The Atheists Nightmare

Originally posted by PsychoX42

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by PieKeeper

 

Come-on now! A person of your ability in discernment can absolutly see that I'm appealing to common sense. Do you know what happens after we die?

[edit on 3-7-2010 by randyvs]

No, and you don't either. Since there is no evidence for an afterlife, to believe that there is one is silly.

There's not really that much evidence for anything...now is there? Isn't that the reason why we call everything that we think that we know, a theory?
1. Theory of Gravity
2. Theory of Evolution
3. Theory of General Relativity
4. Cosmological Principle Theory
5. Hubble's Law (theory)
6. Game Theory

Namaste and Love

It's hilarious that you're trying to compare evidence of the afterlife with evidence of 6 of the most well known theories in the world, which have massive amounts of evidence backing them.
What does the afterlife have? A book? NDES?
Sorry, that's not evidence, and to compare it with other scientific theories is ludicrous.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by Phlynx

The Bible is supposedly the word of God

I assume you mean the Torah/Pentateuch?

This was asserted in bronze age times to be the word of God as dictated to Moses - modern scholars can see many inconsistencies which show it was written by different people at different times.

No-one has ever suggested the rest of the Bible (old or new testament) is the word of God.

reply to post by WolfofWar


Most of those are listed as copyists errors in the standard Bible.
That makes them errors the copyist is forgiven for.
Nothing, you got nothing.

Essan

No you see it is called the living Bible for a reason.
It is alive in the truth of Gods word.

Catch up to you all later. Hope you've learned something

[edit on 8-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by PsychoX42


There's not really that much evidence for anything...now is there? Isn't that the reason why we call everything that we think that we know, a theory?
1. Theory of Gravity
2. Theory of Evolution
3. Theory of General Relativity
4. Cosmological Principle Theory
5. Hubble's Law (theory)
6. Game Theory
The fact is, there isn't enough evidence to prove any of these theories, otherwise they would be known as fact.
Namaste and Love

You seem to not have a strong grasp on what a scientific theory is. A Theory in science is the HIGHEST you can achieve. In order for it to be a theory, it needs to be peer-tested repeatedly, poked at, proded, dismantled and subsequently rebuilt again and again, and proven (yes proven) to functionally work. We don't have a full understanding of anything, and things that come up must be taken into account, but we do have a rather strong understanding of how the world works, and those "theories" (facts) show our knowledge of the world.

Originally posted by PsychoX42

There's not really that much evidence for anything...now is there? Isn't that the reason why we call everything that we think that we know, a theory?

As usual, someone has to show their ignornance over the use of the word theory

A scientific theory is the best explanation of observed data and one which, by definition, can be falsified - ie it makes assumptions which can be proven wrong. Often, a scientific theory will be changed or even rejected as new data comes to like. A theory which is not falsified remains a theory for the rest of time.

You guys have missed the point. There is no connection with Religion and afterlife. Afterlife is a fact, not in the way you think but its a fact.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by PsychoX42


There's not really that much evidence for anything...now is there? Isn't that the reason why we call everything that we think that we know, a theory?
1. Theory of Gravity
2. Theory of Evolution
3. Theory of General Relativity
4. Cosmological Principle Theory
5. Hubble's Law (theory)
6. Game Theory
The fact is, there isn't enough evidence to prove any of these theories, otherwise they would be known as fact.
Namaste and Love

You seem to not have a strong grasp on what a scientific theory is. A Theory in science is the HIGHEST you can achieve. In order for it to be a theory, it needs to be peer-tested repeatedly, poked at, proded, dismantled and subsequently rebuilt again and again, and proven (yes proven) to functionally work. We don't have a full understanding of anything, and things that come up must be taken into account, but we do have a rather strong understanding of how the world works, and those "theories" (facts) show our knowledge of the world.

Actually a law is the highest you can achieve in science.

Originally posted by Archirvion
You guys have missed the point. There is no connection with Religion and afterlife. Afterlife is a fact, not in the way you think but its a fact.

It's only a fact if it can be demonstratably be proven to be true.

You cannot prove there is an afterlife.

But I agree, this does not have any relevance on which, if any, religion worships the one (or many) true god(s).

reply to post by PsychoX42

The fact is, there isn't enough evidence to prove any of these theories, otherwise they would be known as fact.

Theories are made up of facts. In science facts are the least important, they are merely pieces of data. Look up the academic definition of theory. So evolution is a theory, a framework supporting fact, data and observations.

Just because there is no blatant evidence of an afterlife does not eliminate it from the very real realms of possibilities.

There's no reason to say it doesn't exist for certain and also no reason to claim it definitely does. Hypothetically anything is possible but if we don't have evidence for it there is no reason to believe in it for just that reason. If we accept any hypothetical, even just the ones that make us feel good or see life differently we will likely end up with self-conflicting ideas.

If you continue to limit yourself to the findings and the discoveries of science which requires proof, then you will find yourself behind the learning curve of the Universe.

I was pretty much in agreement with you until this point. What exactly are you advocating? That we go back to superstitious faith based thinking and start believing any crap we're peddled without evidence that its true? So just because science changes as new discoveries are made we should go back to an unscientific mindset? Science has only just got started in the last few centuries after we finally overcame religious dogma and crawled our way out of the darkness AND YOU WANT US TO GO BACK?

Atheism is dangerous? All it is is the rejection of theism - its a lack in belief in deities. How is that dangerous? There are no deities evident in the Universe therefore no cause to believe in them. It isn't a statement of absolutes like: God definitely does exist or God definitely does NOT exist - its is a skeptical position that says: Show me the evidence and I will believe.

I don't understand at all what you are saying.

if energy is neither created or destroyed, then, this would be the strongest form of evidence that we have of to offer in the existence of an afterlife

The energy in our bodies comes from chemical processes, we eat and drink and get fuel to live that creates all the energy in our bodies. When we die the chemical processes stop and the energy too stops, it isn't destroyed because we are constantly using it to pump our blood and relay information in our brains, etc. So no, this isn't evidence of an after-life. That isn't to say there definitely is not an afterlife but that currently we have no evidence for one. So belief in one is based on personal reasons, perhaps comforting ourselves from the fear of death.

I propose that the afterlife is nothing more than a frequency, that has yet to be discovered by mainstream science, that is accessible either at the moment of death, or through various means that elevate your vibrational awareness to feel them.

Great, propose away but don't expect anyone to believe you without evidence. It is possible the after-life exists in the way you propose although the thing about "vibrational awareness" sounds kind of vague to me. Hypotheticals are all well and good but they need to be backed up by facts, observations and evidence to be promoted beyond that.

I believe that there are certain things that science will never discover because many of these higher frequencies/dimensions are far too complex for science to mathematically explain.

Are there things science will never explain? Probably. But its still the best tool we have developed for understanding our Universe. Simply because science cannot explain something now doesn't mean it will not be able to in the future. There are plenty of aspects of the Universe that people never dreamed of being able to understand, manned flight, space travel, DNA, etc.

Is there an afterlife, is there a God? I don't know. Do I believe in these things despite having no evidence for them? Nope - and in my mind that is the only position I can occupy while remaining honest, skepticism.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by randyvs


These appear repeatedly in even the Hebrew version. How can god have copy errors? These are from the earliest recorded versions. If an infallible god cannot get it right, how is he god? I'm not even going to get into the innumerable things written in the bible that contradict known psychics. God created the world like a tent. The sky is not a tent, it is round.

Isaiah 40:22 - It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Of course Psalms says the world is stationary.

Psalms 93:1 - The Lord reigns, he is clothed with majesty; The Lord is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established so that it cannot be moved."

The point is though, if the bible is the word of God, how can if have inaccurisms? How can an infallible being be unable to prevent typos and mis-types in it's ORIGINAL format?

This doesn't matter though, you are asking for evidence of inaccurisms so you can ignore them, not so you can witness them. You have made up your mind before you set those words down on the page, it's not worth me wasting my time to try to "prove" to you anything, in the end of the day, the fact remains, there are innumerable errors in the bible, whether they are factually incorrect statements (like Rabbits eating cud) or just typos. It's just makes you wonder, if an infallable god can allow typos and factually incorrect statements to appear, what else is incorrect? Would he allow more then just one sentence? Perhaps an entire paragraph? what if "Thou Shalt not kill" was actually supposed to be "Thou Shalt not kill on Tuesdays." It's just one word, they forgot it, it got lost in translation. Minor copy error is all.

One error is enough to invalidate the Bible, because the Bible relies on its infallibility of truth. If even a typo exists in it's original form (which they do) then it throws the entire thing out the window, because what else could be false?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by WolfofWar

 

Most of those are listed as copyists errors in the standard Bible.
That makes them errors the copyist is forgiven for.
Nothing, you got nothing.

Essan

No you see it is called the living Bible for a reason.
It is alive in the truth of Gods word.

Catch up to you all later. Hope you've learned something

[edit on 8-7-2010 by randyvs]

you would think they would have double checked there copying work for something as important as "gods" word .

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by randyvs

 

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5 - And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

First he should surely die if he eats the fruit, but instead he lives nine hundred years.

James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Genesis 22:1 - And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

Hey, I thought God neither tempts any man, so why is he tempting Abraham? Maybe he is just a liar?

Exodus 20:4 - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Deuteronomy 4:23 - Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Is this like a catch 22, don't make idols and graven images, but do so?

2 Kings 24:8- Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:9- Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Eh, it's only a ten year difference, no biggie, right?

Psalms 58:10- The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked

Proverbs 24:17- Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:

So I guess we are to somehow wash our feets with blood and not be joyous?

Isaiah 40:28- Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding.

Exodus 31:17- It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed

I guess he just rested for fun?

What you are doing is evil "A Text without context is pretext".
I'll answer all of this lies later, right now i'm going to work out but for now i tell you something about the last one.
There's a verse in the Bible that says that the sabbath was created for man because God needs no rest. On the other hand some of your supposed errors are easily dismissed just by reading the Bible in another language as i'll prove it later with a spanish bible (i have 3 versions of the spanish Bible and i aslo have the english KJV).

reply to post by orumlight


So I suppose that the Spanish bible is somehow more accurate then the Hebrew or Greek versions? Why would the word of god need changing?

Regardless of what it says "later" that god needs no rest, he does clearly say, in Genesis, that he rests. I don't care what Bible in Español corrects.

Originally posted by orumlight


There are several topics in this forums where atheists attack christians, i saw one recently that said something like "... atheists nations are more peaceful" or something like that.

Something like that? Well how about that. So a thread pointing out that average height people have better heart health than others is an attack on tall and short people? A thread that says that blond haired people lose less hair is obviously an attack on brunettes and redheads?

Show me these threads if you do not mind. I guess I do not see the attack in what you have posted.

Besides, I have to ask who was attacked in what you just posted? Anyone that has ever made any positive claim about Christians is now attacking EVERYONE else then if that is the logic in play. So who started it? I doubt atheists were knocking Christians real hard in say....500 B.C.

And you are right the creator of this topic said something stupid, if you are atheist then you don't have to worry about judgement because you also don't believe in that but that doesn't give you the right to attack all christians, you know you can't generalize and say that christians are to blame for wars, the dark age, etc.

Ah but it was not just stupid. It was an ATTACK. The OP is very clearly trying to point out that atheists are less than and will be treated accordingly upon death.

I fail to see how or why any Christian needs to tell anyone that they are somehow not as good as them because god is not coming round with the care at 11:45 for them in order to believe what he believes but here it is.

I have never once needed to go on that attack of any religion.

Also don't say that all athetists are peaceful and that they woun't hurt a fly

Did I say that?

There's good christians and good atheists as well as bad atheists and bad christians and those bad christians are the real ones going to hell.

Yup and if you look at the prison stats I posted and remember that Christians are represented on that chart MANY TIMES, add those numbers up.

I would never claim there are not bad and good people in any group but if the point is to say we are all the same but Christians are more moral because they are afraid of god, why do they commit more crime?

So, yeah. People suck. All kinds of people suck. No one needs a god to suck but it sure helps you sound arrogant while sucking does it not? Randy sounds pretty arrogant starting a thread telling other people about their afterlife. So, all these Christian bashing threads you speak of, links?

Maybe a contest? How many threads can you find by an atheist attacking religion? How many threads bashing JUST Satanism, atheism, and Islam started by a Christian can we find?

Ready?

At least you can see the reality of this thread. I am sure you have seen atheists who go on the attack but what I see are threads started by Christians full of whining and crying about being picked on. Just what I see.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Well, for one thing I see that it's mostly Ronald Reagan's fault, since the decline in church attendance and rise in incarceration started when he was elected...and the God-fearing Christian George W. Bush didn't reverse the trend in 8 years.

You are probably right you know. Many good Christians told me he was the antichrist. Obviously I have learned that Christians just know this stuff. They are more in touch with what is really going on. They have the divinely inspired truth behind them, guiding their life. Threads like this on ATS go a long way to inform the rest of us how ignorant we are compared to the types that use the bible to make judgments of others, namely atheists here.

Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666

So how can I continue to question the judgments made of atheists here by a Christian given that kind of insight!

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Phlynx

The Bible is supposedly the word of God

I assume you mean the Torah/Pentateuch?

This was asserted in bronze age times to be the word of God as dictated to Moses - modern scholars can see many inconsistencies which show it was written by different people at different times.

No-one has ever suggested the rest of the Bible (old or new testament) is the word of God.

Actually, I am pretty sure Randy have been INSISTING On that.

reply to post by PsychoX42


How about a little experiment then?

Walk off the roof of a 40 story building.

If gravity is only a theory, then you should be ok right?

Now if gravity is real, you might fall but then we get to test the next part.

After gravity slams you into the ground, simply tell god you were trying to prove he exists and did not mean to check out so he can send you back.

I am certain we will have strong evidence of either life after death or gravity at the end of that experiment.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Atheism is not a religion. So stop while you're ahead. Please don't use any book of size, color or form to try to scare people to convert to whatever religious belief you follow.

First off that is not totally true for it takes faith to believe that God does not exist as you do not have proof of either.

As to the post to my U2U here is one of the things you stated,

"2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled."

to which my reply is

www.christiananswers.net...
Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3 (see below). She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth, who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36).

His father was God and his mother was Mary a woman of flesh, blood and spirit. In a perfect birth the blood of the child is of the father, which would have been God.

This site answers the first part of the accusation made in your post

www.gotquestions.org...

I will look into every one of the misconceptions and reply.

But Number two has clearly shown that who ever made up this site does not study or know the word of God, or then maybe they do as to dupe those who wish to not believe into having proof of their argument.

May the Lord Jesus bless you with much wisdom and knowledge and the ability to understand his word. Amen

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Faith is nothing more then faith. I have faith to use the restroom. I have faith that I will succeed in life. That's not religion at one bit. Atheism is not and never will be a religion.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Atheism is not a religion. So stop while you're ahead. Please don't use any book of size, color or form to try to scare people to convert to whatever religious belief you follow.

First off that is not totally true for it takes faith to believe that God does not exist as you do not have proof of either.

Can you Xtians please stop repeating this blatant fallacy? It makes even the smart ones look stupid for spouting it. It is not logical, it is not true, and it is a weak distraction at best.

The end result of that entire untrue argument is simply -

'I know you are but what am I..nyah nyah.'

I would like to think some of you are better than that.