Reasons why I don't believe in the christian god and bible

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Tangerine

Scientists and philosophers agree that there can not be any testable proof for God as commonly known. Science, and tests, can't explore that area of reality. It's worse than asking you to tell me the seventeen digit number in my head from your keyboard in the next five minutes.

Science explores and seeks to understand nature. That's all it can do. God is outside of nature. There is evidence for God, but not proof. Actually, there is more evidence for God than against Him, but on neither side can there ever be proof unless you leave nature. I believe that someday you and I will both leave nature.

It won't matter much if I'm wrong, but if you're wrong . . . .

Science may not be able to directly "prove" that God exists. The moment we "prove" God exists Is the moment we all die, because if you see God, you will die. You won't ever see God and live to tell it. However, I can point to all the evidence in the world that proves that life cannot exist without an intelligent designer behind it, as it has never been shown that life has ever arisen by random Darwinian means. I however, will not waste my precious time in doing so. There are far better things to do with my faith than trying to justify it to swine. If you truly believe that your faith has any validity at all, then you wouldn't be draining your energy trying to defend it.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Dear BlackManINC,

I have the nick name Mr. Confusion, because that happens to me a lot. I'm not sure I have your post well understood.

Science may not be able to directly "prove" that God exists. The moment we "prove" God exists Is the moment we all die, because if you see God, you will die. You won't ever see God and live to tell it.

For whatever reason we use, I agree with you that science can't prove or disprove the existence of God. I know that death was a real possibility for Moses, but his eyes were shielded. I think we're together on this.

However, I can point to all the evidence in the world that proves that life cannot exist without an intelligent designer behind it, as it has never been shown that life has ever arisen by random Darwinian means.

I also believe that God was the creator of the Universe, and by one method or another, He created life in it's various forms.

So far, we're singing the same song. But this throws me:

I however, will not waste my precious time in doing so. There are far better things to do with my faith than trying to justify it to swine.

You don't have to prove it to me, I'm agreeing with you. You don't have to justify your faith to me, I suspect I share a large portion of it.

Oh, calling me swine may not have been the best choice of words. But never mind, let's go on.

If you truly believe that your faith has any validity at all, then you wouldn't be draining your energy trying to defend it.

I believe my faith is very valid. But I'm not to worried about draining my energy, food, sleep, and a little prayer go a long way to rebuilding my energy. Besides, I think the Bible tells us to be ready to give a reason for our faith, or something like that.

So if you could clear up my confusion, I'd be grateful.

a reply to: charles1952

I wasn't calling you swine, other than that I see no confusion. If a heathen is asking me for evidence that my God exists, they first have to accept the simple message of the gospel. If they can't even accept the simple gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, then I will not waste anymore of my time trying to justify anything else about my faith to the swine. God does not answer to us, we answer to him. I don`t need to provide a reason for my faith, the gospel is all the reason any Christian should need. If the heathen cannot accept that, then they can do kindly get lost and let the chains of the lake of fire set tightly upon them when that time comes.

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

the second verse of the bible says

Gen 1:2

And the earth was without form, and void; ...

the actual hebrew for "without form" and "void", is:

tohu and bohu.

and the word for "was" is not actually the correct translation. in fact it is "become" or in the case of the tense of the verse, "became"

so that verse reads:

And the earth became tohu and bohu (a desolate wastleand)

the earth BECAME a desolate wasteland. so what you see in that verse is not a description of the creation of the earth for the first time, but a re-terraforming of the earth, after a cataclysm. the water was a frozen surface that thawed out, evaporated and receded to reveal dry land that was already there.

so let's say you have the seeds and dna, for various plant and animal life. you can re-create the lifeforms EXTREMELY easy in a week, given the scientific acumen, particularly if not all life was wiped out from the cataclysm.

a reply to: undo

I agree that that is a literal translation of that verse. I don't know enough to have an expert opinion on your claim of what that means for the creation story.

the earth BECAME a desolate wasteland. so what you see in that verse is not a description of the creation of the earth for the first time, but a re-terraforming of the earth, after a cataclysm.

So, the earth already existed (created by whom?), and was terraformed, or recreated (again, by whom?)

the water was a frozen surface that thawed out, evaporated and receded to reveal dry land that was already there.

Do we happen to know why there was frozen water on earth, and if there was, what was the cause of it's melting? Could He have called for water and seas, and the ice melted to make water?

so let's say you have the seeds and dna, for various plant and animal life. you can re-create the lifeforms EXTREMELY easy in a week, given the scientific acumen, particularly if not all life was wiped out from the cataclysm.

That means life already existed, somewhere, and life was made by some being with scientific acumen. Intelligent design?

No, I'm not calling for a literal interpretation of Genesis, just offering the opinion that the literal translation of that one verse does not remove God from being the Creator.

a reply to: charles1952

the previous verse (genesis 1:1) says Elohim created it, but who knows how long ago

originally posted by: BlackManINC

a reply to: Tangerine


Science may not be able to directly "prove" that God exists. The moment we "prove" God exists Is the moment we all die, because if you see God, you will die. You won't ever see God and live to tell it. However, I can point to all the evidence in the world that proves that life cannot exist without an intelligent designer behind it, as it has never been shown that life has ever arisen by random Darwinian means. I however, will not waste my precious time in doing so. There are far better things to do with my faith than trying to justify it to swine. If you truly believe that your faith has any validity at all, then you wouldn't be draining your energy trying to defend it.

So you're threatening me. How weak.

You can point to all the evidence that proves that life can not exist without an intelligent designer? Bet you can't.

My faith? Which faith did I profess? You seem to be terribly confused.

a reply to: undo

Dear undo,

I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of cherry picking. If so, I apologize.

There's little I can take from the Genesis story beyond the fact that God created everything. I don't care much about the order or if it was all done at one time. I don't much care if he set up evolution to do some of the work. And while I'm convinced that the earth is not 6000 years old, I don't care if it's a million or a billion years old.

Those facts are important to the scientists, no doubt, but I'm not one so I can slide by such questions in a fog of happy ignorance and apathy.

With respect,
Charles1952

(By the way, I like your style.)

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: undo

Dear undo,

I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of cherry picking. If so, I apologize.

There's little I can take from the Genesis story beyond the fact that God created everything. I don't care much about the order or if it was all done at one time. I don't much care if he set up evolution to do some of the work. And while I'm convinced that the earth is not 6000 years old, I don't care if it's a million or a billion years old.

Those facts are important to the scientists, no doubt, but I'm not one so I can slide by such questions in a fog of happy ignorance and apathy.

With respect,
Charles1952

(By the way, I like your style.)

This goes back to the importance of sticking to sound Biblical doctrine. You are basically throwing your faith out the window by stating that you don't care what the Bible says about the order and means by which all living creatures came about. You would rather appeal to authority and let the heathen tell you how life came about. Jesus would see your contentment with being ignorant and apathetic towards such an important matter as lukewarm, and God cannot stand a lukewarm believer, and neither can I. This is the type of Christian I run into on a frequent basis on this website. Its not about what God is capable of, its about what the Bible does and not say. It says that God formed all living creatures as entirely separate beings from the material of the earth in only a few days, all designed to produce after their kind. It does not say that God created all living beings by means of upwards progression of common descent from the lowest form of water based life to man as taught by the heathen. It does not say that he formed an amphibian out of a fish, he did not form a reptile from an amphibian, he did not form a bird from a reptile, and it does not say that he formed Adam from an ape or any other creature. All creatures were created from the beginning as unique unto themselves.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Dear BlackManINC,

Thank you for pointing out a potential path to error. Perhaps I was too careless in my wording. How about, "Some of the verses of the Old Testament were not intended to convey scientific or historical fact. While every book is valuable and divinely inspired, I don't believe my salvation rests upon knowing the precise age of the earth." Is that more acceptable?

I am fully persuaded that life came from God the Father. How is my salvation affected by uncertainty over which process He used or how long it took?

It may very well be that God created every creature individually, as they are now. He certainly could have done that. But, as before, when I kneel in prayer, say a Rosary, attend Mass, or help to raise money for various charities, that question isn't in the forefront of my mind. I know there is some allegory in the Old Testament. I'm just not expert enough to know precisely which parts are.

Now, the New Testament is far more of a literal account of what actually happened. Focusing on Jesus, that is where I would head for salvation under the New Covenant.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: BlackManINC

Dear BlackManINC,

Thank you for pointing out a potential path to error. Perhaps I was too careless in my wording. How about, "Some of the verses of the Old Testament were not intended to convey scientific or historical fact. While every book is valuable and divinely inspired, I don't believe my salvation rests upon knowing the precise age of the earth." Is that more acceptable?

I am fully persuaded that life came from God the Father. How is my salvation affected by uncertainty over which process He used or how long it took?

It may very well be that God created every creature individually, as they are now. He certainly could have done that. But, as before, when I kneel in prayer, say a Rosary, attend Mass, or help to raise money for various charities, that question isn't in the forefront of my mind. I know there is some allegory in the Old Testament. I'm just not expert enough to know precisely which parts are.

Now, the New Testament is far more of a literal account of what actually happened. Focusing on Jesus, that is where I would head for salvation under the New Covenant.

With respect,
Charles1952

So you are asking how this effects salvation? Well, I'm pointing this out because I believe that this religion we call evolution will become very important to the end times deception. It will become the focal point of "the lie", or the strong delusion. I believe this lie started in the garden of Eden. Today, we are told by the heathen that with the magic wand of time and mutations, a creature can become something more or different than what it is. Rewind back to the garden and you have Satan telling Adam and Eve the same thing, that if they eat this fruit, they can become something more than human, that they will evolve into gods. This is where the lie of evolution started.

Like I said, this isn't about what is possible with God, with God all things are possible. If God can turn a stick into a snake, and stone into bread, then he is obviously capable of doing anything. However, that's not what this is about, because there is a long term agenda behind this. I'll put it to you simply, when the anti-Christ comes on the scene performing miracles that mimics biological evolution, in the eyes of the world and to the theistic evolutionists, he will epitomize evolution, as the highest life form on the evolutionary tree of life for the world to strive for. He will replace God as creator, because he will be seen as a literal god in the flesh. That's why this lie is very important. It was important from the very beginning in the garden and its important today.

The Antichrist and the media's role in promoting him

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: undo



This goes back to the importance of sticking to sound Biblical doctrine. You are basically throwing your faith out the window by stating that you don't care what the Bible says about the order and means by which all living creatures came about. You would rather appeal to authority and let the heathen tell you how life came about. Jesus would see your contentment with being ignorant and apathetic towards such an important matter as lukewarm, and God cannot stand a lukewarm believer, and neither can I.....

So-called sound Biblical doctrine is a self-contained system that doesn't hold-up outside of that fictional system (or even within it, considering all the contradictions in the Bible). It's no different from Harry Potter doctrine based on the content of the Harry Potter books and ignoring the fact that there's no evidence that Harry Potter, Hogwarts, Hagrid and the rest ever existed or that children can fly on broomsticks. It's fine as a fantasy exercise but it's dangerous when taken as fact. The believer becomes delusional and poses a potential threat to others.

edit on 19-8-2014 by Tangerine because: BlackManInc's quote was inadvertently left out. Please refer to his post about Biblical doctrine..

edit on 19-8-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

extra DIV

a reply to: BlackManINC

I'm not sure how much you understand about evolution? (I'm no expert either) One thing I think worth pointing out though, was posted by Krazysh0t recently:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists. The scientific process used to describe how life began is called Abiogenesis and that is still only a hypothesis. Evolution could be the answer to how and god could very well be the answer to why since evolution doesn't address god in the slightest.

Abiogenesis & Evolution

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

Basically, evolution doesn't say God doesn't exist. It doesn't even deal with that question. Maybe the misconception (assumption?) that it does try to explain how life came to exist, can be attributed to part of Darwin's book title (Origin of Species). Idk, just a thought. While I am a swine (in your opinion) and don't believe in your God, I think you take much away from him by disregarding evolution. Why can't evolution be God in action? To everything there is a process, you could even say, an evolution. Just something to think about.

originally posted by: BlackManINC


So you are asking how this effects salvation? Well, I'm pointing this out because I believe that this religion we call evolution will become very important to the end times deception...."

Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Evolution is not a religion. Calling it one is as ludicrous as calling allergies a religion.

a reply to: Tangerine

Just a thought, but I think he means that science will become mankind's hope and the source of all things, including altered humanity. In effect, we would be worshiping the idols of the human mind and technology.

But perhaps I should have let him answer on his own.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: BlackManINC

I'm not sure how much you understand about evolution? (I'm no expert either) One thing I think worth pointing out though, was posted by Krazysh0t recently:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists. The scientific process used to describe how life began is called Abiogenesis and that is still only a hypothesis. Evolution could be the answer to how and god could very well be the answer to why since evolution doesn't address god in the slightest.

Abiogenesis & Evolution

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

Basically, evolution doesn't say God doesn't exist. It doesn't even deal with that question. Maybe the misconception (assumption?) that it does try to explain how life came to exist, can be attributed to part of Darwin's book title (Origin of Species). Idk, just a thought. While I am a swine (in your opinion) and don't believe in your God, I think you take much away from him by disregarding evolution. Why can't evolution be God in action? To everything there is a process, you could even say, an evolution. Just something to think about.

Well this is what the heathens do all the time, they haven't proven how life arose on earth so they try and divorce themselves from abiogenesis as if its separate from evolution. The link below, however, evaluates some of the more widely used biology textbooks that have been used since 1998 to the present. They are all graded based on how objective the science is presented, and whether or not they present the whole truth, or is the evidence presented in a misleading way.

Specific Evaluation Criterion

In general, an "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theory -- like all scientific theories -- might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts. An "F" indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.

Link: www.arn.org...

Every single one of them got either a D or an F for referencing the Miller-Urey experiments as if the experiments proved abiogenesis, or in showing that life can arise from non-living matter.

D = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; but the accompanying text explicitly points out that this was probably not the case (merely listing other gasses, and leaving it to the student to spot the discrepancy, is not sufficient); may leave the student with the impression that the experiment (or some variant of it) demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

So you can link as many atheist websites as you wish, the fact of the matter is the science textbooks still teach abiogenesis as a scientific fact and still has everything to do with the general theory of evolution concerning our origins of common descent, from rocks.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I'm still waiting for you to cite testable evidence proving that God exists and created anything.

a reply to: Tangerine

Didn't we cover that earlier in the thread? How do you weigh God, or get his waist measurement? There is no science that can tell anything about Him. He can't be proved or disproved. That's why Atheism and Christianity are both "faiths."

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: BlackManINC

I'm still waiting for you to cite testable evidence proving that God exists and created anything.

God doesn't answer to you, you answer to him, and if you can't accept Gods gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, then God will have nothing more to do with you, and neither will I.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
Well this is what the heathens do all the time, they haven't proven how life arose on earth so they try and divorce themselves from abiogenesis as if its separate from evolution. The link below, however, evaluates some of the more widely used biology textbooks that have been used since 1998 to the present. They are all graded based on how objective the science is presented, and whether or not they present the whole truth, or is the evidence presented in a misleading way.

Specific Evaluation Criterion

In general, an "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theory -- like all scientific theories -- might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts. An "F" indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.

Link: www.arn.org...

Every single one of them got either a D or an F for referencing the Miller-Urey experiments as if the experiments proved abiogenesis, or in showing that life can arise from non-living matter.

D = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; but the accompanying text explicitly points out that this was probably not the case (merely listing other gasses, and leaving it to the student to spot the discrepancy, is not sufficient); may leave the student with the impression that the experiment (or some variant of it) demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

So you can link as many atheist websites as you wish, the fact of the matter is the science textbooks still teach abiogenesis as a scientific fact and still has everything to do with the general theory of evolution concerning our origins of common descent, from rocks.

Ok first off, nobody evolved from rocks. The fact that you think this (unless you're just being sarcastic) shows how little you understand about evolution or really, science. You also didn't really address anything. How about some links to counter scientific claims instead of links to how textbooks are rated?

Second, I would like to point you to your own thread:

Spreading the Gospel

In which you state:

originally posted by: BlackManINC
Personally, I think spreading the gospel is a complete waste of my time. I let the dead bury their dead so that I can move on in keeping the narrow path to salvation. You may think my motives are self centered even though the Bible tells us to focus on the Lord and focus on self. I personally tend to take pleasure in the death and suffering of the wicked, and I highly doubt this mindset will change as time goes along, even though the Bible tells us not to. So what do you think Christians?

The thread participants go on to show you multiple places in the Bible where it tells you to go out and "be fishers of men". You ignore all of that for reasons which are essentially "I've been saved so who cares about anyone" responses. Given that "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, and "F" indicates uncritical logical fallacy, dogmatically treats things as unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents, I ask you what grade do you think you get?