Religion? Grow up, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 8-4-2009 @ 02:16 AM by cancerian42

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'll tell you, though....IF the Atheists are wrong.....once shown 'proof' of their error, will be the quickest to understand. Of course, I doubt, very much, the brain-washed masses of the Earth will be so easily convinced....

ha ha ...and sadly it is very true, because the people who take the leap of faith into religion (which is actually the reverse of what it actually is, a soft warm cushion for them to feel secure with is what it really is) are the ones who most likely won't be able to come back over the ledge once they have made that decision (but I hope my observations are wrong of course). Because once you have convinced yourself so thoroughly of such beliefs, you have invested your time in it and your mind just can't handle the truth (or so it seems to me). That is what i imagine it would be like-if there was proof that THEY were actually proven wrong which is impossible because you can't really prove something does not exist...for the most part. For the atheists, as you said, it would be easy for them to accept "proof", because that is what they follow (rather than faith).

reply posted on 8-4-2009 @ 12:11 PM by asmall89

reply to post by weedwhacker

Atheism is technically a religious belief because it is an answer to what religious beliefs one holds. The difference between atheism and branches of Christianity, Judaism, and what not is its not organized, because they don't believe in organizing their beliefs. See Christianity is a religious belief but only becomes organized when you talk of a branch of it like Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, etc. It is these branches that tell the people what to believe and what to do, how to live your life etc. Atheism is a broad belief like any other religion, just because someone shares the belief doesn't mean they believe in the exact same thing.

I've found that some atheists don't believe in certain sciences while others do (string theory, big bang, certain aspects of evolution, and quantum physics). I bring up any "fringe" scientific theory like string theory and quantum physics to an atheist friend of mine and he shoots me down. I disagree with some atheists being more accepting and open minded, some just out right hate religion and will do anything to prove it wrong. I kind of have a religion and I believe in science, the only difference between me and an atheist is I don't believe science can prove any religious belief wrong yet. The only way we will ever know is if we build a freaking time machine and go back and see what happened, probably both sides would be shocked/disappointed.

reply posted on 8-4-2009 @ 05:43 PM by GriffinRD

Originally posted by asmall89
I kind of have a religion and I believe in science, the only difference between me and an atheist is I don't believe science can prove any religious belief wrong yet.

I'm always surprised and interested when someone makes that kind of comment...

Why does science have to prove a negative? You could just have easily said you don't believe science can prove any religious belief right...yet.

In a debate of this type it pays to remain as neutral as possible when making such statements.

I've always felt if the gravity of the debate was not so serious, it would be funny to argue using a tool created by man (science), to try and prove or disprove something beyond the tools scope. Using man science to define God?!

Seems akin to trying to pole vault over the Empire State Building. Silly.

reply posted on 8-4-2009 @ 06:30 PM by asmall89

reply to post by GriffinRD

Well I guess it's just because what I believe... it probably has to do with the common idea that science is against religion and vice versa. Thats why I think I stated it that way and why others do as well. Although it is just a historical fiction novel I think Angels & Demons illustrates this point well. Basically it concludes that Religion and Science are really not at odds because they're both try to answer the same question.

reply posted on 8-4-2009 @ 06:52 PM by OldThinker

Originally posted by sc2300
Cant you see that all religions are man made.

You sound like Jesus...good job!

.

8 "You abandon the commandments of God to follow human traditions."

9 He added, "You have no trouble rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your own traditions!

source: gwt.scripturetext.com...

Answer this, out of all the religions available, and all the devout followers, what makes your one true and the rest wrong.

Another great question...JC said...

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Source: John 14:6

reply posted on 8-4-2009 @ 09:47 PM by Welfhard

Originally posted by OldThinker
Answer this, out of all the religions available, and all the devout followers, what makes your one true and the rest wrong.

Another great question...JC said...
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Source: John 14:6

No no no no no. You haven't answered the question. That answer you gave is the answer to the question "What does your religion say about it's own accuracy."

My point is that (on the assumption that the Jman did exist) Jesus could have been full of baloney. I could say the same damn thing and it just doesn't mean anything. Look, watch.

I, Welfhard, am the only way to the almighty god. The only way to know him is through me.

Do you believe me? No, of course not. One reason is that so many have said that. Think of all the dozens of other "messiahs" that would have lived at that time. How many of them do you think would have said it? Most, if not all.

The other point is that you can't take the words in a book as representative of what God is saying. There are many holy books, and they all say the other holy books are wrong and that they, themselves are correct. They cannot all be right, but they can be all wrong. The fact that a book says that it is correct doesn't, in the slightest, make it so.

If you are interrogating a suspect of a murder and you ask him;
"Did you commit the murder?"
-"No."
"Are you lying?"
-"No."
You cannot say "Good enough for me, he must be innocent." It's crap.

You can't use scripture as proof of scripture, it's bad logic.

Another great question...JC said...

Really? Are you sure? Were you there? Cos the individual(s) who wrote John weren't. How can you be so sure?

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Welfhard]

reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 01:29 AM by asmall89

reply to post by Welfhard

Actually the Gospel of John is the only gospel believed to be partially written by a scribe interviewing him or John himself. Mostly because there are some inconsistencies in story telling (1st & 3rd Person).

en.wikipedia.org...

But yes, again no one knows for sure. Also I would like to mention the Gnostic Gospels were actually written much later than the ones found in the bible. So thats interesting either they are a response to the others, correcting them, elaborating, or who knows what. Also the church didn't finally decide what gospels were going be in the new testament for a long time, it was only until the reign of Constantine the Great that christianity was even generally accepted amongst society. Plus the printing press didn't exactly exist either and books were very expensive and you had to be literate as well. Which could be why they were edited and transcribed so many times, the people writing them weren't probably as literate as others. Language barriers etc.

Just adds to the mystery of history I suppose.
Anyway Joan of Arc is an interesting story even if you don't believe in God, I suggest you look into it there's a good made for tv movie about it. The only historical evidence provided for her as well is just religious court writings about her trial and a few things she signed. Her sword, armor, all lost. She also has been considered a myth by some. Not nearly as much as King Arthur and maybe Jesus ironically.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by asmall89]

reply posted on 9-4-2009 @ 02:55 AM by Welfhard

reply to post by asmall89

If there were anything written as a first hand account or written by a someone claiming to be Jesus (dated to the time) and backed up by plenty of extrabilical sources both first hand and otherwise - THAT would be something.

However John still doesn't cut it. (from the same wiki)

"Most modern experts conclude that the author was an unknown non-eyewitness."
"They most often date it to c 90–100, decades after the events it describes."

In a court of law this would still be considered hearsay, and as such, completely unreliable.

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 01:39 AM by asmall89

reply to post by Welfhard

I was just merely stating that the Gospel of John has the greatest probability of being written partially by a former disciple. Geeze. It is the most mysterious gospel in the bible at any rate. Not saying it was written by him, I'm just stating that it has the greatest probability of being so. The others are more believed to be written by disciples of the disciples...

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 05:15 AM by argilla11

The entire "are Atheists simply devout non religionists" argument is, to me, simply another example of Human Beings' need to place others in a box or slap a label on them.

I really don't see the point of even pondering how "devout" Atheists are.

reply posted on 10-4-2009 @ 05:44 AM by Gawdzilla

reply to post by argilla11

The people who hobble around on the crutch of faith can't stand to see people who stand on their own two feet. They can't live with "faith", and since they can't, YOU can't. They foist their limitations on you to drag you down to their level. It's like an alcoholic saying, "Well, you don't drink, but if you did, you'd be an alcoholic."

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 07:35 AM by OldThinker

Originally posted by Welfhard

My point is that (on the assumption that the Jman did exist) Jesus could have been full of baloney. I could say the same damn thing and it just doesn't mean anything. Look, watch.

I, Welfhard, am the only way to the almighty god. The only way to know him is through me.

Do you believe me?

No...Be careful...really...

Empty....

Tomb....

Witnesses...

Lives changed....

Over the centuries....

Not gonna argue now....spent lots of time biudling threads with evidence....

Sides, I am a bit behind in my lean six sigma exam...sorry...I'll check back later...ok

See... www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Great Conspiracy-what if Jesus was never born?

OT asks, “WHAT IF JESUS OF NAZARETH HAD NEVER BEEN BORN? I mean seriously…what would the world we live in look like?”

Skeptic replies, “oh no, not another OT thread! Bible verses, 3rd party referrals, dead dude quotes from the past…won’t this old guy just go away!?”

“Nope, OT is here to stay…Well let’s get started…ok? A world without Jesus would look like this…”

“But OT could you set the stage for us?”

“Sure! Here are some…ADMISSIONS…!”
1) Yes, Christians make mistakes and are hypocrites, so please no response-links to the crusades, ok? Mistakes are the REASON we ‘need a savior’… www.youtube.com...
2) Yes, Christians are pushy, in asking ‘why do you run from Jesus?’… www.youtube.com...
3) Yes, Christians are arrogant and OT is a peculiar Jesus Freak… www.youtube.com...
“People say OT is strange, does that make me stranger, that my best friend was born in a manger?”
= = = =
“Hmm…..A world with out Jesus?” How would slaves fair? Not Good! Yes, it’s true we Christians allowed slavery in the American past. This was an erroneous belief. Please see (Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:10) for the biblical condemnation of slavery. Christianity lifted the roles of those oppressed, by accepting women and slaves as full members. Historians credit the British evangelical William Wilberforce as the catalyst for ending of the international slave trade (which happened before to the Civil War). Did you know that 2/3’s of the members of the American abolition in 1835 were Christians.

How would women fair? Not Good! For many ancient cultures a wife was property of the spouse. Even Aristotle said a women was somewhere between a man and a slave. Read Reasons for God by Tim Keller…"It was extremely common in the Greco-Roman world to throw out new female infants to die from exposure, because of the low status of women in society. The church forbade its members to do so. Greco-Roman society saw no value in an unmarried woman, and therefore it was illegal for a widow to go more than two years without remarrying. But Christianity was the first religion to not force widows to marry. They were supported financially and honored within the community so that they were not under great pressure to remarry if they didn't want to. Pagan widows lost all control of their husband's estate when they remarried but the church allowed widows to maintain their husband's estate. Finally, Christians did not believe in cohabitiation. If a Christian man wanted to live with a woman he had to marry her, and this gave women far greater security. Also, the pagan double standard of allowing married men to have extramarital sex and mistresses was forbidden. In all these ways Christian women enjoyed far greater security and equality than did women in the surrounding culture. Also in India, widows were voluntarily or involuntarily burned on their husbands' funeral pyres. The gospel spreaders/missionaries saw to it this practice stopped.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 07:38 AM by Gawdzilla

reply to post by OldThinker

"Empty....

Tomb...."

You regard hear-say evidence as valid?

"Witnesses..."

Again, hear-say.

"Lives changed....

Over the centuries.... "

By Buddha, Krishna, Kung-fu Tse, etc. What's so special about Christianity? Religion is a placebo. "Prayer: A way to do nothing and still think you're helping."

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:04 AM by Welfhard

reply to post by OldThinker

I'll think you'll find I was on that thread tearing your "evidence" to pieces.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:19 AM by lastxdance

reply to post by Gawdzilla

I know I was going to stay away from religion matters if not concerning belief, but since this concerns that very thing...

So what are you going to do when you see (if you live to the next sabbatical year that is) Jesus coming on the clouds with his army before the final comet impact after the Battle at Har Megiddo? Would that be proof enough? I bet you'll fall for the New World Order's false messiah this year won't you? They won't let you be a Christian or an atheist. They work with the UN a lot.

www.share-international.org

If this guy can do this, WHAT ELSE CAN HE DO? Can't say everyone might have seen the star, but I've pointed my telescope at this thing, and its there like shown on this web site. Alright, I'm going to say its NOT Venus. Venus doesn't change shape when you go back to the telescope to look at it.

And this isn't Jesus Christ either, but the anti-christ. Notice how they talk about "space brothers" or "ascended masters" a lot. Similar to what the Pope says at the Vatican about how it doesn't conflict with religion.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:23 AM by Gawdzilla

reply to post by lastxdance

"So what are you going to do when you see (if you live to the next sabbatical year that is) Jesus coming on the clouds with his army before the final comet impact after the Battle at Har Megiddo?"

I'd ask him why he picked such a stupid means of showing the One True Way as faith. It's something a human would do, because it derails thought. But it's not something a god would do, unless he was totally fictitious, of course.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:25 AM by lastxdance

Does this not also prove aliens to be false? If this is real, (which CNN aired him in Kenya back in 1988 healing them all and vanishing) which I'm taking it as real due to the fact that he fulfilled his claims of a new star in the sky, which I personally think is a UFO, then maybe science can't solve everything. Project Blue Beam anyone? Or maybe he really is just empowered like this.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:25 AM by Welfhard

Originally posted by lastxdance
So what are you going to do when you see (if you live to the next sabbatical year that is) Jesus coming on the clouds with his army before the final comet impact after the Battle at Har Megiddo?

I would be categorically stunned that it weren't Hercules or Dionysus or Jupiter in stead. i would also be confused as according to the history book that battle came and went nearly 2000 years ago. The hint was all the multitudes of times 'John' said "Soon come to be", "Soon", "In a short time" etc.

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:40 AM by lastxdance

reply to post by Gawdzilla

All is in good timing and Jesus can only return in a sabbatical year. The only Sabbatical year that fits with the Feast of Trumpets Cycle completion and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is September of 2015(Gregorian) fufilling both of these. Since the Hebrew Calendar starts in September it would be 2015/2016 for them. It's all on a planned time line, and it ends with this. He predicted the re founding of Israel in 1948 and the Six Day War in 1967, why would he be wrong about his "Second Coming."

reply posted on 11-4-2009 @ 08:44 AM by Welfhard

reply to post by lastxdance

And you don't think that with all the examples of predictions of these sorts typically being wrong, that you too might just be wrong on this? Does that possibility exist in your mind?