~why johnny (atheist) can't beleive ~ and the cure~

On the contrary, the only possible way that book can be read without deep disquiet is to read it with a firmly closed mind. You need to go in already closed to the very real possibility it's a load of old fiction.

Also on the contrary, we don't go in looking for evil, as our minds are actually open. We go in 'neutral', but find evil. The difference between atheists and theists is that we don't pretend it's good. That's why it seems to you that we see more evil in the bible than you do. The actual amount is constant, but we recognise it for what it is, while you don't.

 

LOL. You don't reject something that doesn't exist. You simply say it isn't there. Now what can be rejected is your claim that something exists. But the rejection is your claim, not the thing that doesn't exist.

 

The scientific community may refer to it as 'engergy'.

 

One may call the thing outside the universe God or any other name. But it has no bearing on the OT/NT character described in the bible. Unless aliens came and inspired words.

 

Funny. In another thread, the OP was asked about hinduism. The OP rejected hinduism because it thought humans to be devine. And asked why anyone would choose a religion like that. Afterall, we are all sinners, was the statement.
I though it funny, one religion thinks humans are devine(good) and one thinks humans are sinners(evil). And chooses the religion that thinks all humans are evil. And he could not fathom humans being devine.

 

Quoting something I've said and putting words below is it kind of a response yes but you did not address what was said. Which is fine, if I have to take the time to explain why your reply was irrelevant I will.

Here it is.

I will respond to the first part about my emotional reaction last if you don't mind.

To answer your first question; let's say someone owed you a hundred dollars and they walked up to you and handed you nothing and then told you that what they actually just gave you was a magical hundred dollar bill that is invisible but that once you die you'll be able to use it to buy yourself a few more years and they will be the happiest years of your life. By your standards you could not reject their claim. I mean how could you reject the claim when you clearly have no evidence to prove it isn't true?

Now the example you gave at the end there is irrelevant because it is a claim we can test, this is where you not addressing my post really comes into play. Rejecting the claim that there are martians on mars is not the same as rejecting the existence of a god because the second claim goes beyond not having any evidence. The claim of god is to claim to know what one CANNOT know. We don't reject it just because there is absolutely no evidence to support it we reject it because there is no way the one making the claim can know anything about it.

You think the idea that a god exists has some merit but based on what exactly? Because if you are basing it on the false claims of men claiming to know what they CANNOT know then you are using failed logic. You are saying that one can make a claim without evidence but that one cannot reject that claim because one cannot make a claim without evidence.

The answer to your question is your question which brings us to my "emotional" response and I use quotes because it wasn't really emotional just mild frustration.

Many studies have been done to show that religious people on average live happier lives than skeptics.

The reason is because ignorance is bliss to the ignorant, for the rest of us its kind of a pain in the ass.

 

How EXACTLY does one read "with an open mind" 1 Samuel 15:3....where God ORDERS the killing of babies and children.....

and not consider that evil?!?!?

 

Thanks in my opinion when a debate partner asks instead of tells, or doesn't jump to conclusions, it's a mark of intelligence. Ok, and you are again on the right track asking me what I feel is a good definition of God. Those are the points that seem to come back and haunt us if we don't clarify that from the start. Of course I ask you to reincorporate at any time, of if I can do anything to clean up my claims etc I would be happy to do so. ...

Ok onward ~

finally lol,

I beleive on a two tier system. On one level I understand God as more of a deistic God and is the force that created our universe by causing the big bang* to bang. Gods attributes at that time are not revealed in the bible or are very limited. One is that God is eternal and has the power to cause a life giving universe to begin to exist. We know just on the power of logic alone, or at least by experience that nothing begins to exist without a cause for it to begin to exist. The claim is the basis of the KCA, which is a cosmological argument, but I getting ahead of myself. God is eternal and 'intelligent'. I feel God is atemporal which means god is unaffected by time and exists 'outside' our universe. Call it Gods realm. God can enter our universe but rarely does so.

The ability to enter or leave our dimension etc is crucial to providing the evidence that allows me to believe God exists. That system uses a logical syllogism to support (inference) a claim and do it in a logical manner. Hmm' this reply is going to get long. It may be easier for you to ask me if I believe God has such and such abilities s etc. I will explain the two tier system though. Its just a system where I have to believe God has certain capabilities on faith rather than on empirical evidence. A sliding scale where at some point I have to believe on faith alone,


reva

 

An open mind means to strip the emotion from what you are reading. If you are blinded by anger or hate its exceedingly difficult to make sense of what you are reading, especially if its difficult reading in the first place. A good example is when I read about the r-muslims (I use the r to show the difference between good moderate Muslims and radical extremist terrorist Muslims) today beheading raping and torturing children. I become so angry I do all kinds of dumb stuff. I am sure you know what I mean! Back in the day we were not hunting extremists but other things, then I had to learn how put a lid on my anger before I donned ALICE, and other grunt stuff to go out on patrol. I had to keep a level head and not be blinded by the hate to even read a map. Same thing, If you really want to know what the scripture meant that you are referring to we can open another thread with that scripture as the subject. I think after the material is explained you will feel you owe the Christians here at PF an apology, to say the least!

reva

 

I agree. No religion is 100% accurate, not even Christianity of course. I am happy religion is like science, all the 'God' details like leaves on a tree! ! We Christians are able to change or eliminate the details as new evidence emerges, still the core message remains intact. Other religions are fairly rigid and unchangeable. Gandhi said something like “I like your Christ but not your Christians. I too have a problem with my Joel Osteen type christian brothers and sisters, but thats material for another thread.


reva

 

Correct, but I'm still entitled to demand you pay me in the same form in which it was given. However, if you want to give me $100 and let me repay you $200 in the afterlife, I'd take that deal.

 

Okay, let's attempt that.....Hypothetical-

An un-named spiritual/political leader of an army orders that army to attack another nation and kill not just all the adult men or even adult women....but their children and babies.

Un-emotionally.....what is your reaction to that leader's morality and ethics concerning his deliberate call for infanticide.

 

I have always wondered how some could see Jesus like this and not think he was the Devil

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 19:11-16&version=KJV

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

.

 

There's something...dishonest I would say about engaging in a discussion without addressing the points raised by your opponents.

In fact you actually have continued to help make my point while desperately trying to avoid it.

 

"Dishonest", in your opinion, being a dissenting point of view. Got it. Thanks.

You are free to believe as you wish since, unlike you have commented here, your opinions and beliefs don't affect my life so they are not "a pain in the ass" as you whined about earlier.

 

Isaac Asimov said "'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

God as a slaughterer of babies and children....Jesus with fiery eyes, covered in blood, ruling by a rod of iron?

And yet these are (or that is) the beneficient, merciful, and loving God we are supposed to not only believe in, but worship?

And when you simply read what is written....it's YOUR fault if it "comes off sounding bad".

 

Not only do you not address the points raised you don't seem to even understand them.

When you don't address a post in it's entirety you end up taking things out of context and obfuscating the conversation.

 

According to you, but you are the type of person to insult anyone who disagrees with your personal view of the world.

Tell me, what is the difference between a theist insulting my intelligence and integrity for disagreeing with them and an atheist such as yourself doing the same?

 

Comes back to arrogance on the part of the early church. They just didn't see any need to defend such overtly horrible elements because a) such things were less horrible then, but more importantly, b) they thought no one would ever question the bible. The upshot of this arrogance is a complete lack of preparedness for the post-faith era. When this coincides with a still indoctrinated fear of questioning the bible - you're left with a ripe mess. The only possible way of reconciling the mess is to blame biblical evil on the reader. You can't blame it on god, so .....

 

I've been an atheist my entire life. There has never been a point in time where I really believed in God. I feigned it for a bit as a child because it seemed to make my parents and grandparents happy but I lost interest in the facade because I didn't have the underlying belief necessary to maintain it. Religious explanations and demands for faith in the supernatural just never clicked with me. It always seemed too fantastical and too convenient. Too perfect. Too...invented.

 

I am the type of person who will insult anyone who disagrees with my personal view of the world? How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Please be specific.

How is asking you to actually address the posts you are quoting insulting your intelligence?

Asking you to have an honest debate or conversation in which you address the points raised instead of taking bits and pieces out of context by ignoring the rest is not whining or being mean it's called being reasonable.

If you think I've been angry or upset at any point in this discussion you're sorely mistaken.

What you don't understand is that I am actually Jesus Christ and this is all a test. And since you have no evidence to say otherwise you cannot reject this claim.

 

Most of your posts on this thread. Do you really want me to cite them for you? If I do, what do I win?

 

This reply is quite hilarious given everything else you ignored in my post....again but I think this should be fun. Yes I want you to cite them for me, and since we give our own lives meaning, I can't tell you what benefit it is to you only you can do that.

 

with respect, I can't think of a single post in which VI insulted you. he/she merely pointed out that you failed to respond to points made in response to your own arguments.

 

all it takes is that claim, as they keep reminding us

but I reject your claim, on account of some crazy people once said they'd work my shifts for me while I was away skiing. no one would make such a sacrifice, and risk their lives (at the office) for no good reason, ergo I am jesus, not you.