I will now prove atheists are illogical!

Again you are just making stuff up and laying out false accusations.

You blubber on about "making mistakes" yet have failed to point out even one mistake.

I have read the Bible numerous times and books related to the Bible and history in order to understand what the folks living at that time were thinking.

Just because I have a different belief system than you does not make me an athiest.

You were not able to support your claim that Jesus spoke out against "all sex other than marriage" so now you make up lies about me supporting the idea that Jesus was a myth and promiscuity.

If you can't defend your spoon fed beliefs then perhaps you should change those beliefs rather than demonizing others who actually can support what they say.

 

Indeed. I actually mentioned that. My point is that if we don't know, it makes more sense to say "we don't know," than to accept an untestable hypothesis.

Again, science is not appropriate for every question (although some of those actually can be addressed with reason) but that doesn't mean that we should arbitrarily substitute religion or faith.

Sure. I believe things based on a preponderance of the evidence, not necessarily "definitive proof," which is itself not a very scientific concept.

There's way more to it than this. Religious people are charitable as a matter of faith. Those of us without faith approach the question from the perspective of reason. As it happens, I think most charity IS counterproductive. It's not because I'm uncharitable (when I had a job I donated a bit of money to charities that I found worthwhile), it's because I feel that in general markets do a better job than charity at allocating resources. This belief is based on reason and evidence, and is a reasoned conclusion. It's not "definitive," or "conclusive," but it's not faith based either.

 

What makes you think that your Muslims are right and AQ Muslims are wrong? Arguments from the basis of authority are fallacious.

Write off what entire thing? I'm familiar with the doctrine of continuationism, but I operate on the basis of the evidence. If this happens, show me. I'm not asking for conclusive deductive proof, just a shred of inductive evidence.

Nope.

 

Morality is highly logical, in no way does it exist outside the realm of reason, logic, sense and sensibility; nor does it require faith or belief to realize or even test it's attributes.
The argument that faith is what provides one one with moral uprightness is a very transparent and weak argument, it is also an insult to every aspect of one's capacity within intellect.

 

To declare that we require external reward or punishment in order to understand conscience is ludicrous; it downgrades the mind and perhaps even the brilliant creation of intellect to nothing more than an infantile state of existence.

 

And therein lies the rub, very good at accusing others, terrible about acknowledging fault.

You think I am wrong? I think you are simply rationalizing ... you can think what you want, I can think what I want. I would hardly be the first to conclude that your expertise in Christianity is anything but.

The fact that you NOW claim to be a full believer in Jesus, after following me around for six months to lampoon me, that you NOW claim that promiscuity is wrong, after lampooning several posters who flatly disagreed with you is telling.

You are simply unable to pick and defend a position, and, exactly as I charged, you are never wrong, you simply never stated the things that you were wrong about.

Well, whatever floats you boat - in any event, its not a grand conspiracy against you, its a rebuttal on a debate forum. Go figure, eh?

 

But you are an atheist - you accept an untestable hypothesis that God is NOT real.

You are human, you accept many, many untestable hypothesi - from whom to love, how best to allocate your resources, whom to trust, how best to decorate, how best to respond to adversity, etc. None of these things are testable, yet all involve a component of rationalism.

God is no different. Evidence in and of itself is inconclusive. Yet the fact remains that there are miracles, answered prayers, etc. And there are far too many people who have had God answer prayers in profound manners to simple declare that there is no evidence and rubbish the issue.

Is it hard? Intellectually? Yes. But I don't know is at some point just a cop out position, a failure. Where that point lies exactly? Well brother, that too is not something that can definitively proven is it.

Ergo, tolerance and exploration of options, is the rule of the day. We all make our own choices about which is 'best', but I think the vast majority, without that definitive proof, is valid. Somehow, I think that is exactly the way God wants it

Science and faith often work hand in hand.

Then once again, tolerance is the rule of the day when reason is applied to religion. Many make very compelling cases, and it is reason itself that drives me to call Muslims my brothers and sisters of Abraham. We have far more in common than in disagreement, and often teh ways they view those things in common are different - but far from incorrect and have actually allowed my faith to grow - again, supporting my sneaking suspicion that this diverse religious prescence on Earth is exactly the way God wants it. IMO, he wants us to tease out the reality of him and teh only way to really to do that is to study, explore ... and debate.

Well, there you go, you prove my point. Charity cannot be proven, yet the simple axiom that I have found to be profoundly true is that the more we serve others the more we serve ourselves. Charity, BTW, does not allocate resources, its the acknowledgement that bad things happen all the time. When a spouse is abused by her husband, that is not the markets, but making a safe place available? Hot meals for her and her children? Firends and or law enforcement to intervene to rectify the situation? COunseling?

That is charity. ANd I dare say that at one point in all our lives we will all or have all been in desperate need of charity. And how fortuante we are when those things are there when we need them most. God is indeed wise.

 

I have always claimed that Jesus was a real person. You must be confusing me with someone else.

You were the one making claims that you could not defend

1) that there is a copy of Matthew in existence that dates before 60 AD
2) that Jesus said that "all sex outside of marriage is bad"

It is not my fault that you failed to defend these claims.

Sour Grapes

 

You continuously berrated me and others refusing to acknowlegde that there were ANY first century Christian records of any kind. You stipulated that Jesus might have been some dude at the time, but that the entire thing was just a construct because the earliest sources were from 300AD, meaning Jesus was a Myth. You showed a deep unfamiliarity with the early record, and no knowledge whatsoever of the Synoptic process, to make claims that are nothing short of ludicrious.

Furthermore, Jesus sais pretty clearly that so much as looking at a woman with lust in your heart was adultry - a sin. And now you twist logic onto its head, ignore the passages from the Old Testament, New, and even the Book of friggin' Mormon that further add this to state something about promiscuity that is clearly at odds with the doctrine, relying on a sudden mastery of Greek that does not actually exist, and sources that contrdict what you claim because you are too lazy to read them.

That is why I doubt you are a Christian.

Now, as you did then, you simply lie about it. And its impossible for you to acknowledge that you were wrong. So you go after the people who made you look foolish - just like an atheist.

Now that brothers and sisters is sour grapes.

Bear in mind, you asked, made another silly ass accusation, and now you have your answer. Its not a vast anti-atheist conspiracy, its accountability. Which you fear. Any further antics on the personal front will simply be referred to the mods for action.

 

Was jesus a virgin ,i say no he was homosexual ,he did exist the historic record is clear ,separate from the biblical text.

he was a revolutionary for his time as well ,and obviously illiterate.never wrote anything down ,then again 995 of the world population at that time was illiterate.no schools as such for the poor.

 

Was jesus a virgin ,i say no he was homosexual ,he did exist the historic record is clear ,separate from the biblical text.

he was a revolutionary for his time as well ,and obviously illiterate.never wrote anything down ,then again 99% of the world population at that time was illiterate.no schools as such for the poor.

 

I say you've never read the Bible.

 

in this backward backwater called australia in the 1970's,they used to force feed every school student religious or not .have i read the bible yes both books ,sorry testaments,i personally like the old stories as you get more murder,infanticide ,rape ,war,begetting on begetting that would put rabbits to shame ,Poor Job ,and its adult Aesops Fables mixed with greek drama ,moses wow ,what a dude,is it more then a good yarn and predating TV ,the form of cosistant entertainment as we used to collect around the fire in the primative days of civilisation .yep bloody good yarn ,bit male centric but those were the times.


i also read the classic greek equivalent ,Homer is my favorite Greek story teller ,but then story telling was at its height as information source BACK then .

Planet Earth to Religious nutters the morals and concepts in the Bible were a product of society 2000plus years ago ,they definitelyn do not belong within the modern political context anywhere near political power ,shot them if they attempt to impose religious morality any more .

christianity as social policy =zero tolerance circa 2012 AD.

Get your head out of the bible for a while humans have written many more books stretch your horizons ,something has moved on in the last 2 millenia.The Roman empire is over BTW!

The political critique of Rome ,can be put down now ,its ok the romans are finished ,MOVE ON.

 

So, I am guessing that we are about to get a display of this mastery by telling us what Jesus thought on a social level, and how that message was flawed then? Or simply not being followed now?

 

The big bang was not created, did not created anything, there is no creation part. Atheist has become a label to make a group of people raised without religion or believe like a religion. Via that term politics have caused division between believers and non believers (to create in-fight, divide and conquer)
Nature is dynamic because matter/atoms wear. Even the biggest things in nature die (friction, wear) The only thing we witness is a dying universe. The big bang was just a part of a process (there was a bang, or implosion, a giant black hole that collapsed)

 

Well, that is all speculative, and has absolutely no proof.

 

Try to imagine a world as just now in existence, no religion, no science, just newly found self-awareness. By this I mean the ability to imagine ourselves and our place in nature. Eventually someone asks, where did we come from and/or what happens when we die? Death is pretty final when we realize it's inevitability and most would like to think that we could "personify" or chose an answer that is at least pleasant that we in our infant stages of knowledge can accept. The first posit to this conundrum that includes the barest of logic and meets the above criterium is not only science but soon religion. What's the one thing everyone is afraid of? Change. Religion is science that did not change to face the facts. Every region, culture and community around the world asked the same question and got a different answer. Then they started combining answers (ie.-Judism+Stoicism=Christianity with a little of paganism thrown in to be more inclusive) in the aftermath of merging societies. All religions are a result of evolution of intellect plus the necessity of serving the political needs of that society. When you say we cannot prove atheism it is because of your own fear of challenging your society mores and the fear of change. To us atheists it is obvious because we embrace change.

 

Yeah, we Christians still wear brown robes and drive around on donkey carts .... atheists embrace change and others don't? Sorry brother, but that is not what atheism is ... at all.

Now take your situation one step further and ask a simple question:

WHY was all this created?

An honest exploration of that answer leads straight to God.

 

the Sun God?

lol, an honest answer would say I don't know.. but this is what I think or believe

 

If religious believers were honest, they woulden't pretend God exists.

 

Which is really not an answer at all is it? We can clearly see that we are created, that we exist ... but why? Well, that is the question.

Why do YOU exist? Not how, by why?

 

Honest enough to call statements like that just general drivel.

Its a debate forum, not a through insults at other posters forum.

Besides, as I keep telling you, I know God is real - its not make believe. I acknoweldge the that the evidence is inconclusive.

You however, make no real effort reagrding evidence, and yet have utter certainly? While questioning the honesty of others?

Well, perhaps the reverse is the truth (as it is in so many things), perhaps if atheists were honest with themselves they would stop deluding themselves into denial?

Do you ever stop to apply the silly standards you come up with to your own position first?

 

"I dont know" definitely is a proper answer. It might be a disappointing answer, but when you genuinely do not know, it's the ONLY honest answer. Does there even need to BE a reason why? Other than to make us feel better, I mean.

It's nice that you think you've explored the topic honestly and came to the conclusion that God did it. Some of us think we've honestly explored the topic and came to the conclusion that there isn't enough evidence at the moment to give any reason why everything exists. We can get a bit miffed when we're essentially told that we're being dishonest or stupid.

 

If God is real then you prove it.

Bring your God here. So we can all ask him questions.

 

Its also a cop out answer. If you've considered for all of 30 seconds? Well, clearly the exhaustive search is done.

You still have a purpose, this still has a purpose, and you still have to figure it out.

I don't know in this case, means, "My purpose is to sit here fat, dumb, and happy."

Do appreciate immediately assuming that when someone leads you in a direction you don't want to go, you are immediately being called stupid and dishonest.

We religious people talk about purpose, your answer is I don't know - so that drives you to atheism - which is certainty that everyone else has it wrong?