It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why do Atheist believe we cease to exist at death?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut, bro, digger!

I cant believe you still dont get it. Your a smart guy, going by your posts.

As you would agree, proof that cannot be shown to someone else is not proof!! God damn it. Lol

It may be the case that an individual is personally justified in their unproven personal experience, but this cannot be demonstrated by anybody else.

So if Yeshi suddenly appeared to you personally, just shows up and bamb there he is. You maybe justified in your belief, but i would not be justified in believing based on what happend to you. Revalation is necessarily 1st person.

So what reason do I have to believe?

Im not telling you you should believe, im asking what proof do you have?

Any unscientific proof is tantamount to an argument from ignorance case.

So what reason (aka: proof) do i have to believe in a god that can only show himself in a supremely stupid and dumb manner that only a few get his message?

A supreme and omnipotent god would know how to definatley win his will to us all.

Aka: god would know what it would take for me to believe!! Yet he doesnt.

Brother Coomba98
edit on 21-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

You said:

We have most big things figured out

WHAT????

Who are we?

I know you're not talking about Scientist because if you make a statement like this it just doesn't make any sense. We're a type 0 civilization on the Kardashev scale and it's estimated that it will be 100 to 200 years before we fully transition into a type 1 civilization if we get there.

We in no way, shape or form have most big things figured out if the we you're talking about is Science. These big things are the reason Science has so many different theories to try and explain the little things and there's still no agreement on those things.

This is why you have the:

holographic principle
simulated universe
loop quantum gravity
string theory
is gravity an emergent property of entanglement, why is the value of the cosmological constant in such a disagreement with what theory predicts
Is there a gravity brane that leaks in a tev brane?
Is there a multiverse?
Is there parallel universes?
Do we live inside a black hole?
Is a black hole and the big bang the same thing?
Can we warp space?
Can we harness zero point energy?
Is spacetime an error correcting code?
Why are error correcting codes showing up in the equations of string theory?
Stephen Hawking changes his positions on black holes almost weekly.
Do extraterrestials exist and have we already discovered them?
What's the true nature of consciousness?
Do we have a quantum mind?
How far and wide will the field of Quantum Biology reach?
Is the universe a quantum computer?


I can keep going but I will stop right there.

Sadly, some people try to use Science to support their belief and they make blanket statements which have no basis in reality.
edit on 21-10-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: SaturnFX

You said:

We have most big things figured out

that was attributed to deities


These big things are the reason Science has so many different theories to try and explain the little things and there's still no agreement on those things.

Yes, we are now in the realm of quantum reality understanding, but we know deities aren't required for the big stuff..the movements of celestial objects, weather, evolution, etc..the gods domain stuff.
If you want to smash deities into string theory, go for it, but you know thats just a short cut to thinking


Sadly, some people try to use Science to support their belief and they make blanket statements which have no basis in reality.

who's reality?



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I believe in a GOD but i do not believe in religion, the bible in my eyes is a story, when i see a man divide ANY ocean then i will believe in it or even fill a boat full of pairs of animals from all over the globe and keep them animals alive (who eats who) for how ever long the great flood lasted.

I believe in a god but not as one person, as a collective.

I have witnessed many "ghostly" experiences that gives me my proof that there is life after death, our bodies rot away but our souls move on, we become spirits again.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Our purpose is to propogate our genes then ensure their survival.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

To reply to your post with as much thought as possible in regards to your point put forward. With all things science and real world, without the hocuspocus of religion as magic. Science only has so many answers, this however does not state that it does not already provide a much more vast and complete understanding of our world and universe. Considering the very reason you and others read this message on your screen is due to science being correct. Cars drive, planes fly and computers compute. So with that in mind, in regards to psychology being a science it details how we are merely made up of memories, stories we tell ourselves from those indentations in our brains.

Basically our brains are consisted of many scars (in a sense) in the tissue of our brains and thus the more we learn the more scars (memories, things we remember) we can look back on to remember. Thus when you cannot remember a name or a specific thing, this is called trace decay. This means you have not rehearsed it enough for the scar to stay prominent. However once you remember it, its a Eureka! moment and thus that faded scar becomes outlined once more.

So I explain this because..... Our brain is only as alive as its currently operating. Blood, oxygen. We know this as once oxygen is denied we suffer strokes or die. Therefore, this is the end to 'US', who we are as we know it. Hence why...

Atheists that think rationally see life after death as a shear magical story, a wish that is not promised.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr X
Our purpose is to propogate our genes then ensure their survival.


This will sound like a strange question, but what is the reason for ensuring their survival? In the grand scheme of the functioning of the greater universe, why must we survive?



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
"Why do Atheist believe we cease to exist at death?"
Because we actually do.
The bible actually agrees with atheists more than Christian ideology at what happens at death.

Three points.

1)We came from elemental matter and we return to elemental matter, or as the bible says we came from dust and we return to dust.
Genesis 3:19b

Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried;
you started out as dirt, you’ll end up dirt.



2) We are all sinners and we all die, our souls die, which means once we die, nothing survives, including a "spirit".
Ezekiel 18:20

The soul that sins is the soul that dies.

In Hebrew the word "soul" is Nephesh and another definition for that is "living being", at death are total being ceases to exist.


3)At death we are no better than the animals.
Ecclesiastes 3:19

Humans and animals come to the same end—humans die, animals die. We all breathe the same air. So there’s really no advantage in being human. None. Everything’s smoke. We all end up in the same place—we all came from dust, we all end up as dust.



BUT the big difference is that the bible speaks of a resurrection for humans, they are not being resurrected from heaven or hell, but from non-existence.

Acts 24:15

having [the same] hope in God which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of [the dead], both of the righteous and of the wicked.


So atheists are correct, but those atheists that have died, are in for the shock of their 2 lifetimes, when God resurrects them as part of the "wicked" group and they are forced to acknowledge by being dead for "X" number of years and now being alive, that they were wrong, about the second half about what happens at death, that is the long term hope there was for dead humans.

It should be noted as well that atheists have concluded a place of torment called hell has never existed, again they would be correct too.
An invention of Catholicism to scare and control people who couldn't read the bible.
edit on 22-10-2016 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This shows a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Yes people die, but that doesn't mean their spirit dies at death. You're also posting translations of the Bible that are totally different than the King James Version. Here's some quotes:

2Corinthians 5:8

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


It doesn't say absent from the body and lying in the dust.

Job 3:11

Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?


He didn't say, why didn't I come from the wound, die and cease to exist. Where else do we hear "give up the ghost."

Matthew 27:50

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.


It didn't say Jesus died and you will see him again after he ceases to exist while lying in the dirt. What did Jesus say to the man on the cross?

Luke 23:43

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


He didn't say you will be with me in paradise after you cease to exist and you just lie in the dirt. He sais today.

What about the rich man and Lazarus who died?

Luke 16: 22-23

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.


It doesn't say Lazarus died and was just lying in the dust ceasing to exist. Lazarus and the rich man were both aware at death.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut
Are you expecting physical evidence for things beyond physicality?

If there is no possibility of evidence given, then why consider it?


There IS evidence. It is not of the type of evidence that science likes or is good at.

Science is not the tool for the job, it is limited in what it can do. Science is useless in describing the motivations behind history. Science cannot explain the reasons behind mathematical order. Science is very poor at explaining the subjective (in fact objective evidence is just a subset of subjective evidence - you cannot remove the observer). Science cannot probe most philosophical questions.

At the time the physical evidences required by science were available, it was not captured, however there ARE records that this evidence once existed.

Right now, the evidence that is available is mathematical, philosophical and subjective. We can explore these things through reasoning processes.


There is possibility of evidence for ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, etc..and whenever discussing these things, we discuss the evidence. When people discuss deities, they discuss feelings, scripture that is meant to be "divinely inspired", etc. The biggest idea for evidence of deities (in monotheism / abrahamic religions) is Jesus if you are a christian..thats it...


Referring to "the biggest idea for evidence" as you just did, implies a plurality of 'ideas for evidences'. Then you imply that there is only a singular evidence (in Jesus).

Also, if ghosts exist, then entities exist in a spirit world. That has implications in this debate but still does not resolve any issues of 'first cause'. On one side, it lends slight support to the theist argument, on the other it adds nothing to the atheist one.


and that is basically stories that are very suspect as to the authenticity of..and even then if its found the jesus of the bible did exist and everything is 100% dead on as to what happened..water to wine and raising from the dead, it still doesn't prove any deity..just proves a person with abnormal abilities claimed some stuff that even he was unable to give evidence for.


The Holy Spirit indwells every true believer. The touch of God within you is a very hard piece of evidence to deny.


A bit like a record breaking runner saying he attributed his speed to zeus...is he right, or is it just a biological abnormality and his delusions because of it? could be a mix, but we only can study the biological part.


If you can only study the biological, surely it is irrational to apply it beyond its scope.



Think of things, like number concepts, they don't appear as an image on an X-ray. Neither can quarks or any other subatomic particle appear on a photograph. That is because X-rays and photographs cannot record those things.
ok, this will be the last bit I address as I think this should clear it all up.

The universe is math. we make the math fit, we learn more of reality. this is how we figure things out overall, be it how many planets there are circling the sun, how weather system works, etc..it all fits and when it fits, it becomes part of our understanding of reality. That is why a quark is considered a legitiment particle to discuss and hypothesis about, because the math supports it, its not just an extra thing that serves no purpose, it is a functional requirement for the structure of our reality..we just have no way to directly manipulate it yet.

Deities on the other hand are not necessary. Long ago, deities controlled the clouds and rain, the earth fertility, the stars, etc..but as we grew in science, we seen this is not the case.
We have most big things figured out, and the math is supporting some final big questions and simply need to further test to prove right...and nowhere in there is a requirement for some all knowing all powerful deity...its just not necessary.

Cosmology, astrology,


Astrology??



evolutionary biology, chemistry, physics (norm and quantum) are the end results. God was the word put in there when our understandings of these areas were minimal..but we dont need gods anymore, we are advanced enough not to need the middle man filter...and certainly not a god described in any of the modern religions..what is that beings function anyhow? How does that being described hold relevance on our reality...is it in charge of gravity or something? what is its point?

God is a emperor in a land of anarchists (anarchists being not the people, but the roles..the things to rule over..sciences like astronomy, etc)


The sciences are not exclusive of the existence of a deity. God made a world compliant with order and following rules.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Chr0naut,

If god exists only inside the minds of those who believe then yes god cannot be proven by science.

If god exists outside of a human mind then science can be used to measure god and his actions/interactions.

Also philosophy IS a science.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Chr0naut,

If god exists only inside the minds of those who believe then yes god cannot be proven by science.

If god exists outside of a human mind then science can be used to measure god and his actions/interactions.

Also philosophy IS a science.

Coomba98


I agree, so is mathematics.

But when most on ATS talk of science, they mean the physical sciences as SaturnFX listed in his last post.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

So does god exist outside of human minds? And does he interact with reality?

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

So does god exist outside of human minds? And does he interact with reality?

Coomba98


Well, if God were dependent upon human minds, then He couldn't have created them. So, because He must have existed before there were human minds, i'd guess that He exists outside of them.

Since God created the physical universe (a subset of all reality), that would be an interaction. Also, miraculous things have occurred (both historically and currently). Since there is no 'real' magic, it means that instances of the miraculous are direct acts of God affecting this world.

Also, since the universe obeys discoverable rules of logic and order, there is no need for God to continually 'break protocol' (that He established in the first place) and mess with the world.

In fact an extremely unlikely event, recurring at a high rate, would be an indicator of manipulation by God (i.e: it is unlikely, and yet doesn't break the rules of physicality, but recurrs too frequently according to all we know = act of God). There are very many examples of this:

* The appearence of order in a nature which, on the whole, is tending to entropy, is one such indicator.

* The variety of life forms and level of complexity compared with the time frame of life's existence is another.

* The complexity and spread of viable states of matter in a universe where all reactions tend towards the lowest energy state possible (i.e: they should reduce to a single outcome rather than a variety), is another.

I could go on. These are all things within the puview of science, and for which science has no answer.

So, God is not a function of our minds and also interacts with reality at a fundamental level.

These are quite basic concepts.

edit on 22/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut
chr0naut, bro, digger!

I cant believe you still dont get it. Your a smart guy, going by your posts.

As you would agree, proof that cannot be shown to someone else is not proof!! God damn it. Lol


What if the proof can only be shown to three out of four observers (lets say that one of them is blind). Does that mean it isn't proof anymore? Where do you draw the line? Do you have a ratio that can be applied to determine 'proofiness'?

What about proof that requires a degree of deduction to understand, if you show it to someone without the ability to understand it, does cease to be proof, too?

Or, could 'objective proof' actually be independent of the observer (as the term is more normally defined in dictionaries)?


It may be the case that an individual is personally justified in their unproven personal experience, but this cannot be demonstrated by anybody else.

So if Yeshi suddenly appeared to you personally, just shows up and bamb there he is. You maybe justified in your belief, but i would not be justified in believing based on what happend to you. Revalation is necessarily 1st person.

So what reason do I have to believe?


Why do you ask for 'reason' and then, when I supply a logical line of reasoning, you respond back with some unreasoning and illogical catch-phrase (such as "atheism is not a belief" or "non-existence is the logical default in the absence of evidence" - both of which break the rules of reason) and you suggest that I am the one who has not understood?


Im not telling you you should believe, im asking what proof do you have?

Any unscientific proof is tantamount to an argument from ignorance case.


And there you go again talking about science as if only one side of the agument has a burden of proof. Where is your proof? Surely making a determination without proof is 'unscientific' and you are just as culpable as I. So the question is unresolved because the argument of absence of evidence can be made equally against both sides.


So what reason (aka: proof) do i have to believe in a god that can only show himself in a supremely stupid and dumb manner that only a few get his message?


According to Wkipedia, 87% - 98% of the population of the Earth have a belief in god. The percentage who do not believe is small. It would appear that God's strange manner of operation is quite succesful and that nearly all get His message (a case in point of God moving in mysterious ways).


A supreme and omnipotent god would know how to definatley win his will to us all.

Aka: god would know what it would take for me to believe!! Yet he doesnt.

Brother Coomba98


So you think it legit for God to blast away your free will?

What if giving us free will and a choice is His point, the very thing He created us for (as outlined in numerous religious works)?

edit on 22/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Astrology??


lol...typed too quick. astronomy. dammit, why did they put such a bs thing right next to the same spelling as a real science.
but you get the point I think. dont be pedantic



God made a world compliant with order and following rules.

Which part? what exactly was gods function in designing a world? we know how things form, right from the initial spark of the big bang and all the steps in between.
Where did God step in? according to the bible, he formed the earth first, then took a day to make the rest of the universe...which flys in the face of evidence.

The discussion I think is over. You can embrace anything you want. creationism, flat earth, etc...if it makes the world more interesitng to you, have fun. just dont try to sway politicians to put it in schools and we are good.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut,

You keep using argument from ignorance examples for your reason for believing god.

* The universe is amazing and highly complex, we dont truly understand it.... therefore god.

* An extremely unlikely event we dont understand... therefore god.

* The appearence of order in a nature which, on the whole, is tending to entropy which we dont know the proximate cause yet... therefore god.

* The variety of life forms and level of complexity compared with the time frame of life's existence is another.... therefore god (even though we freakin have evolution!!)

* The unknown reason for the complexity and spread of viable states of matter in a universe where all reactions tend towards the lowest energy state possible (i.e: they should reduce to a single outcome rather than a variety), is another. We dont know the answer yet... therefore god.

I could go on as well, and science WILL eventually find the answers to this. Which will show us... therefore 'not' god.

Onto your other post.

Personal experiences that cannot be proven by another or cannot be replicated in controlled experiments is not proof. How can this be evidence?

I ask for a reason why you believe because everything we believe in is based on a reason or reasons. And reasons are powerful indeed, if your reason is good enough i will helplessly believe as you do. The power of reason.

Regarding the burden of proof going both ways, hell no. If someone asserts that something exists in reality, then the burden of proof on the person making the assertions.

It is illogical for the one who does not assert something to bear the burden of proof.

According to Wkipedia, 87% - 98% of the population of the Earth have a belief in god. The percentage who do not believe is small. So what? No really so what! How many people in the ancient world believed the world is flat? Or the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around the Earth.

How many people thought Zeus or Thor or some other storm type god was angry when they saw lightning. Now perked up in the 21st century science explains its not a god, which im sure you agree. Or do you think Yahwah to cause the lightning and if so how did you come to that conclusion. Aka your reason.

So the ratio between who believes in god and who dont is moot point.

Heres a point, athiest numbers are getting bigger and bigger every single year. Lets say 100 years from now the ratio swaps with athiests being 87-98%, would that mean athiests are right? Based on ratio alone? No it does not.

You said:
'So you think it legit for God to blast away your free will?'.

What like he did with Adam @ Eve? Or Moses? Enoch? And the millions of other Jews he appeared too and communicated with? Even Yeshi and the people he met?

How does proving his own existence break free will?

No he prefers to give us high intelligence and a highly curious mind.... then totally disappears with a book left behind to guide us in life, like slavery is ok, gays should be murdered, innocent childred killed, rape a chick and you can the make her your wife etc etc.

Then he says, if you dont believe i exist and also fear me but call it love, then you will be tortured for eternity!!!

Like holy freaking crap man. Thats some pharked up stuff right there.

But thats ok because you think its all ok and logical.

Coomba98
edit on 23-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut

Astrology??


lol...typed too quick. astronomy. dammit, why did they put such a bs thing right next to the same spelling as a real science.
but you get the point I think. dont be pedantic



God made a world compliant with order and following rules.

Which part? what exactly was gods function in designing a world? we know how things form, right from the initial spark of the big bang and all the steps in between.


Nope. There are all sorts of things that are unphysical and that we have no theory to describe.

Things like superluminal inflation. There are stars out too far to have moved there in the time, especially when we remember that the light getting back from them to us has been itself travelling for billions of years. It is preposterous and unphysical, but the evidence is there that suggests it is so.

There are many such ridiculous and illogical concepts that are unchallenged.


Where did God step in? according to the bible, he formed the earth first, then took a day to make the rest of the universe...which flys in the face of evidence.


It doesn't actually say that. It doesn't really differentiate between the creation of the Earth and the rest of the universe. It refers to them both as "the land/world"


The discussion I think is over. You can embrace anything you want. creationism, flat earth, etc...if it makes the world more interesitng to you, have fun. just dont try to sway politicians to put it in schools and we are good.


Likewise, in the name of fair and reasonable balance, you shouldn't try and sway politicians or put your beliefs into schools.


edit on 23/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut,

You keep using argument from ignorance examples for your reason for believing god.

* The universe is amazing and highly complex, we dont truly understand it.... therefore god.

* An extremely unlikely event we dont understand... therefore god.

* The appearence of order in a nature which, on the whole, is tending to entropy which we dont know the proximate cause yet... therefore god.

* The variety of life forms and level of complexity compared with the time frame of life's existence is another.... therefore god (even though we freakin have evolution!!)

* The unknown reason for the complexity and spread of viable states of matter in a universe where all reactions tend towards the lowest energy state possible (i.e: they should reduce to a single outcome rather than a variety), is another. We dont know the answer yet... therefore god.

I could go on as well, and science WILL eventually find the answers to this. Which will show us... therefore 'not' god.

Onto your other post.

Personal experiences that cannot be proven by another or cannot be replicated in controlled experiments is not proof. How can this be evidence?

I ask for a reason why you believe because everything we believe in is based on a reason or reasons. And reasons are powerful indeed, if your reason is good enough i will helplessly believe as you do. The power of reason.

Regarding the burden of proof going both ways, hell no. If someone asserts that something exists in reality, then the burden of proof on the person making the assertions.


You are ignoring half the definition of the holder of the burden of proof entirely. According to Wikipedia regarding the holder of burden of proof: "When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition."

Since you are assuming that my position is false because it has not proven true, the burden of proof is clearly upon you, as noted.

Because I admit the rational conclusion of the argument is still indeterminant, and that it is invalid to draw a conclusion from reasoning without sufficient evidence, I do not comply with this last caveat.


According to Wkipedia, 87% - 98% of the population of the Earth have a belief in god. The percentage who do not believe is small. So what? No really so what! How many people in the ancient world believed the world is flat? Or the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around the Earth.

How many people thought Zeus or Thor or some other storm type god was angry when they saw lightning. Now perked up in the 21st century science explains its not a god, which im sure you agree. Or do you think Yahwah to cause the lightning and if so how did you come to that conclusion. Aka your reason.

So the ratio between who believes in god and who dont is moot point.

Heres a point, athiest numbers are getting bigger and bigger every single year. Lets say 100 years from now the ratio swaps with athiests being 87-98%, would that mean athiests are right? Based on ratio alone? No it does not.


I wasn't talking about atheists being wrong or right. I was responding to your statement: "So what reason (aka: proof) do i have to believe in a god that can only show himself in a supremely stupid and dumb manner that only a few get his message?". I was pointing out that your statement that few get God's message was, in fact, false.


You said:
'So you think it legit for God to blast away your free will?'.

What like he did with Adam @ Eve? Or Moses? Enoch? And the millions of other Jews he appeared too and communicated with? Even Yeshi and the people he met?

How does proving his own existence break free will?


It doesn't. I was again responding to your words: "A supreme and omnipotent god would know how to definatley win his will to us all", with my response of: "So you think it legit for God to blast away your free will?".

I thought the context of my responses was clear in both cases.


No he prefers to give us high intelligence and a highly curious mind.... then totally disappears with a book left behind to guide us in life, like slavery is ok, gays should be murdered, innocent childred killed, rape a chick and you can the make her your wife etc etc.

Then he says, if you dont believe i exist and also fear me but call it love, then you will be tortured for eternity!!!

Like holy freaking crap man. Thats some pharked up stuff right there.

But thats ok because you think its all ok and logical.

Coomba98

Actually, God gave His Holy Spirit to indwell us, which is the opposite of totally dissapearing (He is present with us at all times).

Too right it is "pharked up stuff". The moral outrages you mentioned are all actually against God's laws and defined as sins. There is record in the Bible of these sins being done, but they are historical accounts. Sinful actions are never condoned.

edit on 23/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Likewise, in the name of fair and reasonable balance, you shouldn't try and sway politicians or put your beliefs into schools.


science is not a believe, science is a toolset to uncover evidence.

you favor a book that suggests a man lived in a whale for 3 days and snakes that used to talk to people.

anyhow, nice chat.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join