Atheists don't "know" there is no God.....

a reply to: BlueMule

Ah so your vague posts have no actual content (outside of you having the urge to call people idiots and hit them).

Got it.

a reply to: BlueMule

Why don't you sign up for a religious studies class at your closest University.

I did. Passed it. Learned much. It was called the Philosophy of Religion. Actually I took it twice because I messed up and didn't get credit the first time.

Have since watched many religious courses from The Teaching Company. One of which was a long series of lectures on your comparative religion! Also I own, and read, many books related to religion. Including The Bible. Book of Mormon. Tao Te Ching. Upanishads. The Buddhist Sutras. Many others I can't recall. Of course many books from atheists/anitheists with opposing views, yet nonetheless addressing religion. Been a member here actively engaged in religious threads, reading or posting, since 2003 [was a member with an alt account prior to this one]. I'd say I am not all that unfamiliar with "religious studies".

So tell me holy one, what do I specifically need to do to become enlightened such as yourself?

Additionally, can you reassure me that when I transcend as you have I will not be as condescending as you? I would very much like to maintain my friendship with Humankind.

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Entreri06

Christianity in modern times is horribly anti science, because science must have it "wrong the bible says things happened differently".

The mainstream Christianity of the man-on-the-street is too literalist for my taste. But who cares about the mainstream? The cutting-edge of religion is what matters.

There is no conflict between mysticism and science. But there IS a conflict between the science of 2000 AD and the 'science' of 1000 AD.

The "matrix" and "LHC" were far fetched examples, but at least they could be scientifically possible. Where nothing in the bible can be and nothing in archeology backs it either. I'm not saying theism is the anti to science... Theism says science is all a conspiracy by the devil to discredit Jesus.

The Matrix? That movie was pure mystical metaphor.

Atheists just don't know how to read movies. Or sacred texts. But neither do theists. So you're all in the same ship 0f fools. Oblivious to the esoteric subtext. It makes me want to smack you all upside your heads.

👣

Thank god since EVERYONE else misreads the worlds religious texts thank god! we have you to enlighten us!!!

Ego much lmao!!

a reply to: Entreri06

The major difference between atheism (and science) and religion is religions refusal to accept the truth of a situation. If Jesus shows up tomorrow walking on water and such. Every scientist and atheist will convert instantly. However religion didn't redo the Noah story when we learned there was no global flood or that there are far too many animals on the planet to fit on a boat the size of the arc.

I will not argue this with you but will ask you the following.
You say religion refuses to accept the truth of a situation. What situation are you referencing? How would you know that every scientist and atheist would accept Jesus if they saw Him walk on water? How do you know there was never a global flood? And how many animals were there to have been too many to be on the ark of Noah?

Just curious as to know how you know all of this. My question now is that beings you are correct in all of this just what did happen and how did people get so many manuscripts together from different people, geographical places and times? Are you saying that science shows you all of this? What kind of science tells you all about all of this? Just asking cause I never knew that science was that scientific.

By the way can you explain just how this science thing proves this universe to be billions of years old. Can science actually prove the world existed 10 or 15 billion years ago?

a reply to: Seede

And how many animals were there to have been too many to be on the ark of Noah?

What time did this occur? How many and what kind depends on that. The Bible is vague. Hence Young Earth Creationists and Christians that believe the Earth is billions of years old along with the rest of us. A strict adherence to the account of Genesis strongly suggests dinosaurs would have been on the Ark. Which of course implies we co-existed to begin with.

No matter what we are talking about an insane amount of animals and an insane amount of food for them. All on a boat smaller than Titanic. And yes we know that because the dimensions for the Ark are in the Bible.

But if you want to believe 600 year old Noah was able to accomplish that then all power to you.

Scripture does not say that every species of animal on earth was on the ark. If you're wrong about this, maybe you're wrong about other notions as well? Just something for you to ruminate on.

Also, do you know the defintion of allegory?



a reply to: Entreri06

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

No matter what we are talking about an insane amount of animals and an insane amount of food for them. All on a boat smaller than Titanic. And yes we know that because the dimensions for the Ark are in the Bible. But if you want to believe 600 year old Noah was able to accomplish that then all power to you.

I don't have any particular denomination in religion. Was reading up on this flood thing and it's not really what I believe but what is written . When the firmament was created the bible says that only half of the water stayed on the world. The other half of the water encapsulated the world with a canopy of water. This was the water that fell during the flood for forty days and nights.

The bible also says that when this firmament was created that all of that water that was left on the world was gathered into one place. Now I am not a scientist but common sense shows me that if all that water was in one place then we did not have a bunch of islands and continents floating about like we have today. It also shows me that for over 1600 years the world was sealed in canopy of water and that it must have had some effect upon sciences. The people could not have had the exposure to the universe at this time of 1600 + years. It must have been a green house effect. According to the bible of course. So what is my point? My point is that all of that canopy of water that fell during that flood had to have expanded the world and caused what we have today. So in effect the world had to have been much smaller than we see today.

The bible does not say how many animals were created at the time of the flood and it also does not say that God did not resume creating after the seventh day. Could it have been that at the time of the flood that was all that God created? Could evolution be nothing but continuous creating? The reason I ask you this is that some science claims that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding then it must have something to expand into and after expanding it would leave a void of some sort to be filled. To fill that void there must be a creation of more substance. Now who or what caused that creation is a matter of theology but if it is God then He still creates to this very day. That was my point.

Another question is that if I make a chair and the chair is four years old does that mean that the material of that chair is four years old? The way I understand this is that God could have made this mud pack (universe) trillions of years ago and formed it in six eras of our understanding. I noted that in most bibles the words created and formed are used interchangeably. As when God created man. Actually He formed man from the substance that He created just like the guy that made the chair.

Another thought is that Adam was supposed to have named all animals but if they were all scattered all over the earth by the millions then we cannot believe that he could name all of those creatures and remember the names. That is why I read the bible with common sense. I cannot believe that all of the animal life that exists today existed then any more than I could believe that the world then is the size we have today. In that light I also cannot believe that science then is the same aa science today.

An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

a reply to: cooperton

You, and other theists, are essentially atheists towards all the religious gods of the numerous other religions you don't believe to be true.

I find it very amusing you and other theists get to be so dismissive of other gods, yet if someone does it with yours then they are blind and close-minded and blah blah.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: cooperton

I find it very amusing you and other theists get to be so dismissive of other gods, yet if someone does it with yours then they are blind and close-minded and blah blah.

Studying various religions, such as Hinduism, led me to believe that most Divinely inspired texts are referring to the same Diety. Christianity in particular discusses the inner search for God, and any other "religion" which teaches the same is making a reference to the same God. Even Greek Philosophy is referring to the same Divinity that Christianity is:

"Philosophy has been given to the Greeks as their own kind of Covenant, their foundation for the philosophy of Christ ... the philosophy of the Greeks ... contains the basic elements of that genuine and perfect knowledge which is higher than human ..." (Miscellanies 6. 8)

Christ means annointed, and we can all become annointed. Deification is another topic consistent throughout theology, in Hinduism it is the escape from Samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, that allows us a spiritual integration. In Christianity, Jesus preaches that by abandoning material desire you can also have a spiritual rebirth into a higher being.

The inner Spirit is not limited to any particular religion, religion is just a way that people have expressed and wrote down Divine inspiration. Many have bastardized and abused these religions for evil purposes, but that is no reason to dismiss their teachings. All Divinely inspired religions point towards the same truth

a reply to: cooperton

You do know the various creator gods of other religions have differing creation stories, yes?

If these various religions are all literally true then the Universe was made in various ways. Not to mention differing ways in which we are to conduct ourselves.

They can't all be literal truths as they conflict on fundamental theological levels. The approach you're describing only works if these are taken metaphorically and not literally.

There is of course commonalities within religions. You can't brush aside the differences though. Not if you claim they are all divinely inspired.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

A good point. In my opinion, the differences between beliefs are often erroneous, whereas the similarities are evidence of the grand Truth. With cultural differences, and language semantics, the beliefs are not going to be exactly the same, but the fact that there are many similarities indicate there is a Truth that these holy texts are accurately describing. If I were born into Hinduism I would be ascending the same mountain, just from a different path. Christ even says that you need only the Spirit to attain spiritual fulfillment:

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

(Luke 12:10)

a reply to: cooperton

I am not dismissing the possibility of some greater spiritual Truth that humans gravitate towards and invent religions as a metaphorical roadmap to help them discover it. I'm just pointing out the problem inherent when they are not taken metaphorically. That's all really.

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

A blind man that apparently doesn't dream and rejects all the verified scientific evidence of colors?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

A blind man that apparently doesn't dream and rejects all the verified scientific evidence of colors?

Tell me then, mr. verified science man, the evidence that there is no God or Higher Being?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

A blind man that apparently doesn't dream and rejects all the verified scientific evidence of colors?

Tell me then, mr. verified science man, the evidence that there is no God or Higher Being?

The only claim being made, is the one for the existence of a god by theists such as yourself. The burden of proof is on you, atheists have not been convinced that you've met that burden...

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

That's just gotta be the worst analogy I've encountered, anywhere.

Most fail attempt at being clever this forum has ever seen.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

A blind man that apparently doesn't dream and rejects all the verified scientific evidence of colors?

Tell me then, mr. verified science man, the evidence that there is no God or Higher Being?

The only claim being made, is the one for the existence of a god by theists such as yourself. The burden of proof is on you, atheists have not been convinced that you've met that burden...

You cannot wiggle your way out of this using a reverse argument. Can you not think for yourselves. The question was put simply to atheists; "prove God does NOT EXIST" if in disagreement (why do care one way or another); you obviously have a concrete belief system in place that dismisses the idea of a higher being (Creator) so much so your insistence regarding your 'truth' resembles hammer blows (or flogging). How do you manage this arrogance, the Egotism? Why are atheists so angry?

a reply to: Entreri06

Just as much as non-atheists don't "know" there is a god.


So. Here we are

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: cooperton

You, and other theists, are essentially atheists towards all the religious gods of the numerous other religions you don't believe to be true.
I find it very amusing you and other theists get to be so dismissive of other gods, yet if someone does it with yours then they are blind and close-minded and blah blah.

You realize there are others that do not define (pigeon hole) themselves as either Atheists, Theists; OR AGNOSTIC (how would you categorize, label them). What arrogance drives you to ridicule another's 'faith' (key word used here in understanding) or belief in something you clearly do not understand, or are out of your depth.