So atheists, what if you are wrong

I think you might be incorrectly representing the atheistic position here.

God doesn’t exist and you are stupid for believing this stupid nonsense

I can only speak for myself, but as an atheist I certainly do not identify with this – I’d describe my atheism solely as a rejection; when evaluating the proposition “a God exists”, I reject the proposition as I see no reason to believe it’s true. That’s all atheism is to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, what if I’m mistaken in my rejection of this maximally great being? Well, can I be blamed if I never felt I had sufficient reason to think otherwise? Assumingly, it would be trivially easy for a God to prove their existence to someone like me, so they either haven't yet seen it necessary, or they’re simply not interested in having me believe.

Either way, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

a reply to: ArnhemKnight

That's agnostic which should be the default position to take regardless of your beliefs. We can't prove or disprove the existence of 'God' so let's just admit that and move on.
All we have is our personal experiences and if that forms your opinion that there is a 'God' then good for you, if like yourself where you can't rationalise it then that's fine too.
As long as you live your life as a good person, when or if we travel to other realms of existence then imo we have nothing to be concerned about.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

“That’s agnostic” – I agree, agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive as they relate to what we know and what we believe, respectively.

The proposition is “a God exists” – I don’t claim to know whether it’s true or not, but I don’t see there’s any justifiable reason to accept it is true. That to me is akin to rejecting the proposition.

I also concur with you last statement, we shouldn’t worry ourselves too much with what may come after; rather we should simply enjoy our experience here on Earth to the fullest. God knows (pun intended?), there's enough out there to occupy a lifetime!

a reply to: Prezbo369

Unless you posses a belief in a god, then you're an atheist, an agnostic atheist but still an atheist.

Not true , I accept the possibility of an intelligent force behind the Universe , I don't have to believe to accept the possibility and if I accept the possibility then I don't disbelieve.

There isn't anything wrong with being incorrect.

The funny thing about the bih bleh is how much contradiction can be found in the pages. Whilst all the attempts at translating the stupid thing, with so many trying to preach it. They have a certain understanding of it, but no man is perfect.

Everyone who reads the bible too often are the ones who do not understand it at all. It only takes one read through to jnderstand just how simple it really is.

It is a book that was written by a mad man in an attempt to create a better society in a world of selfishness. But the problem is everyone keeps preaching people into being selfish.

I myself have gone to several different churches. And each churce only has one strong point that they fully understand. But for the rest of the book they get it entirely wrong.

The best way to read the bih bleh?

Read it without annotations or revisions. Use a dictionary, not a bible dictionary, to understand the words. String them together and say the entire verse out loud as if you were talking to someone else.

The problem with how people preach the bible is how they misdirect people to come to a common likeness in the words. That is not how the bible was intended to be interpreted.

Each verse in the bible is to be spoken when someone's life reaches a very similar circumstance. The words heal you because they say something that you, at that moment, can't even begin to speak.

You see the way I deal with people on a daily basis is I make them feel uncomfortable. Only in the sense that I get them to expose themselves.

Because people hate being figured out so easily I scare them. In fact I was almost placed in prison in the psyche ward because I scared the # out of my therapist. And the social worker? Didn't believe me when I talked to her. But she doesn't know me. And she wasn't there.

At each church I go to I see this as the most common problem within them. how vein people are to the sin of vanity.

Vanity is the number one problem in churches. They covet the looks of their worshipers. They honestly do.

Second to that is greed. They seriously push way too much for donations. It ties in alot with the first sin above.

The third most common? Gluttony.

How is this prevailant in churches? Starbucks, krispy kreme, baked goods. It is just sitting there on a huge display that is free to everyone. I get it. You want to make your guests feel welcome. Some even have cookouts for free hotdogs. But seriously you are commiting a sin of gluttony.

This is why I don't go to church. Every single one of them makes you commit a sin just outside or just before you enter.

I hate churches. I hate preachers. But I like the bible. And seriously read the standard bible without annotations, study guides, or the "bible dictionary."

Read it by itself, do not listen to a preacher. Just read it and picture yourself in a state of mind as if you just went through it yourself.

You will see just how much the bible by definition contradicts itself. I am not lost in the pages. You are.

a reply to: Cuervo

I didn't know you were kidding.

I think they bring it up to show what God thinks on certain subjects.

But the Laws, Statutes, Judgements, Precepts, Ordinances, and Commandments were originally given to Israel as they were coming into their land that God was giving them, so they could keep themselves Clean, Holy, Separated and Consecrated to the LORD. However that was impossible so God set up a sacrificial program for them but they abused it.

From the aforementioned a Christian could get an application but he would never be obligated to keep them. That is why Paul reiterates 9 of the ten commandments, and restates on how to give in the NT.

I hope that helps.

Read it without annotations or revisions. Use a dictionary, not a bible dictionary, to understand the words. String them together and say the entire verse out loud as if you were talking to someone else.

The AV Bible can define any word it uses by the context. The AV Bible was printed before any English Dictionary and that is where we got many English meanings of the words found in Webster's dictionary.

Also in the AV it has a divine built in cross reference that connects words, phrases and verse together for deeper meaning for those who are seeking the deep things of God.

originally posted by: Leahn
Prove, then. What's the source of your certainty?

There has never been a documented case of an amputee having a lost limb fully restored.

And the answer to it is that there are no things that cannot be explained rationally. If God brought someone's back from dead, you cannot rule out catalepsy. You cannot even rule out that the person was trully dead to begin with. That it was not a ruse. If God healed someone's limb, you cannot rule out a mysterious medical treatment you are not aware of, you cannot rule out a magical parlour trick. In fact, I just gave you an example of a man whose finger was regrown using stem cell treatment. It was not reattached. It was regrown anew, nail and digital prints included. So it can be done by medicine. Why don't we grow the limbs of the amputees ourselves, I will leave for the Big Pharma conspiracy guys to explain.

If God exists, then God would be a rational explanation for amazing miracles that can't be attributed to science. As it stands now, I have not seen anything (outside of anecdotes, which I don't necessarily count) that could not be attribute to human know-how. I do see a lot of people giving God the credit, but alas, it does not go to him.

Truth is, having sucessfully rationalized the greatest miracle of all, which is life itself, by raising from the dead the ancient greek phylosophy of evolution through adding a thin veener of scientific legitimacy to it, a fortiori you can rationalize anything else.

What are you trying to get at here?

My point exactly. The argument from amputees claim that such miracle would be undeniable. It wouldn't. It can be done outside of a miracle. Even if we can't do it ourselves currently, it is most likely well within the reach of our medicine, and we may even see it ourselves within our lifetimes.

In the here and now, show me a miracle. Show me some miraculous thing that could not be attributed to the science or medicine of the time. I don't care what we may or may not be able to do in the future. Show me something where the only rational explanation seems to point to a deity.

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: borntowatch

Im a Christian and I'm gonna turn this around on you: what if they are RIGHT?

In this world there is always an opposite. White-black, left-right, man-woman, atheist-Christian, earth-water, do-don't, go-stay, yes-no, walk-ride, cars-planes....etc.

So...even as a Christian...Im asking you...what if they are RIGHT?

What if they are right and there is no God.

Nothing, means I didnt die with the most toys, I missed out on having sex witha few random strangers, missed out on driving the biggest car i could afford. Means I didn't steal as much as I would have liked, tried to show as much care as I have.
told people about creation

I dont get it, what do they think I have missed out on, what does this world offer I dont get being a Christian.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Leahn

Pretty sure the atheists are asking for an amputee to spontaneously (like, overnight, but better if right in front of your eyes like on sci-fi movies) regrow a missing limb.

Yes, that's what we call 'moving the goalpost'. Atheists demanded amputees to be healed. If an amputee was healed, they would demand another to be done, but in front of their eyes. If that happened, they would demand it to be done in a lab, so they could study it, and rule out other causes. If that happened, they would demand something else. And if, at any point, it did not happen, then God does not exist.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
There has never been a documented case of an amputee having a lost limb fully restored.

And that means exactly nothing. If that's your 'proof', then I rest my case. No further words need to be said.

If God exists, then God would be a rational explanation for amazing miracles that can't be attributed to science. As it stands now, I have not seen anything (outside of anecdotes, which I don't necessarily count) that could not be attribute to human know-how. I do see a lot of people giving God the credit, but alas, it does not go to him.

The point is not whether or not God would be a rational explanation. Atheist's demand is not that God is a rational explanation, but that no other rational explanation can be offered. The only acceptable evidence is one that rules out everything else, except for God, as an explanation. This is a demand that cannot be met. Despite atheists own claims to the contrary, you can never rule out everything else, as our knowledge of anything is always incomplete. Therefore, as I said originally, no atheist would ever accept any evidence offered, as there will always be a way to rationalize it away.

What are you trying to get at here?

Again, that atheists will rationalize away anything that is offered as evidence. Despite atheists claims to the contrary, that they would accept evidence if one was presented, their demand cannot be met, as they have multiple times demonstrated that they will rationalize any and all evidence away.

In the here and now, show me a miracle. Show me some miraculous thing that could not be attributed to the science or medicine of the time. I don't care what we may or may not be able to do in the future. Show me something where the only rational explanation seems to point to a deity.

Again, this is a demand that cannot be met. You keep reinforcing my own point, to the detriment of yours. Once more, truth is, having sucessfully rationalized the greatest miracle of all, which is life itself, by raising from the dead the ancient greek phylosophy of evolution through adding a thin veener of scientific legitimacy to it, a fortiori you can rationalize anything else. I can say further. Not only you can rationalize anything away, but also it is absolutely certain that you will.

Why do I know that you will, without fail, rationalize it? Because you said you will. You said that you have heard of many things whose credit was attributed to God, but that could instead be attributed to scientific know-how, and according to your own words 'the credit does not go do God'. So, your default mode of analysis is, "if I can find an excuse to not to attribute this to God, then I won't attribute it to Him."

Keep in mind that, in no point of your own analysis, you have brought forward any proof or evidence that whatever cause you can conceive of an event was, in fact, the cause of it. It may not have been caused by God, but it also may not have been caused by whatever is it that you believe that did it. It may have been a third cause. It is important to know that, because you have never bothered to offer any evidence that it was not a third cause. It is important to know that, because it shows that your opinion of what may have caused something is more important to you than any actual evidence of its cause. It is important to know that, because it shows that you treasure your own opinion above evidence, if it supports what you belief.

It is important to know that because it shows that no evidence can convince you because you have already decided on the answer beforehand, and you will find a way to stick to it.

So, let's stop the posturing and stop with the asking for evidence. You don't care about evidence.

a reply to: Leahn

All I want is empirical evidence that prayer works and miracles happen. There is none. There should be. Miracles include things that may never be explained by science due to their divine source. If something attributed to God, is later explained by science. Well there you go, god is not a required part of the equation thus there is no reason to assume a god had anything to do with it. It is you that doesn't care about evidence. Or at the very least, do not have as high of a standard of evidence as I.

I guess it was only with the advent of more modern times that god decided to stop revealing himself to the world through miracles and plagues. Must be all the cell phone cameras.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: Leahn

because he cures so many ailments in the world that we can't see. Tumors disappearing, cancer into remission etc., people go on everyday about how God works miracles, why doesn't he do one we can actually see?

wikipedia.org - Miracle of Calanda

A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic, and Dogmatic : with Illustrations

There have been such healings.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: borntowatch

Pascal's wager.

Unfortunately there's really nothing to be wrong about. We can literally watch what happens to someone when they die. We bury our dead.

We have evidence that something beyond the physical exists.

But of course, we have no physical evidence.

I'm agnostic and I think there's something. Mathematics and physics prove that we really know nothing BUT matter never dies. It only changes. Then you've got people like Heisenberg that scare the # out of people.

originally posted by: GiulXainx
There isn't anything wrong with being incorrect.

The funny thing about the bih bleh is how much contradiction can be found in the pages. Whilst all the attempts at translating the stupid thing, with so many trying to preach it. They have a certain understanding of it, but no man is perfect.

Everyone who reads the bible too often are the ones who do not understand it at all. It only takes one read through to jnderstand just how simple it really is.

It is a book that was written by a mad man in an attempt to create a better society in a world of selfishness. But the problem is everyone keeps preaching people into being selfish.

I myself have gone to several different churches. And each churce only has one strong point that they fully understand. But for the rest of the book they get it entirely wrong.

The best way to read the bih bleh?

Read it without annotations or revisions. Use a dictionary, not a bible dictionary, to understand the words. String them together and say the entire verse out loud as if you were talking to someone else.

The problem with how people preach the bible is how they misdirect people to come to a common likeness in the words. That is not how the bible was intended to be interpreted.

Each verse in the bible is to be spoken when someone's life reaches a very similar circumstance. The words heal you because they say something that you, at that moment, can't even begin to speak.

You see the way I deal with people on a daily basis is I make them feel uncomfortable. Only in the sense that I get them to expose themselves.

Because people hate being figured out so easily I scare them. In fact I was almost placed in prison in the psyche ward because I scared the # out of my therapist. And the social worker? Didn't believe me when I talked to her. But she doesn't know me. And she wasn't there.

At each church I go to I see this as the most common problem within them. how vein people are to the sin of vanity.

Vanity is the number one problem in churches. They covet the looks of their worshipers. They honestly do.

Second to that is greed. They seriously push way too much for donations. It ties in alot with the first sin above.

The third most common? Gluttony.

How is this prevailant in churches? Starbucks, krispy kreme, baked goods. It is just sitting there on a huge display that is free to everyone. I get it. You want to make your guests feel welcome. Some even have cookouts for free hotdogs. But seriously you are commiting a sin of gluttony.

This is why I don't go to church. Every single one of them makes you commit a sin just outside or just before you enter.

I hate churches. I hate preachers. But I like the bible. And seriously read the standard bible without annotations, study guides, or the "bible dictionary."

Read it by itself, do not listen to a preacher. Just read it and picture yourself in a state of mind as if you just went through it yourself.

You will see just how much the bible by definition contradicts itself. I am not lost in the pages. You are.

The Bible has over 40 authors. It consists of 66 books and covers a writing period of thousands of years. From your assertion that it was written by a madman, I'd guess that you have never read it. It quite plainly has multiple authors from varied walks of life.

Educate yourself instead of blindly echoing what you have heard someone else say. Read up about those contradictions and discrepancies - Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by J Halley. If there is an issue of discrepancy or contradiction then it is notated, and usually resolved, in this book.

BTW, I have read and re-read the Bible for over 40 years. I have studied it and questioned it and pondered on it. I have learned a little Greek and Hebrew so I can read the original texts, too. Many many other Christians have studied similarly. That we agree with each other and don't agree with you might indicate that it would be worth your while to actually read it.

a reply to: chr0naut

How many times was it translated and commissioned by whom? Not just KJ.

I had a conversation with my father a few months ago. It was religious in nature and he was asking if I'd reconsider attending church again agter many years of being absent. By the way, when I say father, I don't mean priest. I mean my biological father. I asked him how he expected me to continue to follow a religion that I've witnessed hypocrisy, greed, cynicism, and vanity.

He replied in a way I found difficult to counter. He replied that God, whomever He is believed to be, is a personal decision that each and every one of us has to make in whether to accept Him or not. It's not our place to to standardize God on anyone's perception but our own. My father said that the hypocrisies I've witnessed won't be taken into account or others actions or beliefs won't be taken into account. It's a choice every living person has to make of their own accord.

That said, while declared the great commission, it's not a Christians place to force anything on another person. a christian is compelled to share their faith. Not force it on anyone...

That's what people find so offensive... Christ never forced himself on anyone...why should any believer?!

a reply to: borntowatch

Great answer! You made me smile...because if there isn't a God it doesn't matter. And for those of us that are pretty sure there is SOME kind of God-Christians, Jehovahs, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Buddists...it breaks down to belief in a higher power...however you see it...or find it...and even if in your life you don't?

The God of everything...will still be there with open arms...even if you never come to believe. That's ok. We are all loved. Love is the greatest gift of all...no matter the belief in the end.

And someday...wars will end, and people will know...we are all the same...no matter what.

Thanks borntowatch....Best...MS

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: chr0naut

How many times was it translated and commissioned by whom? Not just KJ.

Each master temple scroll has a life in use of 800 years. That means that from the time of Moses to today only requires 5 master copies. In 300 BC the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek and became somewhat of a bestseller (the Septuagint). We can verify the Septuagint and modern versions by comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls and they agree almost perfectly. That's for the Old Testament.

For the New Testament, we have thousands of fragments (about 60,000) and texts which existed within about 100 - 300 years after the time the original texts were assumed to have been written. The consistency of these texts, when compared to modern versions leaves little chance that, beyond a few trivial errors in translation, the content has remained essentially unaltered.

Also, none of the books in the New Testament make mention of the destruction of the temple and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This would indicate that the original documents were written no later than 35 years after the death of Christ.