Why Atheists are Unrelenting

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by ChristianJihad

 

Place the quote, do not just speak of it. I reason according to the Spirit not according to the letter as the scribes do.

Your contradictory response is typicla of someone hedging his bets you mock and simple yourself and beliefs in public

So, I provide you with the qoute then you provide a typical xtian response like "Ah cherry pick cherry pick it's all a matter of faith I reason according to spirit blablah.

Hm, then why bother with the bibles at all my friend?
In fact why come to ATS at all if all you need is the spirit then blam you have a direct line to the creator of all that is, perhaps that is why he advised you to pray in your closets.

Matthew 24:36

go figure

reply to post by ChristianJihad


Your response is just insulting and I do not know how the quote correlates. The bible is very spiritual and that is the reason there is bible study, because it cannot be taken literally in most parts, and many do not know the difference.

Originally posted by Beavers
I predict I will shortly be insulted for calling people thick, rather than being challenged on the 'parity-bit nature' of enzymes too.

God bless

edit on 5-1-2013 by Beavers because: (no reason given)

I'll admit, I'm no where near intelligent enough about enzymes to debate them....
I just had to comment on the fact you made that comment with the intention of rustling jimmies, in a thread accusing atheists of doing the same thing.

Do tell how enzymes prove intelligent design....explain it to me like you would a child, but as thoroughly as possible. (I'm not asking how they work, I want to know how it indicates intelligent design.)

If god is real i want to know why the perfect sacrifice was a failed experiment

reply to post by Parksie


There was no sacrifice, by definition a sacrifece requires a loss there was no loss, an omnipotent being cannot die, cannot lose= no sacrifice.

The icing on the cake is that following the crucifiction he was up and about 3 days later certainly no sacrfiice there.
It would appear that the gullable xtians have made themselves victims of the biggest scam in history.

reply to post by Wanderer777


God will sow seeds even in the hardest soil, because He can make them sprout. Let go and let God brother, abide in faith and hope, for God and for your fellow man, as he also has a soul. pray for them.

peace to you

Originally posted by ChristianJihad

If god is real i want to know why the perfect sacrifice was a failed experiment

reply to post by Parksie

 

There was no sacrifice, by definition a sacrifece requires a loss there was no loss, an omnipotent being cannot die, cannot lose= no sacrifice.

The icing on the cake is that following the crucifiction he was up and about 3 days later certainly no sacrfiice there.
It would appear that the gullable xtians have made themselves victims of the biggest scam in history.

It was the sacrifice of life in the material world for the lives of others to go to Heaven Jesus died physically, but He suffered more spiritually, and morally for your sins, than in His body

To revolve your life around the need to disprove something shows a religious fanaticism.

Not that fanaticism is bad, it's just the religious fervor of the atheists astounds me when they have no commander in which to encourage them to spread the word.

reply to post by jiggerj


It's an interesting question, "Why are atheists unrelenting?". Every atheist is going to have their own reasons why they are unrelenting in the things they do against christianity. But I believe there is one true answer to this question, and I believe this not only from the history I've read, but also from the experiences I've learned from life. Why are atheists being so unrelenting on this subject right here?? It's simple.

karma

What I mean is, everything that I read happening to christians lately, the harassment they're getting in regards to things they're used to having, or feel they need to have, is karmic debt. Think about it. Look at history. How often throughout history were people persecuted for not believing in christianity? How often were people killed for not believing? Christians throughout history have sent missionaries to "spread the gospel" to people who never even wanted it.

It still happens today. How often have you heard a knock at your door, only to open it and have someone try to tell you the "wonders of the good book"? Many people I've known throughout my 33 years on earth who don't believe in christianity, have at many times been harassed by the people who do believe. I'm not talking about preaching, either, I mean true harassment. Many of these atheists, as well as people with different spiritual beliefs, have been harassed by "believers" to believe. Told very often that they're going to hell if they don't believe, all that fun stuff. Hell, it's so bad that my spell-check is trying to force me to capitalize christianity.

Now, I'm not attacking christians in any way, so I apologize if any of this sounds like that. I have many christian friends, as well as friends from many different spiritual beliefs. I personally believe that people should believe what they will, as long as it makes them happy, and who are we to tell someone to stop doing something that makes them happy, all because we don't agree. That's just rude beyond rude.

But, with everything I've read in the news over the past year regarding atheists and christians, I really can't help but feel that this is karma for the overall religion. You can disagree with me, you can even hate me for saying it, but there's no way you can't look at the history of christianity, and tell me that this isn't their karmic debt.

Yes, in the beginning, christianity dealt with a lot of persecution itself. But, once it got past all that, they treated others in very similar ways that they themselves were treated. Even today.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by backcase

 

Our imperfection compared to Gods perfection.

Ah. I see. And what do you know of perfection?

You will never get anywhere with these people because they don't understand that they're Platonists.

Plato believed in perfect forms. Everything in the world was simply an image of its perfect form. That's it in a nutshell. The problem is that the implications of Plato's metaphysics desire more discussion, and that discussion has been going on for thousands of years without any resolutions.

Saint Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato. Problem is that Christians are the dumbest Platonists alive.

reply to post by yadda333


Absolutely. No one ever mentions the effect Plato had philosophically on the course of history. Even 2500 years later, as we can see, his notions are still ingrained in most cultures. Platonists hold more value over their own ideas than they do the real world. Christianity is Platonism for the people.

Christians were once labelled as atheists. Since we are all atheists here, can't we just get along?

It was the sacrifice of life in the material world for the lives of others to go to Heaven Jesus died physically, but He suffered more spiritually, and morally for your sins, than in His body

reply to post by backcase


This is preposterous reasoning, again sacrifice requires a loss there was no loss coming back to life is not dying especially if you only die for thee days this is commonly known as cheating !!!! What utter nonsense.

To compound your dilemma was the sheer lack of witnesses to the so called sacrifice not only did he (allegedly) come back to life but only a couple of women perhaps witnessed it. The others who were crucified at the same time did actually die and for practical purposes could be said to be far more suitable candidates for a "sacrifice".

As the scriptures plainly show, resurection from death was quite common place in 1st century palestine so the big magic trick was no big deal.

Please don't implicate me in your death cult I wasn't there, I certainly wasn't consulted on the matter and if I was there I would have done what I could to prevent such barbarism as I could think of a lot better ways of educating my children than human sacrifice, the notion is morally repugnant.

The bible is very spiritual and that is the reason there is bible study, because it cannot be taken literally in most pa

reply to post by backcase


For the record please enlighten us all here at ATS, so that we may proceed with the debate thoroughly please give us a full list of which parts of the bibles should not be taken literally.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
To revolve your life around the need to disprove something shows a religious fanaticism.

Not that fanaticism is bad, it's just the religious fervor of the atheists astounds me when they have no commander in which to encourage them to spread the word.

Very few atheists are attempting to "disprove" anything, on the contrary the majority are demanding "proof" if you wish to describe this as "Fervor" then so be it but it is merely a defense mechanism in a situation where other humans obsereve doctirnes requiring then to force their belifes (which we consider to be delusional) upon others.

In a nutshell it is my moral duty to proctect my children to the best of my ability in y circumstance from members of a deathcult that would in all probability ematioanlly or physivally harm them before they are of an age of reason.

Originally posted by jiggerj
The believers in a Grand Poobah in the sky want to know why atheists are fanatical in their attempts to shut down religion and stop unfounded beliefs. When they beg me to stop, this is what they are saying (though they will most fervently deny it):

What they are saying is that we should never let the children in on the secret that Santa Claus didn't come down the chimney and put those gifts under the tree.

If they come up with the idea that chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows, DON'T CORRECT THEM.

When a frightened little darling wakes you up in the middle of the night and tells you there's a monster under her bed, you must say something agreeable like, "Yes, there IS a monster under your bed."

Let's just have these kids grow up with these beliefs until these beliefs become fact for them. Once these beliefs are firmly planted in their heads there will be no way to convince them of such absurdities. Take one of these now-adults to a dairy farm to show them there's no such thing as chocolate cows, and they will claim that the farmers are hiding the chocolate cows, or that they only live in Hershey, Pennsylvania. No matter how you try to prove it, they will defend their stance with ideas that will become more and more ridiculous.

And, of course, they will challenge you with trying to prove that Santa Claus, monsters under the bed, or a god, DOESN'T exist.

Do you really want your kids growing up with such nonsense in their heads? Do you really want whole societies forming out of such beliefs? Of course not. If this were to happen it would mean that you failed as a parent, as a member of society, and have driven logic back into the dark ages.

Atheists, I, will not prolong the inevitable downfall of irrational thinking by keeping my mouth shut. Not gonna happen, so help me NOT god!

Jigger, children shouldn't believe in Santa to begin with. Don't strain out a gnat only to swallow a camel.
There aren't too many children who would come to the conclusion that "chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows", unless perhaps they've been watching too much television, cable tv is not the most optimal place to learn and attain a meaningful moral standard. You are making sweeping generalizations here Jigger, you know that not all Christians are as you are trying to portray them to be.
You are trying to make it seem as though it's the religious that are responsible for the way the music industry, movie, gaming, and even healthcare industry works when they only hold to a form of godliness while denying the power thereof.
If ALL the religious WOULD disappear (and you can dream all you want jigger but it's not going to happen), it still won't change the way that the system works, the one where you actually would have to find out for yourself what it means to follow Jesus through reading the bible for yourself, rather than relying on people who relied on their pastors who relied on their seminary school teachers to teach them what they thought they were too stupid to learn for themselves. Most people don't question their pastors, most pastors don't question their teachers, most pastors know that they are going to preach for money to line their pockets, it's the system, a system that Jesus wasn't in support of.

reply to post by backcase

You do not mention His glorious resurrection, but it was part of what needed to happen to show that the ways of the world are passing away. We must look at Jesus as the Man Who denied His Humanity in order to give us Himself.

You really can't see that these are the illogical ramblings of someone who totally broke away from reality? I truly wish there were powerful enough words that could bring you back. It really is sad beyond belief.

reply to post by ChristianJihad


I would rather give you the spirit of discernment, but it takes humility for a man to ask for the gifts of God.

reply to post by jiggerj


Well it was actually a sentence in direct reply to your question. I am sorry if I used grammar wrongly, but I truly see reality for what it is. When having to type so much I forget to proof read, but i'm sure you got the point i was making.
The word "it" in the first sentence referred to the Passion.

Seems like Atheists don't know themselves too well. The mere fact that they continue calling themselves Atheists is enough to tell you that they're not really too familiar with their own leaders positions and thoughts on the matter. I say this, because those men and women in academia who are the go-to people for info/ammo for Atheists to use, openly admit that they are in fact "Agnostics". There is no such thing as an intellectually or philosophically fit "Atheist". If you call yourself an Atheist, you are essentially saying that you can prove there is no God. Well, your leaders don't even say that, because they know it is ridiculous. God cannot be disproven.

No, the reason for the "Atheist" is that we have a very under-informed populace now, which, in its hubris and lack of understanding of the very concept of God, thinks of God as cruel and deserving of hate. Many times it is also because the witnesses for the various faiths they encounter are terrible witnesses and horrible examples for their faiths. The detestation of religion because of poor witnesses is understandable, but not intellectually acceptable. All you get from the stance of Atheists then, which I have mapped out, is an emotional rejection of faith that focuses on small snippets of information that can be tooled with through word-play and further bolstered by the terrible example of some witnesses. And that's all Atheism is. People don't like to be told what to do, or that there is room for improvement, or that the sun does not revolve around them, or that if there is a God that God is not Santa and he doesn't have to give you what you request when you request it and the way it was requested. So, it is emotionally natural for them to reject the idea of God...for a while. Until they age and understand the world and their mortality more, they might not really want to throw some facts into their current considerations.

Here's the truth. There are only two options. Either existence was created by God, or it appeared randomly - which is asinine as it supposes the existence of randomness out of nothingness. Even then, if there was a big-bang that occurred randomly, it would have been under the direction of God. How do I know? I know this for two reasons (at least). 1). I use the genetic algorithm (forced evolution used by programmers to get a solution) a lot. The number of generations needed and the population needed to come up with a solution to satisfy just 1 survivability factor is extremely large. The likelihood that just one simple survivability factor will be satisfied by a correct, evolutionarily-provided solution, in time to survive current conditions in their environment and in time to mate with a similarly improved member of their population and produce offspring with their winning traits, is extremely close to 0. Of course, this happens slowly over time, in small ways, and not for immediate survivability but for an enhanced existence within their population and environment, with what is called 'Micro-evolution'. The large-scale evolution required to create or to begin creating a new organ or appendage for the purpose of adaptation has never been witnessed, and is not shown in the fossil record. This should be expected, because Macro-evolution is much less likely than micro-evolution. No mathematician who has played around with the numbers from our computer models and with the requirements of biology (like me, a B.S. in Computer Science, B.S. in Mathematics with an emphasis on BioMath), would ever say that Macro-Evolution is responsible for our existence....or the existence of anything. Micro-evolution will not bring about a slow macro-evolution either....I mean, it may happen, but it would not have happened so frequently to have created all the variations between species on earth, and especially not in the amount of time scientists tell us organisms had - the age of the world (or the universe). It is possible that the earth has had serious mutation-inspiring events, such as gamma-ray bursts or exposure to dna-altering toxins, and that could seriously speed up the mutations, but it will not help much in terms of survivability. Most mutations simply destroy or make life more difficult. Also, these events would have to happen pretty frequently, and it would be expected that we would be able tell whether these events occurred from the geological, ice, and fossil records. We do not see any trace of these types of events or mutations in our records (again, as Math tells us), so it is ridiculous to state that Macro-evolution is what created us. Couple that with order out of chaos, and chaos out of nothingness, and you have one big ball of crazy.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by backcase

 

Are we not made in God's Image? God can obviously do without any of us. But we start to become what we admire, or even less than that. To love God means to have affection for our Father, and to love our neighbor is to live gratefully to God.

Love is not synonymous with worship.

Why love a value or ethic when we can love the Creator of them. God is not anti social, He does not mind if we seek His Love as He Loves us in a perfect way.

What is perfect love?

Although I know what perfect love is, only God can answer this for you? I found love through the bible and Christ. I can say that what we have been taught by the world about love is mostly harmful and damaging to our ability to truly love others. -

For anyone who is truly atheist and not just anti-religion I'm not really sure what to say. Even the simplest form of life is far too complex to not have a builder. There simply has to be some power source that created life as we know it.