does not as a counter example. And vice versa.

What we believe affects our judgement and actions... a faith or lack of it is important for having identity, integrity and a community.

Whether that faith is backed by the reality of a divine creator (or not) is not something we as short-lived clever animals on this planet are not likely to ever be able to prove, by any means.

Some questions may have no answers. Ever.

It's stuff like this that makes me agnostic.


I'm not an atheist that's 'hedging my bets'.


--
here's my L$2

It may not be part of your faith, but you can categoricalloy know nothing of the sort.

Unless... oh, wait.


Congratulations on attaining bodhi. Enjoy your last trip through samsara.

I look at it mostly the same way. I think our understanding of the universe is in its infancy and much of it may well be beyond the capacity of human minds to unravel or understand. I also feel that the notion of "god" or "supreme being" is just anthropomorphism of the unkown. Assigning it motivations, feelings, or the role of father figure or judge is, to me, silly. While I will never claim to know in absolute terms that there is no god, I will most likely always believe that all the gods that have ever lived in the minds of men have been "gods of the gaps." I feel strongly enough about that that I feel no need to call myself anything other than an atheist. I do not believe in a god or gods and think the probability of anything ever convincing me otherwise so small that it's not worth contemplating. I'm okay with "I don't know."

With that in mind, Chip, can I ask where some of your apparent hostility comes from when discussion religion? I know, I know, religion has been the cause of XXXX and YYYY, but do you really need to take that out on all religious people? I don't mind discussion of the subject, but it's hard to talk about it with someone who tends to open the discussion with derision of my mental capacity because of my beliefs

It is ... and this is another reason I dislike the term "atheist," quite aside from my more fundamental issue with the term that it's every bit as unnecessary as the term a-alchemist would be. That is, "atheist" is too often associated with that curious school of thought that holds that you can know a negative, which of course is a logical impossibility, after all.

I don't claim to know there isn't a God ... or, for that matter, an Allah, a Thor, a Heimdall, Predators like in the movies, or pink unicorns. I do doubt all of these things very seriously and very equally, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be open to legitimate, hard proof of their existence. Rather, I'm simply not concerned with the question "Is there a God?" and not interested in answering it. To me, the question itself is incoherent. It's like asking, "Is there really a Marvin the Paranoid Android?" It's a question beneath trying to answer since there's absolutely no valid reason to believe, at this time, that either exists.

That said, I would never claim to know that something does not exist. That, again, is a logical impossibility.

I'm a big fan of rationalism, science, and facts. While I have no inherant hostility towards religion as an individual, personal, private belief, I have a great deal of hostility about the very real, very negative effects it has on society when people try to make it something more than personal and private.

I think having too much willingness to cast aside logic, fact, and empricism in favor of feel-good fantasy is dangerous. It retards scientific progress, perpetuates tribalism and bigotry, inspired bad domestic and foreign plicy, and generally limits our advancement towards true pluralism, globalism, and humanism. I think those three things are absolutely vital if the human race is to survive over the long haul.

I'm angry that atheism and humanism are so demonized. I'm angry that my views are not represented in the government. I'm angry that there are still states in this country where atheists are forbidden from holding office and that no one other than atheists lift a finger to decry it. I'm angry that most people are so ignorant about the disposition and aims of the founders of this country, due almost entirely to Christian revisionist history and what I consider to be willful ignorance. I'm angry at how often I hear the phrase "this is a Christian nation" and that I so rarely hear any Christian speak out against that attitude. I'm angry that we live under so many irrational laws that have their roots in religion and that because of them we have the largest percentage of our population imprisoned of any nation on Earth. I'm angry that moderate Christians vote for candidates based on their belief systems instead of the rationality of their policies. I'll stop being hostile when the majority of Christians decide that equal rights and humanistic values are more important for positive coexistence and progress than sectarian loyalty.

I think religion can be a wonderful force in people's lives when it's in addition to rational humanism, science, and respect for learning and facts. I think it's the most destructive force in the world when religion is a substitute for those things. I'm angry because I think for most people it's the latter and not the former.

Well, just keep in mind that (I hope, anyhow!) I'm not one of the people who uses religion as a substitute for science My constant arguements with Kevn should show that at least. Or rationalism, for that matter.

Don't worry Rei. I think you're one of the good guys. I often disagree with you on issues but I have no issue with you as a person. I know sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference. That's my own failing.