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.

 

Why are Atheists Atheists?

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
GreatTech, if you want to play with numbers, my IQ is 172, and I am also a member of Mensa, and have been for over 30 years so don't come the 'high and mighty' with me.

IMHO, a person who uses rhetoric as an argument, and then more rhetoric as evidence and proof for the rhetoric, AND believes their own argument, has some serious self examination to do. It is irrelevent whether the question is theological or not. By your own admission, you have the intelligence to understand this, so their is no excuse.

As a member of Mensa you are no doubt aware of this, so I challenge you once more..... explain your true motivation for asking a question for which you never wanted the answer. In doing so you are insulting everyone else's intelligence.

I have absolutely no doubt of your 'faith', and accept your evidence of intelligence at face value.

So surely, you can see that to use quotations from a religious text (in this case the Bible) is not, and can never be, evidence or proof of the existance of God to an athiest, who by definition does not believe there is a god. It is clearly a rhetorical argument. Therefore to prove the existance of God (if that is your aim) then you will need some other form of evidence.

The things you have put forward, such as lower intelligence, a more warlike nature, etc, etc, etc, (even longer life for believers!) are clearly not verifiable or a sustainable argument, and all opposing participants in this 'discussion' have rebutted all such arguments thus far. And I am going to make the statistical assumption that many of the participants in this 'discussion' do not have the IQ advantages that you and I share - NOTE, this is not an insult aimed at anyone, merely a statistical assumption that in any cross-section of participants there must be a range of IQ levels - even at a meeting of Mensa members.

Finally, good for you, mate - you're in Who's Who - so was Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler - don't prove a thing except someone who cares knows who you are - don't make you right, and you know that as well as I do.

It is clear to me that you opened this thread merely to preach to others your beliefs rather than in search of an answer to your original question. Given your high IQ, what can I say other than you have insulted everyone's intelligence including your own, and in doing so you are a disgrace to the principles of Mensa.

The Winged Wombat.




posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
For all involved in this thread, I tender the following information.

GreatTech and his/her supporters claim the The USA 'won' the Cold War because the the USA is a nation of 'believers'.

Consider this. A recent UN survey of incarceration rates worldwide found that the incarceration rate in the USA is 1 in 32 of the population. More that 1.5 million people in the USA are in jail. The much maligned Chinese have about 1.3 million incarcerated, but with a larger population, and the Russians about 800,000 (but then, Russia is a much smaller place than the USSR used to be). The rate for the developed countries of the Western World averaged 1 in 100. So if you live in the USA you are three times more likely to be in jail, than if you live in, say, France, or Germany. So much for the myth of 'the Land of the Free'

Now, there may be quite a number of reasons for this, among them...

a) The USA is the safest place to live in the world (I don't think crime rates back this up, however)

b) The USA has laws that can jail you, which other countries do not. That would mean that the USA is the most puritanical (or alternatively oppressive) country in the world and it would infer that other developed countries in the Western World enjoy more 'Liberty'

c) Compared to the rest of the world, there is a greater proportion of the US population, who are so disenchanted with their lot in life, or so greedy, that they are willing to break the laws of the land. Historically, this is the sort of situation that existed when Britain was transporting most of their poor to 'the colonies'. That situation was characterised by government which ignored all but the rich of their society. Therefore if this is the reason for the appalling incarceration rate then 'Government by the People, for the People' just went out the window.

I'm sure that there are other interpretations that can be put on the data. I doubt any of them would be flattering to the USA

I also observe a huge change in American moral attitides over the last 10 years. A few short years ago President Clinton's political opponents and much of the American public was howling for his impeachment, not as you may think, for his sexual escapades, but because of the fact that he lied to Congress and the American people about it.

And yet, President Bush has been proved time and time again to have lied to Congress and the American public (begin at WMD's and continue on through 'rendition', various parts of the Patriot Act, etc) and there is not the slightest mention of impeachment. (of course in reality, the balance of political power in Congress determines whether the President will be challenged or not, rather than a perception of right or wrong - let's face it the first job of any politician upon being elected is to ensure that they get re-elected)

Do you not find these things both strange and alarming? While these things might not impact upon Americans' view of their own overall pious nature, it certainly must question their adherence to their own Constitution and to the rate at which they are commited to their own laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that when a significant proportion of the population cannot live within the laws of a land, then they will feel persecuted, the higher that proportion becomes then the closer you get to revolution. Is that not the situation that existed before the US War of Independence ?

If anyone can explain these matters some other (rational) way, please enlighten me.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 19/3/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
You have voted The Winged Wombat for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



Sorry for the one-liner. I wouldn't do it if this was in ATS!



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by GreatTech "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you." Matthew 7:1-2

I do not judge Souls, only God does. But I do try to judge concepts and discern between what is right and wrong.


Then why are you judging atheists. From your opening post you have been judging us as we've all given our reasons for being non-believers. So far you have judged us as having lower IQ's, being selfish, greedy, lack of vision and so on.


originally posted by GreatTech By the way, I am a Mensa member (IQ test in the 99th percentile), was nominated for Who's Who in America in 2005 (fewer than 4 out of 10,000 are nominated), and work 80 hours a week in medical research (atherosclerosis and carcinogenesis). Not boasting (boast only in the Lord), just defending myself from the accusation of being mentally ill.


Mental illness has absolutely no bearing at all as to whether a person is intelligent or not. Many of the greatest thinkers of all time have suffered from mental illnesses.



I certainly enjoyed the earlier interaction of this thread but it has now headed so far off track and just become a pedestal for you to sprout forth about all of our supposed frailty's without bothering to address any of yours. Yourself and thehumbleone asked me to supply examples of derogatory posts aimed at atheists on the previous page which i have done, neither of you have seen fit to reply to any of them, so i will now leave well enough alone and post in this thread no more.......but before i do i would just like to add one more thing,



You have voted The Winged Wombat for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



Thanks mojo.



(spelling)

[edit on 19/3/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
double post sorry, having some probs today.

:w:

[edit on 19/3/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

I certainly enjoyed the earlier interaction of this thread but it has now headed so far off track and just become a pedestal for you to sprout forth about all of our supposed frailty's without bothering to address any of yours. Yourself and thehumbleone asked me to supply examples of derogatory posts aimed at atheists on the previous page which i have done, neither of you have seen fit to reply to any of them, so i will now leave well enough alone and post in this thread no more.......but before i do i would just like to add one more thing,


mojo4sale, you are right. I am sorry to see the later part of this thread fall into dissension, combativeness, name-calling, accusations, and attacks. Part of this is my fault and I ask for everybody's forgiveness.

I was not always a theist: God reached me 12 years ago after I led a life of godless behavior for 6 years. When God reached me in 1995, I wanted to tell the world!!! Now, I pretty much keep it to myself except in this forum. Sometimes, I rub people the wrong way and I am sorry. Perhaps it was overbearing and arrogant of me to start a thread that would attempt to convert at least one atheist into theism. I was probably misguided; after all, when God reached me, He made me a believer, not another person.

May there be love and peace among atheists, among theists, and between atheists and theists!!!

The Winged Wombat, I am very impressed by your intelligence (one thought of mine when I read one of your posts is that he could get a Ph.D. in history). We disagree on may things, especially faith, but I do not doubt that you are a highly intelligent individual.

I will try to answer your interesting questions in the near future. Keep in mind, you are more verbally gifted than me (I am gifted only in mathematics).

Blessings!!!






(spelling)

[edit on 19/3/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
GreatTech,

I apologise for my personal attack upon you.

For the benefit of all, the possession of a high IQ can be a mixed blessing. On the one hand it can help a person see though sham or deceit and to apply logic to arrive at the answer to a problem. On the other hand it can breed arrogance because those with a high IQ can be lead to frustration because they cannot understand why other people cannot see the point (cause, effect, etc) of their argument. And I am the first to admit that my frustration often leads to arrogance.

It should be remembered that high IQ is not a measure of wisdom, but merely a number established by a testing system to established a person's reasoning ability. It has no bearing on that person's ability or willingness to choose between right or wrong, nor the grounds that their argument is based upon. As with everyone, one's opinions are the result of the information input, and as far as I can see, this is dominated these days by a Media intent on nothing more than sensationalism.

I think, GreatTech, that you would agree with me when I say that there will be more than one genius who has, and will, die a totally disillusioned person because they feel they can see the problems and pitfalls of Humanity, but they have been powerless to change the situation.

There is a cartoonist in Australia, who is undoubtedly a genius - he has often put forward the contention that it would be much better to be a simpleton. Whether other people understand this contention, I don’t know. He's saying, if you like, that sheep have better lives than people, because sheep don’t worry about life.

We are all products of our own personal nature, the good and the bad, independent of IQ, and it is illogical to think that any person could not be without measures of each for it is 'human nature'

Whilst I don't not share your 'faith', I respect your right to it, and view the Holy texts of all the 'faiths' as documents designed to limit the excesses of human nature and to direct human behaviour towards an acceptable and productive future.

GreatTech, I believe that history is one of the foundations of wisdom. A great philosopher (I forget who) once said words to the effect that 'Any nation or person that does not study and understand history is doomed to relive it'. History, unfortunately is particularly flawed, as it is more often than not written only from the perspective and for the self justification of the victor of a conflict - and times of conflict unfortunately have been the times when humanity has made its' largest technological advances. But no, I don't have a PhD in History, and would, in any case, prefer one in Philosophy.

The Winged Wombat.


[edit on 19/3/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
I was not always a theist: God reached me 12 years ago after I led a life of godless behavior for 6 years. When God reached me in 1995, I wanted to tell the world!!! Now, I pretty much keep it to myself except in this forum. Sometimes, I rub people the wrong way and I am sorry. Perhaps it was overbearing and arrogant of me to start a thread that would attempt to convert at least one atheist into theism. I was probably misguided; after all, when God reached me, He made me a believer, not another person.


Well preach on brother! I'm fairly certain that the more you post the more likely it is that someone will jump off the bandwagon of theism.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Is there some basis to your statement, or merely a gut feeling?

The Winged Wombat



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
5 Major Reasons why I Believe in God:

1) God has reached billions of people in history through theophanies, epiphanies, and revelations. Two prominent examples are Jesus and Moses. A much more humble example is myself.

2) "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." John 20:29
God cannot be seen with face eyes but can be seen (God willing) with the mind's eye.

3) The counterargument that God does not exist because of a lack of physical evidence assumes what it tries to prove. No human can sufficiently prove that humans physically exist even with the aid of another person or machines. The miracle of Life must have been created by a Being that has always existed.

4) There is a much greater power than the sum of all human power through history. The most atheistic person would have to admit that parts of the Universe are much more powerful than himself or herself. Believers almost universally agree that that power rests with God.

5) Everything created requires a creator. More precisely, everything created requires a Being to have created it.

Theists, feel free to add or subtract from my list.

Atheists, feel free to disagree with me.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
While not contesting that these are the reasons why you believe in God I would like to examine each point.

1) Most certainly, at least as many human declarations of 'Eureka' have proved false and have been erased from history.

2) As previously mentioned, a biblical quote is rhetorical from an atheist point of view. Your interpretation of the quote is flawed as it infers that God is not willing to allow atheists to see Him with their mind's eye.

3) I think you are going way beyond what constitutes atheism. You are heading for that area of philosophy which includes such theories as ' there is no universe - it is all a figment of our collective imagination', etc, an area where nothing can be proved to exist. I think it would be better to say that an atheist does not believe there is a God, because they see no physical evidence of it. I think we can safely say that both theists and atheists both believe that humans exist. Where we differ on this point is that an atheist believes that life in all its forms is a matter of chance and evolution, and are prepared to investigate the phenomenon further to find out the factors involved which lead to it.

4) What I would dispute here is the use of the word 'power'. You are talking about the ability to manipulate and/or control the building blocks of the universe. We cannot (at this point in history) harness the gravitational force, but then humans of a mere 200 years ago could not generate electricity from the flow of water. An atheist sees this not as an external 'power' but as a measure of human ability to use and control the resources of the universe. So we would not say that there are parts of the universe that are 'more powerful', but rather that there are things that we can, as yet, not understand, harness, or manipulate (unless, of course, one is of that school that thinks we know everything about everything and there is nothing left to discover - which would actually be a tacit acknowledgment that God exists).

This is a very interesting point, as it's provided me with a minor epiphany. I had always regarded the historical persecution of science by religious organisations as a matter of political power. But by the use of the word 'power' in this context, I can see the situation as one where the religious organisation sees science as impinging upon God's 'power'. So perhaps a little atheistic forgiveness for those who persecuted Copernicus and Galileo is due.

5) Essentially you are saying that when certain chemicals are combined in a certain way they will always produce certain compounds and that the reason for that is God, when you are well aware that we understand much of why this happens.

No, we don't yet understand how the universe was 'created', or what existed before the 'creation' of the universe. It could possibly be that the universe as we know and understand it, is as but the smallest grain of sand on an infinite beach. At our present state of knowledge, we cannot even mathematically, or scientifically contemplate such things, but that's not a reason to ascribe it to a 'God'.

If such were the case it would make humanity very insignificant indeed (would that be infinitesimally insignificant) - a situation increasingly intolerable for a belief that 'God created man in His image' - of course it wouldn't sit too well with scientific arrogance either. It is incredibly unfortunate that human arrogance is so reluctant to accept the term 'I don't know' as an honest, valid and reasonable statement (I have no doubt this situation will continue until the improbable day that I watch a Quiz show on TV where the question is 'How was the universe created' and the correct answer is 'We don't know').

My contention is that theology stifles research and investigation, and therefore the acquisition of knowledge, by ascribing what is not yet known to 'God's power' and then being affronted when man wants to know about or obtain that 'power'. In this context theology is anti-humanity. Theology seems unable to accept the term 'We don't yet know' without ascribing it to God, and yet while theology has been forced to accept scientific discovery into it's day-to-day operations, it is unable or unwilling to modify it's written dogma and we are stuck with 'God created the Earth in six days'. In effect theology is trapped by its belief that its written dogma is the 'Word of God' in spite of the fact that it has been re-written a number of times and translated many times altering both content and context.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating unfettered science. Scientific research must still be regulated and ethical, for the nature of man is such that there will always be some who will misuse knowledge.

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 20/3/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Just to continue one of the points above….

The rewriting and translations of the Bible.

I see as an anomaly the acceptance of the Bible as 'the Word of God' and therefore unable to be amended, with the acceptance by theology that the document has been amended over a period of time.

The counter argument is that this is a function of the document having been written by man.

I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

If it is a document written by man, then obviously it can be amended. If God exists, and the Bible is the 'Word of God' then it can't (but it has!)

How do you choose which parts of the Bible are actually 'the Word of God' and which parts are the fallibilities of human amendment or translation? And having made such an interpretation (a human interpretation), who is to say that the interpretation is correct.

To me, at least, that would make the Bible useless as a Holy document.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
5 Major Reasons why I Believe in God:

1) God has reached billions of people in history through theophanies, epiphanies, and revelations. Two prominent examples are Jesus and Moses. A much more humble example is myself.


argument from personal experiences. personal experiences are inherently flawed, we don't actually experience what happens around us, we experience a highly detailed simulation of it. a good example is an optical illussion like this one

refwd.ourmemorybox.com...




2) "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." John 20:29
God cannot be seen with face eyes but can be seen (God willing) with the mind's eye.


that's not a reason to believe in anything



3) The counterargument that God does not exist because of a lack of physical evidence assumes what it tries to prove. No human can sufficiently prove that humans physically exist even with the aid of another person or machines. The miracle of Life must have been created by a Being that has always existed.


if you can't disprove something exists, but you can't prove that it exists, that doesn't mean you should default to the "it does exist" column.
as for the "first cause" argument...
being the first cause doesn't grant something omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence



4) There is a much greater power than the sum of all human power through history. The most atheistic person would have to admit that parts of the Universe are much more powerful than himself or herself. Believers almost universally agree that that power rests with God.


um, are you saying that, since i believe a sun puts out more heat than i can, there must be a god?



5) Everything created requires a creator. More precisely, everything created requires a Being to have created it.


well, everything created does need a creator, but everything that exists doesn't have a creator.
and by your argument, god falls into the category of everything



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
GreatTech,

I wish to discuss something personal, but please do not take it as a personal assault.

In my experience, the vast majority of humans share the same human values, regardless of their 'faith', or lack thereof.

You say that you abandoned your 'faith' for six years and ended up in hospital. (I really don't want to know the details), but your implication is that your behaviour was self-destructive, and that being 're-united with God' has turned your life around. I have no problem whatsoever with this. I can but laud theology (well most theology) for laying down a set of guidelines for human behaviour.

However, to attribute bad, or self-destructive behaviour to everyone who does not believe there is a God is a leap of logic way too far.

If you personally feel that you need 'faith' to keep you on the rails, then that's fine - it serves a worthwhile purpose, but it is illogical to believe that others need the same to lead positive, productive, ethical and moral lives.

Atheism is not an excuse or justification for bad behaviour, just as a following of the more radical interpretations of the Koran is not an excuse for bad behaviour.

Atheism is merely a belief that there is no God / Creator, and if you want to debate that, then we will debate it.

Where the danger lies, is when a believer in any theory - be it Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Democracy, Socialism, any doctrine really - starts to believe that it is the only way, then we get the rise of extremists such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, etc.

The pages of history would not feature these names (except in the case of blind greed motivation) if they had tolerated other people's beliefs.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 20/3/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

4) What I would dispute here is the use of the word 'power'. You are talking about the ability to manipulate and/or control the building blocks of the universe. We cannot (at this point in history) harness the gravitational force, but then humans of a mere 200 years ago could not generate electricity from the flow of water. An atheist sees this not as an external 'power' but as a measure of human ability to use and control the resources of the universe. So we would not say that there are parts of the universe that are 'more powerful', but rather that there are things that we can, as yet, not understand, harness, or manipulate (unless, of course, one is of that school that thinks we know everything about everything and there is nothing left to discover - which would actually be a tacit acknowledgment that God exists).

This is a very interesting point, as it's provided me with a minor epiphany.


The Winged Wombat, before I answer your quite deep questions, please describe your minor epiphany. Epiphanies can be quite powerful.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
GreatTech,

I was using the word epiphany in a non-theological sense - simply a sudden realisation - in relation to the motivation for religious persecution of such as Copernicus.

I had always considered this persecution to be a matter of the religious organisation resenting any disagreement with its doctrine (as interpreted at the time) and therefore reducing the organisation's influence over the 'people' ie:- a political motivation.

Your use of the word 'power' in that context showed me that there was a different way of looking at the situation.

If I mentally change sides and put myself in the position of the religious organisation, and I ascribe all (or even much) of what is 'unknown' to the power of God, then it is logical that I would get pretty upset if someone came along and claimed that it was not the power of God and claimed to be able to prove it.

So what I see here is a bit of a mental trap. To ascribe what is unknown to the power of a 'supreme being' is to set yourself up for mental grief when it is discovered that (in any particular case) it is not so.

Modern theology is a liitle more enlightened, in that it will accept that individual discoveries don't necessarily disprove God - claiming the case that each discovery simply demonstrates the magnificence of 'God'. All the while however, what 'God' actually created gets pushed further back in history in the sense that if there is proved to have been something before the universe that had physical laws which produced the universe, then 'God' didn't actually create the universe, but did created what came before, or created the laws, by which the 'pre-universe' existed.

I see 'religious persecution' as ongoing, by the way, as demonstrated by interference in scientific research on 'religious grounds'. It is, however, difficult to determine the motivation, as it could be a number of things. It could be political as described above. It could be outrage due to the perception that it impinges on 'God's power'. It could be a belief that that a particular line of research is unethical - a view that might be shared by theists and athiests in equal proportion.

We live in a world where, what any person says, has to be taken 'with a grain of salt' because those that scream loudest (usually through our TV screens) all seem to have some vested interest for what they are screaming. Unfortunately, the world takes notice of their TV screens way too much. You cannot understand 'anything' merely from 30 second sound bites.

We live in a world where there exists people called 'Spin-Doctors'. As far as I can see for such people to exist, means that the basic information from which we could make our own decisions is being witheld from us. That different Spin-Doctors interpret that same basic facts in different ways, according to the platforms of their masters, is an admission that at least one side is lying, perhaps all sides - controlling public opinion by lying to the public because of vested interest.

Therefore, to me, at least, 'Spin-Doctor'='Professional Liar'. If Spin-Doctors had any other purpose other than to lie, they would be called Analysts (but then Analysts require some form of credibilty in relation to the subject matter, don't they).

The Winged Wombat
(Sorry for the off-topic rant at the end - we all need one from time to time)



[edit on 21/3/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
to be honest my word here will most likely be wasted. but the will of God tell me I must speak

too tell you there is proof of God is stupid. Cuz in the end there is none. If there was proof that would stop free will, which God wanted for us in the first place. But athesis are smart people and there not dum. They know that something can be alive that they never seen.

the main fact is this, they like jew KINDA. Even if you show then proof. In years to come there faith would be lost.

Personal experenice under God will is proof, maybe not in your sents. but when God smacks you in the face. What can you say.

I have had a hard life than most people even the hard people can say. All I can tell you is there is too much evil in the world to say there is no good. Athesis no disrepect, you are smart basters I swear. But your blind, and your blind to the world around you. Just because you know the world and whats in it, or can be proven and what can not be. Does'nt mean #. I but most of you had easy lives. If not you had hard lives, and you didnt learn the lession God was trying to teach you.

Just because bad things happen does'nt mean its God falt. satan is out there too and he is as real as you and me.

All I can say is I hope that most of you athesis will find the truth and the light. Cuz think about it if we're right and your wrong. Its a big gamable -life after death. But for share even if you do change and find that God is watching you. I tell you the truth, you still wont find God by him coming down. That would stop free will. Cuz you know God exist. When you know that God exist punishment for your sins come alot harder cuz you know.

The hole point that we follow God is By free will. God had angels and people beliveing in him. look what happen. People knew that God exist knew his power, new his powerful presents. And Satan took a 3rd of the angels to hell, and created evil in one thought prossess. so why would he creat earth so he can prove him self. He prove himself when he sent his SON on earth. I am not one of the church go'er. I read the bible over and over again. And I tell you it would be pointless if he came here too tell everyone he is here. If prove to you he exist, he would have to do it to everyone for all time past present future. WE ARE HERE FOR FREE WILL OF CHOICE.

God is out there, there is proof, just not what your looking for. Any proof that will show that he exist without a dout, you'll never find cuz God hides. it.

BE GAMAGLE LIFE AFTER DEATH. Just because you dont want to be acountable for your sins, does'nt mean you should live in hell.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by slymattb]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
too tell you there is proof of God is stupid. Cuz in the end there is none. If there was proof that would stop free will, which God wanted for us in the first place.


well, satan sure seems to have plenty of free will, even with the knowledge that god exists




But athesis are smart people and there not dum. They know that something can be alive that they never seen.

the main fact is this, they like jew KINDA. Even if you show then proof. In years to come there faith would be lost.


i have no idea what this is supposed to mean. how are we like people of an abrahamic faith?
and how can you compare us to those that actually have faith?



Personal experenice under God will is proof, maybe not in your sents. but when God smacks you in the face. What can you say.


personal experience is flawed



I have had a hard life than most people even the hard people can say. All I can tell you is there is too much evil in the world to say there is no good.


saying there is no god isn't claiming that there is no good in the world



Athesis no disrepect, you are smart basters I swear. But your blind, and your blind to the world around you. Just because you know the world and whats in it, or can be proven and what can not be. Does'nt mean #. I but most of you had easy lives. If not you had hard lives, and you didnt learn the lession God was trying to teach you.


my mind has collapsed in on itself several times in my life due to psychological illness. my life has been anything but easy, and watch your language.



Just because bad things happen does'nt mean its God falt. satan is out there too and he is as real as you and me.


your particular form of the god hypothesis states that your deity is all powerful, said god could stop anything bad that satan causes.



All I can say is I hope that most of you athesis will find the truth and the light. Cuz think about it if we're right and your wrong. Its a big gamable -life after death.


when will people stop using pascal's wager?
what if we're both wrong and we should have been paying homage to odin, thor, and balder?

and it isn't even like there's a 50/50 chance here, the odds aren't in your favor at all here.



But for share even if you do change and find that God is watching you. I tell you the truth, you still wont find God by him coming down. That would stop free will. Cuz you know God exist. When you know that God exist punishment for your sins come alot harder cuz you know.


honestly, i live a good life. i could care less whether god exists or not. a just being would reward the good for being good, regardless of faith.



The hole point that we follow God is By free will. God had angels and people beliveing in him. look what happen. People knew that God exist knew his power, new his powerful presents. And Satan took a 3rd of the angels to hell, and created evil in one thought prossess.


you can't create an abstract concept that relies purely on subjective identification



so why would he creat earth so he can prove him self. He prove himself when he sent his SON on earth. I am not one of the church go'er. I read the bible over and over again. And I tell you it would be pointless if he came here too tell everyone he is here. If prove to you he exist, he would have to do it to everyone for all time past present future. WE ARE HERE FOR FREE WILL OF CHOICE.


where in the bible does it claim we have free will?




God is out there, there is proof, just not what your looking for. Any proof that will show that he exist without a dout, you'll never find cuz God hides. it.


then god is a horrible deity and a general prick.



BE GAMAGLE LIFE AFTER DEATH. Just because you dont want to be acountable for your sins, does'nt mean you should live in hell.


i'm accountable for my bad deeds, more so than you. i'm accountable to ME. i have noone who i say died for my misdeeds to lift that burden from me.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

GreatTech and his/her supporters claim the The USA 'won' the Cold War because the the USA is a nation of 'believers'.



The Winged Wombat, there are many reasons why the USA won the Cold War. Faith in God played the most instrumental part. There are many reasons for this; I will list 6.

1) Credit: if you had two sons and one loved and believed in you, while the other did not love or believe in you, which would you hold in the most favor? God is perfectly just and always gives credit where credit is due. This does not mean that the former USSR or other nation do not have potential. Instead, it means they must change their lifestyles and adopt modes of thinking that are more in line with God's thinking.

I would not give a candy bar to a son that just slapped his sister.

2) Inspiration: a nation that might assist you in a belief that life is everlasting is bound to be more succesful than a nation that believes "that life is garbage than you die." Which nation, the believing or non-believing, would play more of a leadership role in world affairs?

3) Success: the USSR, even at the height of its success was basically only an average nation in life expectancy. Its military was very strong, but it failed to meet the need of many of its population.

4) The Western World: the western world believes in God more than the eastern world and is much more powerful economically, militarily, scientifically... Most important, its average citizen lives longer.

5) The Holy Roman Empire: this empire lasted for an enormous 1,006 years and probably the most important reason is that it had faith in God as the major foundation. No empire can last for this long without at least very significant faith in God.

6) The Bible: the Bible teaches believers and non-believers alike that the faithful always end up succeeding and that the non-believers end up failing. This book is ancient but has proven to be the cornerstone book for billions of people through history. It can be of assistance to anyone, even for a person that has been an atheist for a 100 years. As the holiest of holy books, it can enhance the lives of everybody; I am just one example. One of the major principles that I have learned from it is to always follow God's will. Doing so will make a bright and sunny day after a hurricane.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
1) Credit: if you had two sons and one loved and believed in you, while the other did not love or believe in you, which would you hold in the most favor? God is perfectly just and always gives credit where credit is due. This does not mean that the former USSR or other nation do not have potential. Instead, it means they must change their lifestyles and adopt modes of thinking that are more in line with God's thinking.


Pity it didn't work in Vietnam.


2) Inspiration: a nation that might assist you in a belief that life is everlasting is bound to be more succesful than a nation that believes "that life is garbage than you die." Which nation, the believing or non-believing, would play more of a leadership role in world affairs?


Greattech, please use the nous you apparently possess that seems to have been on vacation in this thread. Atheists as a group do not believe 'life is garbage than[sic] you die'.


3) Success: the USSR, even at the height of its success was basically only an average nation in life expectancy. Its military was very strong, but it failed to meet the need of many of its population.


Probably the case.


4) The Western World: the western world believes in God more than the eastern world and is much more powerful economically, militarily, scientifically...


Not for long, heh.

I would also question whether this is actually the case, they might believe more in your omnipotent being of choice.


5) The Holy Roman Empire: this empire lasted for an enormous 1,006 years and probably the most important reason is that it had faith in God as the major foundation. No empire can last for this long without at least very significant faith in God.


Probably more because they had a well-organised system of governance and military. The celtic tribes did believe in gods, same with most of these tribes and peoples in europe. Like the Romans, they had pagan gods for for the whole of the 500 year Republic and half of the Imperial period.

In the 4th century Constantine legalised christianity, then the roman empire collapsed less than two hundred years later. Maybe the pagan gods were a little pissed off, it certainly prospered more under paganism, heh.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join