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.
Originally posted by Vicky32
Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Vicky32
I'll answer your question for him/her. The figures come from the book itself when you add it all up. Don't immediately dismiss the research done by atheists just because you believe the bullsh!t in the book. I've looked at the given numbers in the book and the estimate that was given is accurate, not including all of the other unspecified deaths in the other atrocities.
OK, show your working out! (As primary teachers say.) You want me to accept the bull# goven by atheists instead?
Not going to happen.
It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in...
Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?
Vicky
However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian! Most atheists pretend they're not, that they're just concerned citizens - making them "concern trolls"!edit on 22/5/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bogomil
most of the time I have great respect for you and your way of being christian, but this post appears to be polarized beyond your usual balanced communication.
Quote: ["It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in... "]
Whether a book is describing 'reality' objectively, partly objectively or is just plain fabrication, it can have impact on its readers. 'Mein Kampf' is mostly bosh, 'Das Kapital' contains (as the basis of much communism/socialism) some rather sound socio-economical arguments, but shows no understanding of human psychology. Both these books are to be taken seriously.
Even going to straight fiction, there's a lot of attitudes/argumentation based on it. C.S.Lewis has recently had a small revival, as being a 'deep' christian philosopher (actually he's rather dumb, though a good writer).
A book's objectivity is no ground for its evaluation. There are non-rational social consequences on their own also.
Quote: ["Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?"]
There's a whole range of critical attitudes to this alleged 'god'. Not only the one based on gnostic atheism.
Quote: ["However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian!"]
Again, ....this is a generalization. As you know, I am a christian critic, but I don't target the 'private' faith-christian. I try to only target the missionary types, and that is something I also do with missionaries from other ideologies. Christians are not singled out, though some use a 'persecution' argument for debate-tactical reasons.
Originally posted by needhelp2
every thing need balance.negatron exist with positron.good exist with bad,justice exist with evil,god is in the cosmos,he must obey this rule,even he made the rule,god can not exist without satan.
I have asked my self this same question, and the only correct answer would be that god ,being a spirit, according to the bible, does not live in a (any) space time continuum.God possesses Past, present, and future in one state of being. Your statement pertaining to God and time is flawed. Very simple.
Because they don't exist. Ask yourself why a god would let billions of years pass by without fixing his own problems, then try to provide yourself with a good answer. It's very simple.
Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Condemned0625
I have asked my self this same question, and the only correct answer would be that god ,being a spirit, according to the bible, does not live in a (any) space time continuum.God possesses Past, present, and future in one state of being. Your statement pertaining to God and time is flawed. Very simple.
Because they don't exist. Ask yourself why a god would let billions of years pass by without fixing his own problems, then try to provide yourself with a good answer. It's very simple.
No, you're wrong. There is no evidence for any god, no evidence that any god could possess all states of time and you can't possibly prove it. That is the flaw in your statement.
God, being a spirit, which we have proved in the above paragraph, transcends time, as only a spirit can do. Time is a form of measurement, in this particular instance, time is intervals between physical events. With such a being as a spiritual one such as god, there would be no physical measurement, thus meaning such a being would possess past present and future as one continuous burst of being. Not saying that God possess time like you or I possess a material object. God is in eternity, we are in time.
no evidence that any god could possess all states of time and you can't possibly prove it
Sorry, this is plain non-sense. The basic assumption to start from was: 'IF there is a 'god'. You axiomatically declare this to be the case, and then unravel your argument backwards.
No, what I am saying is that There is a verifiable material world, and a verifiable spiritual world. The Bible says that God is a spirit, this would make absolute sense, considering god has no material attributes what so ever.
"Because there is a a 'god' and he can't be verified by materialistic science, there must be a 'god'"
How funny is that? The theology that I am referring to is at least 2000 years old maybe 6000 years old. Science will never be anything less than man studying the material world. How could it be?
Besides is the science you refer to at least 60 years outdated. Reductionist materialism is kind of passed these days.
Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
Akragon, Its always a pleasure hearing from you. However, first things first. Lets all be in agreement that there is a material world in which we and everything in the known universe is composed of (matter) then there is that of which is not composed of matter. One example would be your thoughts. Arguments on brain function, electrical pulses ect, have no bearing as to what a thought is. Pure and simple ones thoughts are not materialistic in nature.and this too can be proven. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)
No, you can't. At least not from an extreme epistemological position or a position of an observer-created universe.
Sorry, that was just my peculiar sense of humour, finding witty aspects in this kind of stuff.
So I'll go along and accept a material realm as a relative reality.
First lets go back to the question above. It will be easier if we take this step by step.
Quote: ["And a spiritual realm of existence, which is also a fact ( I can also prove this)."]
Please do, but be careful about the word 'prove'. It's tricky.
there can only be one God -Omni everything.No other God would surfice. This God we'll assume is the God depicted in the Bible as the one true God.
It's an option, but I can't see why it's a 'reasonable logical assumption'. Maybe there's another 'god' than the one you talk about, who (this other god) is the 'real god', and who also has material properties. How would you know?
Originally posted by Akragon
Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
Akragon, Its always a pleasure hearing from you. However, first things first. Lets all be in agreement that there is a material world in which we and everything in the known universe is composed of (matter) then there is that of which is not composed of matter. One example would be your thoughts. Arguments on brain function, electrical pulses ect, have no bearing as to what a thought is. Pure and simple ones thoughts are not materialistic in nature.and this too can be proven. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)
You should get to the point though man. You've already stated this several times...
We're not ahead of ourselves, we're waiting on you...