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.

 

Christianity vs Atheism: The Facts

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Also, the controversy here is a healthy thing.

How are we supposed to learn anything if we can't question and occasionally throw rocks? The truth comes out most when no one agrees.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelkhall
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 





its sad when a society looks up to atheist as intellectuals


What then pray sir, would be your ideal intellectual? Are you saying that a person must have a Theist doctrine in order to go to a good university and receive a degree?

Are you saying that an Atheist is not able to use his/her brain in a perfectly logical manner?

Are you saying that Theist are the only people that can be intellectuals?

What exactly is an intellectual? Can you give me your definition. Don't run to wiki to find it. Tell me what you believe in your own mind.



intellect is a tool to know bits of pieces for survival. you can not go beyond survival with only your intellect. higher forms of thought are illogical. but the majority people don't know anything about that. they've only lived on the surface. an athiest is kind of like this ( i ll put it in a story).. Some doctors are testing frogs. they say jump they frog jumps 12 feet. they then cut one leg off it and tell it to jump it goes 6 feet, another leg 3 feet, one more and it goes 1 foot. finally the doctors tell cut the last leg off and tell it to jump. the frog doesn't jump. from this they concluded the frog became deaf once you cut all 4 legs off. Yeah it's redicilous but it gets the point across that the athiest is trying to understand the wholeness of the universe from a superficial perspective. you must look within, and when you do god is evident



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


The thing about religion is you're not supposed to learn the truth, you're just supposed to blindly obey the men in charge in the guise of serving God.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


My point here is, neither atheism nor Christianity is entirely correct, yet they lord it about as though they know everything.


Atheism is "lack of belief in God". Atheism cannot lord it over anyone.

Your problem is with a certain type of atheist, not atheism itself, which is entirely rational.

I can be an asshole who likes cake, but you wouldn't go attacking cake because of my actions, would you? Now, atheism no more "lords it over anyone" than cake does.


The truth is, atheism (based on science) assumes that it knows everything about the world, and nothing metaphysical nor paranormal can exist because they can't poke it with sticks under a bright light.


No, this is both completely untrue, and a strawman.

[sarcasm]Nice use of rhetoric again though, it's really helping you make your point.[/sarcasm]


So, neither of you knows everything. Stop acting like you make sense and accept that humans are incapable of grasping the true nature of their origin. It's beyond our Homo Sapiens intelligence.


Once again, atheism is lack of belief in God, the only rational position until convincing evidence of God's existence is presented. Stop your wild handwaving, it's not effective.

You are the only one making a direct claim here, and that is your claim that the nature of our origins is beyond us. Not only is that kind of negative approach going to hold us back, it's entirely unsupported by evidence of any kind.

Maybe if you'd have had your way back in the day, we might have thought flight was beyond us, and stopped wondering if it was possible?
edit on 31-3-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
By the way StarChild, unless you believe in God, in which case present your evidence for his Existence, you are probably an atheist yourself.

Just throwing that out there as you might want to bear that in mind.

Atheism=without God belief



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
By the way StarChild, unless you believe in God, in which case present your evidence for his Existence, you are probably an atheist yourself.

Just throwing that out there as you might want to bear that in mind.

Atheism=without God belief


I follow no modern religion. I am one of those people who takes the best of every religion and mixes it together. You could say I'm polycredic...or that I give credit to parts of many different faiths and scientific theories.

However, I am not wholly of any religion or science...except Universal Harmonics. I almost entirely agree with that.
edit on CSaturdayam313128f28America/Chicago31 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by ofNight
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Even if Jesus existed, what scientific evidence do you have to support immaculate conception? Or turning water into wine? Or resurrecting from the dead?

I'm legitimately curious.


Perhaps the 500 or more people that saw him after he resurrected? Many of who were still alive when the first gospels were written. Members of Jesus' family would have also still been alive when the first gospels were written.


Right there. That's the problem. Christianity ASSUMES that because people saw this person, Jesus, after his cruci[fiction] event, that he was resurrected from the dead. In fact, this evidence does more to refute Christianity than any other biblical story.

If 500 people saw Jesus, up and walking around, talking, eating and touching his friends and family, then guess what, HE DIDN'T DIE! His wounds weren't fatal. He recovered from his injuries with the help of his friends and all that aloe that they brought to him.

"Occam's Razor" buddy, any doctor who would, after seeing the patient up and about, eating and talking and such, diagnosis said patient as dead, needs to have their credential revoked. (Wasn't Luke a physician?)

He didn't die on the cross and he didn't die for your sins.

A fact of life is death. All living things die so that life may continue. It's a cycle. Life is devoured by life. The only guarantee of eternal life, as we know life to be, is eternal death. It's about living in the moment and respecting the mystery and all that is life daily.

If you want to be a Christian fine, but focus on the life and teachings of your Christ, not his bloody, (menstrual rags of deeds) of his death, which didn't happen in the way, at the time, of the crucifixion event.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dontlaughthink
 


Mostly his brothers. They were still alive when some of the New Testament was written. They would of helped the early apostles with their writings.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. - 1 John 2:22

I really hope that you repent for your blasphemy windword calling Jesus deeds menstrual rags. He died for your sins and this is how you thank him? Shocking.

Jesus certainly did die, this isn't even disputed amongst secular scholars. Your radical claims are baseless.

If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. No one survives roman crucifixion, its one of the worst ways to die.
edit on 31-3-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Ah...but Acts 2:22 specifically calls Jesus a man.

Also, the Bible contradicts itself at every turn...Leviticus itself is a load of tosh.

Your beliefs are based purely on faith, not on fact. You are too afraid to face the world without a safety net, and you think that pure faith will safe you from everything. Accept that you know nothing of what lies beyond death, and that your every flaw is yours to be accountable for.

This thread is atheist vs Christian...how will you answer the atheist arguments?

Premise (1) If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy.

Premise (2) If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows.

Premise (3) If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.

Premise (4) If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.



And the arguments:

Objection (1) God's moral goodness does not concern His feelings; rather they concern His action and the principle of His action. Thus premise (1) is false.

Answer: Now it is true that sometimes in judging the moral quality of a person one takes account only of his action and the principle of his action. A person who did good deeds all of his life and who acted on moral principles would normally be considered a good person. But still we would consider such a person better if there were not envy or lust in his heart. In any case, it is inconceivable to the ordinary religious believer that God's good action and purpose should hide His feelings of lust and envy. People demand that in God at least--who is their moral Ideal--the feelings of lust and envy should not exist.

Objection (2)

If God had the feelings of lust and envy and this affected Him, this would indeed detract from his moral goodness. However, God because of His great powers need not let these feelings affect Him. Thus premise (1) is false.

Answer:

It is difficult to know what 'affect Him' means here. Envy and lust are feelings that must affect the person that has them. One need not succumb to such feelings to be affected by them. By definition they do have some effect, i.e. these feelings involve certain strivings in the person that has them. Just because God may never be overcome by these feelings is not enough. The mere fact that He has had them would take away from His moral goodness on the common view.

Moreover, unless God sometimes did succumb to envy or lust this would detract from His knowledge and He would know less than some men. To say Jones has known succumbing to lust is presumably to say that Jones once experienced this succumbing himself, i.e. he once succumbed. If God lacked this knowledge, He would know less than Jones in one respect at least.

Objection (3)

God's knowledge is only propositional knowledge. Thus premise (3) is false.

Answer:

This argument seems to me to be mistaken at least as far as a common view of God goes. Indeed, I would argue that the more personal a view of God one has--and most ordinary people have a very personal view of God--the more mistaken this retort is. People who tend to think of God as a person naturally tend to think of Him as having many characteristics of persons and this includes the sort of knowledge that persons have. And this knowledge includes more than propositional knowledge.

Objection (4)

Since God is all powerful he can know lust and envy without having the feelings of envy and greed. Thus premise (4) is false.

Answer:

As I have already mentioned I am skeptical that philosophers have adequately characterized the ordinary notion of God and thus I am not sure that omnipotence is a property that most people predicate of God. But, in any case, as I understand the expression "He has known lust" it would be logically impossible for God to have known lust and not have had the feeling of lust. Presumably, even on the academic notion of God, God cannot do what is logically impossible.


These arguments come from here:

Witness Against The Christian God

Clearly, the properties of your "God" contradict themselves even...how are we to believe in an entity who cannot logically be capable of half the things you say?

Answer this for the atheists of ATS. Bring closure to them.

edit on CSaturdaypm050535f35America/Chicago31 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by windword
 


Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. - 1 John 2:22

What a surprise! A verse is in the bible that says anyone who disagrees with me (John) is a liar! How convenient.

Just what is "The Christ" and how does John know that Jesus is this "Christ?" Even Jesus never called himself "The Christ." When, where and how did the idea of a Christ originate?



I really hope that you repent for your blasphemy windword calling Jesus deeds menstrual rags. He died for your sins and this is how you thank him? Shocking.


Those were YOUR words for any and all good deeds.



Our good works are menstrual rags in Gods eyes.

Jesus was just a man who did good works and preached about love and tolerance.



Jesus certainly did die, this isn't even disputed amongst secular scholars. Your radical claims are baseless.

Yes it is disputed among scholars. Anyone who thinks that a man that is walking around and eating and talking was raised from the dead is not based in this reality. Jesus obviously didn't die on the cross. Proof? His body of evidence.

He wasn't dead! Therefore, he didn't die for you sins and he isn't a god.



If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. No one survives roman crucifixion, its one of the worst ways to die.
edit on 31-3-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


Jesus did. He survived the cruci[fiction] event. Proof is he was walking around and talking to people. What more proof do you need?

If His body was still in the tomb and he was walking around, then you might have an argument. Then you could say that he was within his new body, a spiritual body. But this body, that all those people saw, ate, therefore, did other banal things like digestion, sleep and excrete.

There is NO argument for the resurrection except blind wishful thinking.

Chris Hallquist Debunks the Resurrection
edit on 31-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


This is from your signature.


"For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who dont believe no proof is possible."


No proof is necessary for belief, eh? Then I can tell you that they found cows on the moon and you'd HAVE to believe me. Otherwise...well, haha, you'd be full of it.

Also, those who don't believe, haven't been shown proof. Obviously if someone named Jesus sat in front of me and took a piece of bread and kept breaking pieces off of it for half an hour and it still wasn't smaller, I'd have to concede the point.

Funny thing, though...I haven't had that encounter yet.

In essence, you choose to believe in a Cosmic Zombie who was his own father that requires us to metaphorically partake of his flesh and blood...because it's less painful and less demanding than facing reality, which basically demonstrates that the whole world is Hell.

Just because we have the gonads to face reality, doesn't make us damned. You live in the same ****ing world, after all. And I don't think Christians are any better than the rest of us...they behave so they can go to heaven. They behave because they get something out of it, similar to SSI and retirement. They don't behave for the sake of kindness...they get something out of it. Every act of kindness gets them wages.

And that is the biggest form of hypocrisy there is.
edit on CSaturdaypm060608f08America/Chicago31 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I believe Jesus myself, he was the only one that fits the bill...

Great man. I totally miss him after reading that story



edit on 31-3-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by windword
 


I believe Jesus myself, he was the only one that fits the bill...

What do you believe when you say you "believe Jesus?" What does that mean?


Great Man totally miss him after reading that story

After reading what story? Miss him? What?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ofNight
 


You still never explained your blatant plagiarism.

He won't, either. He has been caught at this before, and called out on it before, he ignores it. Then, after awhile, he simply abandons the thread. I think this is called the hit and miss method of spreading the gospel.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


You have no idea what your talking about. Have you even read any part of the Bible? It seems like you very Bible illiterate, so why are you even on this thread? John new Jesus was the Christ because he followed him for 3 years and witnessed all his miracles. Jesus did claim to be God, And 'Christ' simply means the coming Messiah that was prophesied about in the Old Testament.

When Jesus came to Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples the mother of all questions, "Who do you say I am?" (Matthew 16:15; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). Mormons answer this question by saying that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer; Jehovah's Witnesses answer by saying that Jesus is the archangel Michael; New Agers say Jesus is an avatar or enlightened messenger. Jesus, however, answered by claiming that He was God.

First, Jesus claimed to be the unique Son of God. As a result, the Jewish leaders tried to kill Him because in "calling God his own Father, [Jesus was] making himself equal with God" (John 5:18 NIV). In John 8:58 Jesus went so far as to use the very words by which God revealed Himself to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). To the Jews this was the epitome of blasphemy, for they knew that in doing so Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. On yet another occasion, Jesus explicitly told the Jews: "'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'" (John 10:30-33).

Furthermore, Jesus made an unmistakable claim to deity before the Chief Priests and the whole Sanhedrin. Caiaphas the High Priest asked him: "'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven'" (Mark 14:61-62 NIV)

source



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by windword
 


I believe Jesus myself, he was the only one that fits the bill...

Great man. I totally miss him after reading that story



edit on 31-3-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)


What does that mean? Unless you are born again you won't enter the kingdom of God.

Belief that he existed is not nearly enough.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


What has my signature got to do with this thread? And zombies aren't alive they are walking dead, Jesus was resurrected, he returned to bodily life. The fact that you go out of your way to make stupid statements and go out of your way to attack our Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ show's me that you are not comfortable with your belief that there is no God. Its obvious that you have a big hole in your life and attacking our faith temporyily gives you some kind of twisted satisfaction. The only way to enter into heaven is to believe in Him and to believe that He rose from the dead. Believe me when I say what ever you type on these forums, God know's exactly what it is.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Jesus is not god. Jesus is not his father. Jesus was a man, a carpenter's son, who preached love and tolerance. He was a charismatic figure, a rock star, if you will, and taught unconventional mystical truths to people who previously weren't privy to such information.

It really doesn't matter how knowledgeable I am to the bible, although I have read it cover to cover several times, because I simply don't believe it to be the word of god or an accurate description of what really happened. It's a corrupt piece of edited and forged works.

Jesus was just a mortal man. He wasn't born from a virgin and he didn't die and then resurrect for you sins. Jesus didn't die on the cross and isn't our savior from the depths of hell. There is no hell.


edit on 31-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Sometimes I fail to see the point and reason of such a thread.

You can't win people, religious people and the like will just throw verses out the holy book, whichever that may be as evidence. You can then show them the definition but no, that is evidence alright, nothing can be said and they can't be reasoned with, what so ever. Most of them aren't even willing to listen.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join