Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My reasons, and those of most atheists, have been discussed many times on this forum. It is quite simple, I haven’t seen anything that convinced me that there is.
Well, yes. Humans are here, as are wombats and rats. A million or thity million years ago none of these things existed according to the fossil record, but other things did. Plus genetic evidence, etc. I am not trying to justify or prove the ToE, I am merely contrasting the mountains of interrelated, corroborating evidence for ToE, vs the bald claims of the Bible.
Christians tell me a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they are true.
...
First, I don’t “know” that atheism is correct. It would be more accurate to say that I haven’t seen any god/religious claim that seems to be correct, so I am left with atheism as a result. I hold this stance as a belief resulting from the lack of evidence on the part of religion, not a statement of knowledge. If you show me proof of a god, then I will know better and change my belief as a result.
As to the “experience or evidence”, it is because, according to me experience, religion has no evidence, but science does.
You accuse atheists of using a priori methodology for the exploration of origins? Please look in a mirror!
Not so. Information is a descriptive word. It take a consciousness to perceive, quantify, analyze and understand it. It is a bit like the old cliche “if a tree falls in the woods, but there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
If there were to be no intelligence life in the universe, we would still have stars. There would still be a certain number of stars, which is a fact. But that fact would be irrelevant and unperceived, so there would be no information conveyed.
Good post.
Let's sum up what little minds accept as proof for god and Biblical creation; it's really rather simple and doesn't require volumes of books: I believe it because I believe it.
I don't have to tell myself that it is hate. I can read it just fine through the rhetoric and actions. You don't make moral judgements against an imaginary being as just a product of a though provoking discussion. Yet that's exactly what atheists love to do with venomous dark language. Atheists have even taken on the enormous task of creating their own Bible, a mockery of God's Word that goes verse by verse and rips it apart. Why else would someone go to such efforts? The only thing you might accomplish is causing someone to start doubting their own faith which is a pretty lousy goal.
Christianity remains the largest religion in the world and the Bible is the most translated book in human history. The dead sea scrolls showed the care and attention that man gave to preserve the Word of God perfectly. Furthermore, archaeological finds continue to prove the Biblical accounts. If it was a work of fiction, I would think we would be seeing the opposite right now. There is a reason for that. Because it is true. ...
The fact that atheists are just so completely sold on evolution and won't even entertain a completely different possibility in regards to the origin of life just shows me that they are close minded.
And what ground did you realistically think would be gained? Both sides are dug in like WWI trench warfare. I don't expect any atheists to ever admit that I can make a valid point just once. The vile attacks on my faith only serve to prove my perceptions and in return strengthen my faith. My only purpose for posting here is to defend against the lies posted about my faith.
1. You're actually mostly right about something (OMg). For the most part, we don't make moral judgements against an imaginary being. We are making moral judgements about a certain group of people, a group that includes you. If you conducted your religion in a non-intrusive personal way, most atheists would have little to talk about.
2. It's really not very clever to say that Christianity is the largest religion in the world, when it is still a religion in which about 66% of the world's population does not believe. Further, Muslim births are far outstripping Christian births, so it won't be too long before there are more Muslims than Christians. So, it you want to play the statistics game...you lose. And by the way, you have mentioned that not all Christians are "real Christians" (don't remember the exact descriptors you have used), so in actuality, "real Christians" are far less than you hint at.
3. When you make a valid point, it will be acknowledged.
4. Again, we don't attack the religion as much as we attack those who attempt to promulgate the religion among people who aren't interested in it. Mind your own business, and "we'll" mind outs. Leave people alone, we'll leave you alone.
2. It's really not very clever to say that Christianity is the largest religion in the world, when it is still a religion in which about 66% of the world's population does not believe. Further, Muslim births are far outstripping Christian births, so it won't be too long before there are more Muslims than Christians. So, it you want to play the statistics game...you lose. And by the way, you have mentioned that not all Christians are "real Christians" (don't remember the exact descriptors you have used), so in actuality, "real Christians" are far less than you hint at.
Jeff is a Christian fundamentalist. The definition of this is somewhat subjective, but I think it's generally considered fair to say that it's a subset of evangelicalism (probably a majority of it anymore; believe it or not, there once was a thing called a "moderate Evangelical" -- the Christianity Today wing of evangelicalism was another informal label for it. Ironically, Billy Graham founded that publication so his son, Franklin, is very, very far from where his Dad started out, ideologically speaking). There were once evangelicals who had no issue with abortion, and who reached out in common cause to liberal Christians. But I digress.
At any rate, the last figures I found were that evangelicals, on a worldwide basis, account for about 17% of Christians. That is 17% of the 33% of people who identify as Christian, or about 5.6% of the world population. We'll ignore how many of those are True Fundamentalists, but obviously it'd be a still smaller number.
Jeff, like all fundamentalists, likes to "cook the books" when it suits him, so he is here trumpeting Christianity as the "largest" religion (failing to point out that it only accounts for 1/3 of the world's people even in broad cultural terms, and that it will shortly not even be the largest, and glossing over that he has serious disagreements with much of cultural Christianity). But in reality, Jeff's ilk doesn't feel much affinity for non-evangelicals and is really talking, even on a good day, about that 5.6% of the world that believes substantially what he does in terms of dogma.
The vast majority of the world's population aren't Christians Jeff. The vast majority of the estimated 100 billion people who have ever existed on this planet didn't believe in your bible god. There have been thousands of god ideas throughout mankind's existence. A tiny minority Jeff? People who believe in this god idea don't even agree on who it is. They have such differing ideas in their head and you make it seem like those who profess some belief in a god are on the same page. It also doesn't matter in the end how many people profess a belief if the belief is false. Mankind once believed the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Evidence now shows that belief to be false. BTW, I value animals far more than your sick god and you obviously missed the point on that one.
The point is the vast majority do not believe like YOU. So stop pretending like it's proven fact that God does not exist. You don't get to claim my faith is a fairy tale without concrete PROOF to back it up.
So you call God sick for destroying evil in this world? Course, then you will blame God for not taking action. Atheists can't even make up their mind. Animals were created for a specific purpose. To provide us food, showcase God's creativity and beauty and in some cases, offer us companionship. But they have no souls so God does not value them like mankind. I'm sure you value a dog more than a spider which only shows that man's value of animals tends to be proportionate to the physical size of the creature. That's immoral in the atheist fantasy world. Anyone who exterminates bugs is a mass murderer.
The point is the vast majority do not believe like YOU. So stop pretending like it's proven fact that God does not exist. You don't get to claim my faith is a fairy tale without concrete PROOF to back it up.
So you call God sick for destroying evil in this world? Course, then you will blame God for not taking action. Atheists can't even make up their mind. Animals were created for a specific purpose. To provide us food, showcase God's creativity and beauty and in some cases, offer us companionship. But they have no souls so God does not value them like mankind. I'm sure you value a dog more than a spider which only shows that man's value of animals tends to be proportionate to the physical size of the creature. That's immoral in the atheist fantasy world. Anyone who exterminates bugs is a mass murderer.
But you're allowed to foist your beliefs on others because why?
But you're allowed to foist your beliefs on others because why?
I don't believe in forced Christianity. Technically, you can claim anything you want. Just don't expect to have any level of credibility if you demonstrate an extreme bias with zero supporting evidence.
Despote some perfectly good responses, I have to add my pennyworth, or it does so look like I had nothing to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I don't have to tell myself that it is hate. I can read it just fine through the rhetoric and actions. You don't make moral judgements against an imaginary being as just a product of a though provoking discussion. Yet that's exactly what atheists love to do with venomous dark language. Atheists have even taken on the enormous task of creating their own Bible, a mockery of God's Word that goes verse by verse and rips it apart. Why else would someone go to such efforts? The only thing you might accomplish is causing someone to start doubting their own faith which is a pretty lousy goal.
Agasin, you interpret it as a personal vendetta against God or your religion. It isn't; it is countering the claim to the Moral High ground that Christianity claims. The contrast between the claims made for the Character of God in the belief and the Character in the Bible are a big fat contradiction. It is the argument, Jeff, not a personal grudge.
And in fact it is the Christians who have had to create their own Bible - full of humanist-morality they actually follow and ignore what the bible actually says. A good deal of Fundamentalist apologetics is reasons why they DON'T follow the Bible. And realizing that is accomplishing a lot of apparent irreligion, and abandoning the fundamentalistic doctrines you seem intent on fighting for is Good thing, so many people seem to be realizing.
Quote:
Christianity remains the largest religion in the world and the Bible is the most translated book in human history. The dead sea scrolls showed the care and attention that man gave to preserve the Word of God perfectly. Furthermore, archaeological finds continue to prove the Biblical accounts. If it was a work of fiction, I would think we would be seeing the opposite right now. There is a reason for that. Because it is true. Here is a find I saw just today:
I'll have a look at that. A coin of Pilate or some such? So what? So what indeed? 7th c BC? Around the time of Assyria? (see p.s)Well, a century or so later later the writers of the OT would still have some idea of the history, and perhaps even historical records, like Sennecharib's seige of Jerusalem. But that didn't stop them lying about it. Reference to political positions in Jerusalem or even individuals who may have existed, do not validate the God -claims of the Bible, much less Christianity and far less your Fundamentalist version of it which the Biblical Jesus (should such a person, like Santa or the tooth fairy, inexplicably show up) would be the first to remonstrate with you about.
Ok, so Christianity is the largest religion in the world. So if Islam overtakes it, that will make Islam true? Is Atheism (or 'Irreligion') becomes the largest, that will make it true? Of course not. You know better than that, Jeff. And the number of translations of the Bible only attests to the amount of money and proselytizing zeal the religion has, it doesn't do a darn thing to make it true. And the Dead sea scrolls were about Judaism, Jeff, -a religion you DON'T Follow. the Christian documents, on the other hand, are a tatty mess by comparison. Let em give you an example or two. Matthew 2.23 explaining how it was that Jesus, who ought to have been a native of Judean Bethlehem was actually a Galilean. Apart from finding a pretty neat OT quote to use as a prophecy, he turns the claim 'That's why he was called a Nazarene' into a prophecy "he shall be called a Nazarene". But where IS that prophecy? Nobody has been able to find it. Oh, say the apologists. It got Lost.
The apologists, Jeff, refute you and your claim of meticulous transcription of documents by appealing to bits of scripture getting lost to try to excuse Matthe's blunder. And the NT is even worse. Amongst the various excuses as to why Mark doesn't have a resurrection appearance to Mary, never mind Simon, or Cleophas for that matter, not a hint at a 40 day slide -lecture to the apostles as per Luke, is because "It got lost' (1).
Quote:
You have evidence, no proof. And what does the evidence prove anyways? Ever heard of cone head skulls? Some people want to believe that they are evidence of an alien race here. Others say that they are just the result of skull binding. If the latter is true then you still have a human being with an odd shaped head. You haven't created an entirely new species. You can't create something from nothing, only God can. Evolution can not create new information yet that's what you want me to believe.
Oh...Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...evidence is what makes the running. "Proof' is what we must often do without. A compelling evidence-based case is what we call 'proof', but the proof we might want but don't have - say an unimpeachable secular historian's account of the doings of this Jesus, is lacking. And what Proof do you have? Denial and delusion for the most part, so the debate seems to indicate. You don't even have decent evidence, and what you do have is gradually disappearing.
Quote:
The fact that atheists are just so completely sold on evolution and won't even entertain a completely different possibility in regards to the origin of life just shows me that they are close minded.
The fact that the evidence for evolution (which is NOT a basis for atheism, by the way) is compelling is the reason we are 'sold' on it. And, to use your own argument, that fundamentalists of your stripe won't even entertain a completely different possibility in regards to the origin of life just shows me that they are close minded. If you can't see that head -binding in antiquity has no more to do with evolution that the giraffe -neck women, you probably think that tattoos not being transferred to the offspring is a good refutation of evolution -theory. It is astounding that those who seek most to debunk evolution are those who do not understand it in the slightest.
Quote:
And what ground did you realistically think would be gained? Both sides are dug in like WWI trench warfare. I don't expect any atheists to ever admit that I can make a valid point just once. The vile attacks on my faith only serve to prove my perceptions and in return strengthen my faith. My only purpose for posting here is to defend against the lies posted about my faith.
I already mentioned a couple of good points that you made, which just shows how you have your fingers in the ears and eyes squeezed shut and keep bawling already refuted denialism (3) and the amount of etra efort that you put into that denial...well, I'm not sure, as some say that persuasive methods achieve more. I tried that but you won't give an inch. again. So just piling more pressure on what are eggshell -thin barriers, so far as making any points goes, is what I do. If your idea is to defend what is said about your faith (or rather the misrepresentations of atheism that you have to invent in order to have some easy strawmen to knock over - not that it does you much good, when the strawmen are shown up as such), so far, you have done a shockingly bad job of it, and if I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed for you.
As for me, I'm having great fun.
(1) I should mention a smart poster here (I wish I'd noted their names, but I didn't always realize what in retrospect would become a valuable point) who explained the worry I had with the 'lost ending' theory, because in either a scroll or a codex, wouldn't it be the beginning that would tend to get lost, wouldn't it, rather than the ending? But of course, it was simple, if shocking; there never was an ending, originally. And once you realize that each of the resurrections were invented individually, using some stories floating around, true (2) they you can see that the differences are so striking that being concocted individually is evidence - once you realize it.
Meticulous transmission of script, my foot Jeff.
(2) Such as showing the wounds and eating a bit of fish and the miraculous haul of fish, which being used separately contradict each other and even turn up in different places, John's haul being after the resurrection, and in Luke at the calling of the disciples. This isn't just shifting text about (as they often do) it is having a story going the rounds and having to decide where to put it. Just another bit of telling evidence (just like Matthew's 2 donkeys) that the gospels were not eyewitness.
(3) I still have a feeling about you, Jeff. Your resistance is absolute. You won't concede a point. but the bamboo bends, the branch breaks. If you break...and the Fundy denialists do break...you will be a great atheist And I have read quite a few conversion -stories about.. "All the time I was defending my Faith more and more vehemently, I was deconverting, and didn't realize it."
p. s. Strikes me as odd. the Persians had a governor of their Jewish Satrapy. Probably 2nd Babylon empire did, but not 7th century, I'd have thought. So a Jewish governor of a city supposed to be under a king? I'll have to find out more. You see, I want to dig to see what the significance of this find is. You just shout "Proof of the Bible!!" and don't look any further.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-02-2018 at 04:18 PM..
Reason: Mucho Editing
I don't believe in forced Christianity. Technically, you can claim anything you want. Just don't expect to have any level of credibility if you demonstrate an extreme bias with zero supporting evidence.
Are you sure about that? Because that's how a lot of your posts read.
The point is the vast majority do not believe like YOU. So stop pretending like it's proven fact that God does not exist. You don't get to claim my faith is a fairy tale without concrete PROOF to back it up.
So you call God sick for destroying evil in this world? Course, then you will blame God for not taking action. Atheists can't even make up their mind. Animals were created for a specific purpose. To provide us food, showcase God's creativity and beauty and in some cases, offer us companionship. But they have no souls so God does not value them like mankind. I'm sure you value a dog more than a spider which only shows that man's value of animals tends to be proportionate to the physical size of the creature. That's immoral in the atheist fantasy world. Anyone who exterminates bugs is a mass murderer.
And you can claim that you have the power to shoot lightning bolts from your fingertips. That doesn't make it so. Zero credibility without evidence for such claims. So no, he doesn't get to claim that and except anyone to accept the rhetoric as anything more than biased baseless toxic fumes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but you won't give an inch. 
And I have read quite a few conversion -stories about.. "All the time I was defending my Faith more and more vehemently, I was deconverting, and didn't realize it."