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 flana23
quite surprised there hasnt been more posts from religious types,they normally become very defensive when a topic is posted reguarding religion.
thing that gets me ......
everyday i see posts from religious followers,and i dont think i have ever once bothered reading past the title.
There alway's such nonsense,yet people respect their beleifs and ''try to have a debate'' on the matter and they just get really defensive and confuse their beleifs for facts.
i saw one the other day called something like: you dont beleive in god?heres proof.
the op then went on to say something like,''for all you skeptics that want proof of god,ask him to test you.then post back here within 30 days and tell us of your experiences.
it was ridiculous
Originally posted by LastStarfighter
This type of post is put about three times weekly on ATS
1. You are awesome and know everything
2 You are above religion
3. You are trendy
4. You are more enlightened than everyone
Is this what you want to hear?
You can be OK with yourself without denegrating others, which is what you are doing, and saying you know you will offend people prior to the post is assinine. Everyone atheist on ATS puts up this same post.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by micmerci
But I say isn't it possible that if a God does exist, that He is superior to us and actually set it up that way................
Do you think God is able to create an equal? Can God duplicate itself? Or, is the truth of the matter, that all that God is capable of creating are things that are lesser than itself?
Originally posted by qualm91
reply to post by intrptr
That was a very interesting way to put it. The best explanation I've ever heard for it, actually, haha. But if God doesn't have a place that he has designated to torture the "lost souls" that don't follow him for all of eternity...then what is Hell exactly?
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I don't completely understand why you are writing to me in such a manner. You seem....disgruntled to say the least.
However, you say that they are forced to contend that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, but you also say it is a very contestable belief. How can so many historians be forced to a belief that is so easily contestable? I cannot make any logical sense of that statement.....
Also, given the currently available evidence, what do YOU think best fits the data?
(Also, I did not STATE there was archaelogical evidence available....(hint: ?)
A2D
Originally posted by charles1952
I don't believe the Gospels are considered as wildly fictitious by mainstream historians
Could you point me to where the majority of historians believe them to be "wildly fictitious?"
those categories do you place Pliny's letter to the Emperor asking for advice on how to deal with the Christians?
No, not actually, I just didn't think that people believed it. Proof of God? No. Evidence of God? Of course.
There are other areas of evidence, but four that come to mind are:
The existence of the Universe.
The existence of complexity, specifically life.
The existence of absolute moral values.
The existence of Jesus and the history of His life.
With respect,
Charles1952
Originally posted by qualm91
Originally posted by LastStarfighter
This type of post is put about three times weekly on ATS
1. You are awesome and know everything
2 You are above religion
3. You are trendy
4. You are more enlightened than everyone
Is this what you want to hear?
You can be OK with yourself without denegrating others, which is what you are doing, and saying you know you will offend people prior to the post is assinine. Everyone atheist on ATS puts up this same post.
1) I never claimed to know everything, that's the point. I DON'T know, but no one else does, either.
2) I certainly never claimed to be above religion, I was only asking why and how they believe (as I've stated multiple times in this thread.)
3) Trendy? I didn't know it was "trendy" to seek answers, haha.
4) I also don't claim to be more enlightened than anyone else. I have my beliefs, others have their beliefs, and I enjoy discussing the differences because asking questions IS enlightening.
5) I wasn't degrading others at all, I was just pointing out some scriptures that get ignored and asking why they do get ignored. And generally asking ANY questions about religion DOES offend people (obviously).
6) I am not an atheist at all, haha. Which I have also stated many times in this very thread.
Any other insults you would like to throw my way?
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Astounding. Did you know there was absolutely no evidence that reaching a temperature below absolute zero was possible....until we found out that it was....
Famous quote right...You've probably heard it...."That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens
^^That's basically what you're saying. You're saying since we have no evidence of God(that is acceptable under your specifications), that you completely dismiss His existence. But is this right? Can we really dismiss anything that doesn't have evidence?
With regards to the famous quote provided by Mr. Hitchens, let's examine....What does Hitchens mean when he says "evidence"? No one really addresses this...but generally speaking, what comes to mind is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or also, SCIENTIFIC evidence.
However, scientific/empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence available in almost all circumstances. Anecdotal, circumstantial, testimonial, and personal experience all come to mind as types of evidence. One could possibly even argue that logic and reason can be used as evidence.
So, "There is no evidence of God"....according to whom? Is this empirical evidence that we're speaking of?
If it is, which I'm relatively certain it HAS to be for you to say there is "none", then let me ask you this....What empirical evidence do we have for the composition of an atom?
(Things to remember: 1)empirical - definition - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
2)We study subatomic particles by relative inference.Implying that if there were 2 particles that behaved exactly the same under the same circumstances, one would go completely unnoticed...)
A measured journalist like ABC Radio National's Michael Cathcart recently ventured unknowingly into the heavyweight ring and got caught out. In an otherwise excellent interview with Salman Rushdie, Cathcart remarked, "There's no doubt at all that Mohammed was a real person, whereas Jesus is a person who is at least ambiguous in the question of whether he existed or not." I say "caught out" because Cathcart promptly received a gentle correction from two of Australia's best known Roman historians, Professors Alanna Nobbs and Edwin Judge. "In our judgment," they wrote, "the second part of your statement is quite far from reality." They explained, "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."
I've put out the challenge before: if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe.
But what is the evidence for Jesus? As Nobbs and Judge explained to Michael Cathcart, "Very early Christian sources and several non-Christian, and even hostile, sources attest to the existence of Jesus in first-century Palestine, putting his existence beyond reasonable doubt." (Emphasis added)
God is nearly universally considered to be a supernatural being, outside, or above, natural laws. By definition, he can not be detected by natural means. It's not a fable, it's the definition of the word. Science can have no method to detect God's weight or height. You ask for something logically impossible then complain when you don't get it? That makes no sense to me.
You lot have had long enough. I have never bought the fable that he can't be proven. If he exists as christianity generally claims, it should be far easier than detecting sub atomic particles.
You provide me with evidence (proof, for some of it), that.....
the universe exists
there is complexity within said universe
moral philosophy
an assumption your saviour lived.
Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,
If I understand correctly (and I often don't) you are taking two positions, that Jesus is not an historical figure and that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Let's start with Jesus.
You will be hard pressed to find sufficient evidence to change these professor's minds, or mine.
God is nearly universally considered to be a supernatural being, outside, or above, natural laws. By definition, he can not be detected by natural means. It's not a fable, it's the definition of the word. Science can have no method to detect God's weight or height. You ask for something logically impossible then complain when you don't get it? That makes no sense to me.
Moral philosophy? Do you seriously claim there is no objective good or evil?
On the question of whether my Savior lived, go back to the opening discussion on the historicity of Jesus. After you agree that He did exist we can talk about His significance.