The Only Way God is Real.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

If someone hears voices in any other department of life it's considered a mental disorder.

If someone denies all logic and reason in any other part of life. It's a mental disorder.

If you were to tell everyone you believed in stories as crazy as the biblical tales outside of religion. They would say you were crazy.


I don't think 85% of the world has a mental disorder. I think they are constantly lied to and misinformed.

However I think we give a free pass to religion when it comes to crazy talk. In no other facet of life would you not be thought to have a mental disorder.

You are describing fundamentalism, not religion in general. Christian fundamentalism is a modern American thing and not supported by the Church.

In the Catholic Church, if you tell a priest you hear voices in your head or that the earth is 6000 old, they'll friendly advice you to consult a psychiatrist.

The majority of Christians in the world are Catholics.

People like you who generalize Christianity based on what they see in the Bible belt are wrong.

It bothers me greatly to watch Christians, and particularly the radical ones that think they can out argue someone try to actually argue the point. Honestly, I wonder if they even read the same Scriptures I do. No one, and I think I can safely say no one with about a 99.9% degree of certainty has ever said "knowitall, wow, your arguments are so rock solid and convincing that I can't help but agree with everything you say. How do I get to know this Jesus guy I didn't believe was real ten minutes ago?" yeah.. you don't argue someone into the kingdom. Now, it works reverse in science circles because I can argue facts and repeatable experiments and empiracal evidence and so on, and leave little doubt about the truth of a given statement. The religious and metaphysical cannot do that, so arguing endlessly about point and counter points is a real waste of time, energy, and pixels.

If I want to convince someone of the reality of what I believe, and the God that I serve, then I would make them part of my life, I would truly befriend them. Not as some project to convert and move on, but as someone I want to share life with for as long as they will have me. I don't believe in evangelistic friendships, but I do believe my friendship should show what I live for, and if I am truly living what I believe, there is an attractiveness to that.

That's typically why I may comment about some point, and may offer some advice or clarification, or ask a thoughtful question, but I really try to steer clear of debating the points. I mean, let's be honest: The religious on here aren't going to stop being religious no matter how much evidence SuperFrog or Phage or anyone else presents, and the non-religious, and/or atheists are not going to suddenly start worshipping God or a god because they see the light in an argument. Wouldn't time be better served doing something more constructive than beating each other over the head with repetitious point/counterpoint debate that is as old and tired as the question of origin itself?

a reply to: ArtemisE

Someone would expect that after repeating basically 10 times the same thing pages after page the message would clear, but it looks like no.

Or maybe you just don't want to accept that the majority of Christians don't hear god in their head or believe the earth is 6000 years old?

And yet it's reality.


Hey, ArtemisE

Remember when I posted a list of Christian scientists and you claimed it was disinfo?

I offered you to prove it to you. Just pick the names you want from the list and I'll show you proofs.

Still waiting. I'm thinking you ignored the offer because you know you are wrong. I've seen people answer selectively a lot of time here, ignoring the posts they are too uneasy with.

a reply to: ArtemisE
Have not read the thread through yet but,

It would explain nearly everything I can think of biblically speaking. How can "the Father" know when every bird falls to the ground.
How can the dead be remade no matter how long they are dead. It would cover every miracle also. Did the maker enter the game like in Tron?

a reply to: ArtemisE

The draw back is, it's a very religious theory in the fact it explains EVERYTHING without explianing anything... The programmer did it all and he works in mysterious ways.

Indeed, wouldn't God's life be nothing more than a computer program? God would already know the outcome before He incarnates, but once incarnated, it would be like solving a puzzle. God's life would be just like the movie Paycheck (if God exists).

God himself is currently honoring the thread with his presence.

Game over guys.

originally posted by: iosolomon
I am God. I am Allah. I am Shiva.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Maybe I'm wrong here. I am in the Bible Belt of America. But I thought Catholics believed in the Noah's story. The sequence of creation put forth in the bible ,if not the time line and other such craziness.

I've never heard a priest say all the stories were more esopes fables then literal truth. In America I'm not around a lot of practicing Catholics. So it's usually your evangelicals I encounter.

The earth being 7000 years old was one monks interpretation but that's one of many testable facts the bible got wrong.


If your talking UK I could believe most people believe the bible is analogies. But there's a lot of third world Christians tutored by American fundamentalist. So I'd be surprised if your brand is in the majority.

a reply to: Everlastingknowitall
I enjoy reading others forum debates, even if I currently disagree. It definitely provides me new approaches to seek out my own truths. So, I would have to disagree that it is not constructive.

At times, we all meet arguments that we cannot answer – but that does not mean that there is no answer. We need to meet such arguments with further investigation of the counter-argument. Even if we cannot immediately answer a particular argument, we need to balance that against the vast amount of evidence for our own beliefs.

As we do investigate and find the appropriate responses, our confidence that such answers will exist in future cases increases. That doesn’t give us permission to ignore future challenges – but it does mean that we will be less perturbed as we await the answer.

Regarding the OPs main topic on his Matrix theory, well I can only state that it gives one something to contemplate against their own beliefs or research.

I'm really surprised you don't see more Christians grad onto the "matrix" theory. If this all was a digital construction. You could have god watch and enter act with everything at the same time. That god could add the water needed to flood the world then delete it. That god could keep the bible infallible across the centuries.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
I'm really surprised you don't see more Christians grad onto the "matrix" theory. If this all was a digital construction. You could have god watch and enter act with everything at the same time. That god could add the water needed to flood the world then delete it. That god could keep the bible infallible across the centuries.

Even at that, it would be much easier just to use backup file to recreate 'not flawed' earth and reduce population to 2, instead 1 questionable family...

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

God himself is currently honoring the thread with his presence.

Game over guys.

Now, now, you take potshots at me! When I interact on the other threads, I keep my religious beliefs to myself, unless my religious beliefs have relevance to the thread (ie, WWIII already started in 2012, Japan will be attacking, many cities will be nuked).

In regards to this thread, my religious beliefs do not have any relevance, and it would be disrespectful on this thread to state them.

I thought the OP had an interesting perspective on his/her concept of God. I highly agree with the programmer analogy. In fact, Vishnu of Hinduism could be liken to a programmer. So Artemis' post was interesting, and I was just adding in my two cents. I was not claiming to be God on this thread, and I hope that you can understand that I signed up for this website for much more than to say "I am God."

a reply to: SuperFrog

Hehe excellent point.... Intelligent desighn my @$$ lol.

Unless were like the iso's from tron legacy. A spontaneous manifestation in the programming that the architect didn't create.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Pshhhh poser

Haa! These threads are always so lolzy, and they always end the same way. So here we are on page 12, and we have come to find out that like surmised, nobody really knows jack squat about god, or if this universe is a hologram or what not. Hey nobody needs to know how it works, it just works, sometimes it all works great and clicks right in place, and other times it works just barely. Its like a kaleidoscope of incandescent gas parting in the sky and giving view to an angel in a dozen colors of the rainbow, when latter it turns out it was just a passenger airplane in high altitude that dumped there lavatory waste to save weight and fuel. Its all merely a matter of perspective, and what you make of that perspective.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Maybe I'm wrong here. I am in the Bible Belt of America. But I thought Catholics believed in the Noah's story. The sequence of creation put forth in the bible ,if not the time line and other such craziness.

I've never heard a priest say all the stories were more esopes fables then literal truth. In America I'm not around a lot of practicing Catholics. So it's usually your evangelicals I encounter.

The earth being 7000 years old was one monks interpretation but that's one of many testable facts the bible got wrong.


If your talking UK I could believe most people believe the bible is analogies. But there's a lot of third world Christians tutored by American fundamentalist. So I'd be surprised if your brand is in the majority.

I've done nothing but repeat this over and over, even posting quotes from the pope.

Catholics do not interpret the bible literally. The focus is more on your behavior than whether the ark is real or not. That's typical protestant concern and catholics don't care. Likewise the 6000 year old is a stupid calculation that no catholic consider seriously.

I'm glad you admit your views of christianity are based on the bible belt. I've done nothing but repeating it's the case for many on ATS and it's wrong.

Why do you think the Christian in the bible belt call catholics heretics? They are intolerant and fundamentalist.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
I'm really surprised you don't see more Christians grad onto the "matrix" theory. If this all was a digital construction. You could have god watch and enter act with everything at the same time. That god could add the water needed to flood the world then delete it. That god could keep the bible infallible across the centuries.

What makes you think what you call the matrix is no different from what christians call god? Unless you say we are literally a computer program but that's not what the matrix theory is. Told you it was just a matter of definition and people getting butthurt because they think they know what god means for others. They don't.

Btw, I repeat my offer one last time regarding the list of christian scientists. If you refuse it it means you agree with this list and that you were the one spreading disinfo calling them agnostic. And yet you dared to accuse me.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Fair enough they were Christians. But 85% of all Nobel winners in math and science are atheist. So even with your list. Christians or the other major religions are in the VAST minority. Add that to the fact the biblical tales couldn't be disproven untile the last century and the fact that when facing death by old age the concept of an after life starts looking really good. Weather it's real or not. ( like Von Braun he didn't find religion till old age)

Less people in the science community buy into religion then there are global warming denighers. So the scientific consensus wouldn't be that Christianity is the truth.

I can't remember exactly what we were talking about with the scientists earlier.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


Oh and I mean matrix as in one big computer program. Not real people in virtual reality.

We are just all energy after all.

Don't know if you saw tron legacy but funny if life was like the Iso's from the move. A spontaneous entity that came out of the programming frame work.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


Oh and I mean matrix as in one big computer program. Not real people in virtual reality.

We are just all energy after all.

Don't know if you saw tron legacy but funny if life was like the Iso's from the move. A spontaneous entity that came out of the programming frame work.

Define computer program.

Because if the argument is that we are nothing but energy, it's old news, everybody knows it and it doesn't mean we are in a program.

The "matrix" theory is actually quite old and has been explored many times in the past. Fun thought experiment but nothing we can prove or disprove anyway.

And it wouldn't be a proof of the lack of divinity. A great number of theists do simply believe in a greater force/intelligence, not all the bible stuf you keep refering to all the time (I don't know why? Do you need literal belief in the bible to believe in a god? Of course not, that's silly). Your theory with a "programmer" is just theism with another name.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

I can't remember exactly what we were talking about with the scientists earlier.

Because I explained that modern science is mostly based on the input of Christian scientists, and that there is absolutely zero contradiction between belief in a god and still having a scientific and critical mind.

They are totally separate thing, unless you believe all christians read the Bible literally like you've shown it so many times, which is of course completely wrong (I showed how even the last popes all said evolution is real, adam and eve were an allegory for the birth of spirituality in man, and how fundamentalist hijacked the debate in the US. I literally posted this dozens of time and yet you seem to still not get it)

I don't know why you are so obsessed with "science can now disprove the Bible" when I explained to you dozens of time catholics don't read the Bible literally but has a spiritual help. Hence disprove it is ridiculous. All the catholics I know are aware the ark story, adam and eve, the garden of eden are not literal historical accounts, but tales. Why would you need to disprove the Bible if they don't read it literally themselves? What do you hope to achieve?

It's really sad that you talk like all these people in the USwho literally think all Christians are bible thumpers. It's ridiculous. I graduated from a Catholic university where some of the most influent researchers of the contry are formed. If the are Christian, it only means they follow Christian values and rituals, and that they believe in a deity. And that's it. You assume way to much about what Christians believe or not. You should be more open minded in the future if you want to debate such topics, you have shown your knowledge is way too sparse and that all you care about is to make fun of Christians without realizing you only describe fundies and not the majority.