Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
Ask an Atheist [CLOSED] Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Submit

Will you ask a question?
Yes
59%
 59%  [ 16 ]
No
40%
 40%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 27


Eaten By Cheese

Eaten By Cheese's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:51 pm
Have you looked into other faiths/belief systems other than Christianity and Atheism?

Yep! I've looked into both Judiasm and Wicca. And I thought Buddhism was cool, but I never really considered converting to that Buddhism. smilies/icon_sweatdrop.gif

Niether of them really seemed to work for me. I didn't see anythig that distinguished one religion as better than the rest. It's funny how religion can be decided with simple factors like one's family and upbringing. After all, someone born into a Christian family is more likely to be Christian than someone from another religious upbringing, while someone from an atheist family is more likely to be atheist.

That kind of thing gets me wondering. If there was God, why wouldn't he giving us some solid proof of His existence? (Back to the basics. smilies/icon_xp.gif ) He'd be letting belief of His existence rely on upbringing, and, sometimes, chance. At least, that's what it seems like to me. Any other opinions?
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:43 pm
What gives an atheist clarification to deny the existance of a God?

Is there any proof as to how God couldn't exist outside of assumption without fact?

How could we have evolved into humans if it takes millions of years for mutations?

Aren't mutations dangerous anyways? And don't they usually only last for one generation?  

The Noble Protoman.exe

The Noble Protoman.exe's avatar


CATSUITS!

CATSUITS!'s avatar

1,100 Points
  • V-Day 2011 Event 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Member 100
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:09 pm
Of course, this is an unfaire generalization, and not meant to be taken so seriously, but why is it that nearly every Atheist I've encountered is so freaking angry?
I myself can think of reasons why, but I won't post them. Just want your opinion. smilies/icon_4laugh.gif smilies/icon_heart.gif  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:21 am
I have two questions.

1. If miracles do not exist, then how do you explain some of the amazing things that happen on earth?

2. There have been reports of people who have had out of body experiences, only to return back to their body and tell the doctors what they saw during their experience. Sometimes the doctors confirm that what they saw while 'out of body' actually was taking place in the room and hallways at the time. How, as an atheist, do you explain this? Do you believe in the spirit, but not God? Or do you have another explanation entirely?

Thanks.  

RatTurd

RatTurd's avatar


Eaten By Cheese

Eaten By Cheese's avatar

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:17 pm
What gives an atheist clarification to deny the existance of a God?
There is no proof that God exists. Similarly, there is no proof that God does not exist. A good question: So how do we know?

Say I told you there was a sparkly pink unicorn right behind you. Would you believe me? No. As you might say: there is no proof that sparkly pink unicorns exist. Buth then, I might say, is there any proof that they do not?

I, as an atheist, cannot say that God does not exist, only that the chances against it are much higher than those for it. Of course, that doesn't mean atheists are all blindly stubborn and would refuse to budge if reasonable evidence of God's existence should be presented. I, for one, should evidence that tipped the scales in God's favor be shown to me, would be willing to believe in this deity. But until this happens, God's non-existence is more unlikely than his existence.

Is there any proof as to how God couldn't exist outside of assumption without fact?

No. But there is no proof that he could. (See above.)

How could we have evolved into humans if it takes millions of years for mutations?

Simple: We had millions of years to mutate. Though the most basic forms of organisms that humans evolved from cannot necessarily be called 'human', over millions of years they became human.

Aren't mutations dangerous anyways? And don't they usually only last for one generation?

Some mutations can be dangerous. And mutations done on a large-scale effect ove a short period of time can be dangerous. But most natural mutations, made over time as humans adapted to changing surroundings, are not dangerous.
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:38 pm
CATSUITS! Wrote:
Of course, this is an unfaire generalization, and not meant to be taken so seriously, but why is it that nearly every Atheist I've encountered is so freaking angry?
I myself can think of reasons why, but I won't post them. Just want your opinion. smilies/icon_4laugh.gif smilies/icon_heart.gif

No, I'd love to hear your opinions! And as for your question...

Not all atheists are angry-as you said, it is a generalization. Religion is a touchy subject. It can bring out the best in people... or the worst.

I see it like this:

Imagine you are in a room filled with atheists who are conversing with Christians, discussing religion. All of them are talking calmly, respectfully and with open minds, except for one atheist. This atheist is screaming and being rude, making hasty generalizations and, to get to the point, tryin gto make themselves be heard. Don't you think this one person would stand out more than the many others who are talking rationally? Would you, leaving the room, be thinking about the calm atheists or the rude one? Angry people tend to stand out more than calm ones.

Furthermore, atheists who don't wish to fight about religion are less likely to join a debate, are they not? The atheists who seem angry are not only more likely to stand out, they're more likely to talk about the subject. All in all, it puts the apparent amount of angry atheists widely out of correct proportion.
 

Eaten By Cheese

Eaten By Cheese's avatar


Eaten By Cheese

Eaten By Cheese's avatar

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:56 pm
1. If miracles do not exist, then how do you explain some of the amazing things that happen on earth?
Miracles do exist. But who is to say they are a result of God? Miracles come in the form of great fortune, and triumph over odds that were previously thought unbeatable. This does not necessarily mean they were sent by God.

2. There have been reports of people who have had out of body experiences, only to return back to their body and tell the doctors what they saw during their experience. Sometimes the doctors confirm that what they saw while 'out of body' actually was taking place in the room and hallways at the time. How, as an atheist, do you explain this? Do you believe in the spirit, but not God? Or do you have another explanation entirely?
I believe that once you die, you die. These could be dreams, perhaps? But then, who am I to say this? No one truly can tell us what happens after you die permanantly, so the only thing to do is, quite simply, wait and see.
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:13 am
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. click to show. I don't ever want to be alone again...


I'm not going to say anything about the above answers, because it would take forever to type out the proof against everything you just said. Although if you have a question for a Christian that would be much easier than answering your answers.

So I'll just ask you a question that I'm very fond of for asking atheists:

Since there is NO consequence for not being an atheist when you die, what is the point of being one anyway other than to argue your point?

...Now that I have found a love that never ends. User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. click to show.
 

Medanite

Medanite's avatar


Eaten By Cheese

Eaten By Cheese's avatar

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:20 pm
Since there is NO consequence for not being an atheist when you die, what is the point of being one anyway other than to argue your point?

Being atheist isn't soemthing you CHOOSE to be. It's a belief. Could I simply ask you to stop believing in God, and in an instant, you would no longer believe in Him because you decided not to? No. It's the same way with atheists. Even if I wanted to believe in God, I would not be able to, no matter how hard I tried. Atheism is not something that you become just for the sake of arguing about it--it's what you BELIEVE and it's something you cannot change. There is not supposed to be a 'big point' to atheism. Atheists are what they are because that's what they see as right and correct. Atheism is not about living for some afterlife, but for living for today, and making the best of your life.
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:59 pm
Medanite Wrote:
Since there is NO consequence for not being an atheist when you die, what is the point of being one anyway other than to argue your point?

There are only zero consequences for being a theist if you assume, as in Pascal\'s Wager, that the choice is only between belief in God and disbelief. The problem with that assumption, though, is that it is invalid if you add another deity/mode of worship to the equation. For example, if the choice is a three-way one between atheism, worship of God as prescribed by the Bible, and worship of God as prescribed by the Koran, then atheism is still the least desirable choice (no chance of a positive outcome), but Islam and Christianity both have a 50% chance of a negative outcome, making them still very risky propositions.

There are numerous other objections to the Wager, but my point is this: its terms are very malleable (see the 'Rebuttals' section of my link), making it a less than convincing argument for belief in general, and a very unconvincing argument for any specific religion.  

Tarrou

Tarrou's avatar


Medanite

Medanite's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:29 am
Eaten By Cheese Wrote:
Since there is NO consequence for not being an atheist when you die, what is the point of being one anyway other than to argue your point?

Being atheist isn't soemthing you CHOOSE to be. It's a belief. Could I simply ask you to stop believing in God, and in an instant, you would no longer believe in Him because you decided not to? No. It's the same way with atheists. Even if I wanted to believe in God, I would not be able to, no matter how hard I tried. Atheism is not something that you become just for the sake of arguing about it--it's what you BELIEVE and it's something you cannot change. There is not supposed to be a 'big point' to atheism. Atheists are what they are because that's what they see as right and correct. Atheism is not about living for some afterlife, but for living for today, and making the best of your life.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. click to show. I don't ever want to be alone again...


Actually, It is a choice you make whenever you first go into your science class and listen to what they teach you and believe in it. One way or another you are persuaded to do it. If there was no outside source to give you this "information" the you wouldn't be an atheist, because you wouldn't know about a God to not believe in.

And Christianity isn't just about looking for the end. (Although I'm sure we all do) Its also about living for Jesus Day by Day.

@ Blue: That wager says nothing about Jesus, but anyway. I doubt that Viewing Christianity as a wager is the wrong way to go, but its gotten to where the point where most atheists will just scoff at you for talking about heaven and hell, it just doesn't seem logical to them, therefore the only way to really reach them is by using their logic.


Now, I will sort of explain the differences between Hinduism and Christianity & Islam and Christianity:


Hinduism - Christianity:

Comparing Hinduism and Christianity is difficult, in part, because Hinduism is a slippery religion for westerners to grasp. It represents limitless depths of profundity, a rich history, and an elaborate theology. There is perhaps no religion in the world that is more variegated or ornate. Comparing Hinduism and Christianity can easily overwhelm the novice of comparative religions. So, the proposed question should be considered carefully and humbly. The answer given here does not pretend to be comprehensive or assume even an "in-depth" understanding of Hinduism at any particular point. This answer merely compares a few points between the two religions in effort to show how Christianity is deserving of special consideration.

First, Christianity should be considered for its historical viability. Christianity has historically rooted characters and events within its schema which are identifiable through forensic sciences like archeology and textual criticism. Hinduism certainly has a history, but its theology, mythology, and history are so often blurred together that it becomes difficult to identify where one stops and the other begins. Mythology is openly admitted within Hinduism, which possesses elaborate myths used to explain the personalities and natures of the gods. Hinduism has a certain flexibility and adaptability through its historical ambiguity. But, where a religion is not historical, it is that much less testable. It may not be falsifiable at that point, but neither is it verifiable. It is the literal history of the Jewish and eventually Christian tradition that justifies the theology of Christianity. If Adam and Eve did not exist, if Israel did not have an exodus out of Egypt, if Jonah was just an allegory, or if Jesus did not walk the earth then the entire Christian religion can potentially crumble at those points. For Christianity, a fallacious history would mean a porous theology. Such historical rootedness could be a weakness of Christianity except that the historically testable parts of the Christian tradition are so often validated that the weakness becomes a strength.

Second, while both Christianity and Hinduism have key historical figures, only Jesus is shown to have risen bodily from the dead. Many people in history have been wise teachers or have started religious movements. Hinduism has its share of wise teachers and earthly leaders. But Jesus stands out. His spiritual teachings are confirmed with a test that only divine power could pass, death and bodily resurrection—a fact which he prophesied and fulfilled in Himself (Matthew 16:21; 20:18-19; Mark 8:31; 1 Luke 9:22; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians 15).

Moreover, the Christian doctrine of resurrection stands apart from the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation. These two ideas are not the same. And it is only the resurrection which can be deduced convincingly from historical and evidential study. The resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular has considerable justification through secular and religious scholarship alike. Its verification does nothing to verify the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation. Consider the following differences.

Resurrection involves one death, one life, one mortal body, and one new and immortally glorified body. Resurrection happens by divine intervention, is monotheistic, is a deliverance from sin, and ultimately occurs only in the end times. Reincarnation, on the contrary, involves multiple deaths, multiple lives, multiple moral bodies, and no immortal body. Furthermore, reincarnation happens by natural law, is usually pantheistic (God is all), operates on the basis of karma, and is always operative. Of course, listing the differences does not prove the truth of either account. However, if the resurrection is historically demonstrable, then distinguishing these two after-life options separates the justified account from the unjustified account. The resurrection of Christ and the larger Christian doctrine of resurrection are both deserving of consideration.

Third, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration. In several tests the Bible surpasses the Hindu Vedas, and all other books of antiquity for that matter. One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself, since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following.

1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of antiquity. 5,000 Ancient Greek Manuscripts, 24,000 in all w/ other languages. The multiplicity of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said.

2) The manuscripts of the New Testament are closer in age to its originals than are any other document of antiquity. All of the originals were written within the time of the contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century AD. And we currently have manuscript parts as old as 125 AD. Whole book copies surface by 200 AD. And the complete NT can be found dating back to 250 AD. Having all the books of the New Testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to devolve into myth and folklore. Plus their truth claims were held accountable by active persecution and by members of the Church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.

3) The New Testament Documents are more accurate than any other of antiquity. John R. Robinson in Honest To God reports that the New Testament documents are 99.9% accurate (most accurate of any complete antique book). Bruce Metzger, an expert in the Greek New Testament, suggests a more modest 99.5%.

Fourth, Christian monotheism has advantages over pantheism and polytheism. It would not be fair to characterize Hinduism as only pantheistic ("God is all") or only polytheistic (having many gods). Depending on the stream of Hinduism to which one ascribes one may be pantheistic, polytheistic, monistic ("all is one"), monotheistic, or a number of other options. However, two strong streams within Hinduism are polytheism and pantheism. Christian monotheism has marked advantages over both of these. Due to space considerations, these three worldviews are compared here in regards to only one point, ethics.

Polytheism and pantheism both have a questionable basis for their ethics. With polytheism, if there are many gods, then which god has the more ultimate standard of ethics for humans to keep? When there are multiple gods then their ethical systems either do not conflict, conflict, or do not exist. If they do not exist, then ethics are invented and baseless. The weakness of that position is self-evident. If the ethical systems do not conflict then on what principle do they align? Whatever that aligning principle is would be more ultimate than the gods. The gods are not ultimate since they answer to some other authority. Therefore there is a higher reality to which one should adhere. This fact makes polytheism seem shallow if not empty. On the third option, if the gods conflict in their standards of right and wrong, then to obey one God is to risk disobeying another incurring punishment. Ethics would be relative. Good for one god would not necessarily be "good" in an objective and universal sense. For example, sacrificing one's child to Kali would be commendable to one stream of Hinduism but reprehensible to many others. But surely, child sacrifice, as such, is objectionable regardless. Some things by all reason and appearance are right or wrong, regardless.

Pantheism does not fair much better than polytheism since it asserts that ultimately there is only one thing—one divine reality—thus disallowing any ultimate distinctions of "good" and "evil." If "good" and "evil" were really distinct then there would not be one single indivisible reality. Pantheism ultimately does not allow for moral distinctions of "good" and "evil." Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality. And even if such distinctions as "good" and "evil" could be made, the context of karma voids the moral context of that distinction. Karma is an impersonal principle much like a natural law such as gravity or inertia. When karma comes calling on some sinful soul, it is not a divine policing that brings judgment. Rather it is an impersonal reaction of nature. But morality requires personality, personality which karma cannot lend. For example, we do not blame a stick for being used in a beating. The stick is an object with no moral capacity or duty. Rather we blame the person who used the stick abusively. That person has a moral capacity and a moral duty. Likewise, if karma is merely impersonal nature then it is amoral ("without morality") and is not an adequate basis for ethics.

Christian monotheism however roots its ethics in the person of God. God's character is good and, therefore, what conforms to Him and His will, is good. What departs from God and His will, is evil. Therefore the one God serves as the absolute basis for ethics, allowing a personal basis for morality, and justifying objective knowledge about good and evil.

Fifth, the question remains "What do you do with your sin?" Christianity has the strongest answer to this problem. Hinduism, like Buddhism, has at least two ideas of sin. Sin is sometimes understood as ignorance. It is sinful if one does not see or understanding reality as Hinduism defines it. But, there remains an idea of moral error termed "sin." To do something deliberately evil, to break a spiritual or earthly law, or to desire wrong things, these would be sins. But, that morality definition of sin points to a kind of moral error that requires real atonement. From where can atonement rise? Can atonement come by adherence to karmic principles? Karma is impersonal and amoral. One could do good works to "even the balance" but one cannot ever dispose of sin. Karma does not even provide a context whereby moral error is even moral. Who have we offended if we sin in private, for example? Karma does not care one way or the other because karma is not a person. For example, suppose one man kills another man's son. He may offer money, property, or his own son to the offended party. But he cannot un-kill the young man. No amount of compensation can make up for that sin. Can atonement come by prayer or devotion to a Shiva or Vishnu? Even if those characters offer forgiveness it seems like sin would still be an unpaid debt. They would forgive sin as if it is excusable, no big deal, and then wave people on through the gates of bliss.

Christianity however treats sin as moral error against a single, ultimate, and personal God. Ever since Adam, humans have been sinful creatures. Sin is real. And it sets an infinite gap between man and bliss. Sin demands justice. Yet it cannot be "balanced out" with an equal or greater amount of good works. If someone has 10x's more good works than bad works, then that person still has evil on his or her conscience. What happens to these remaining bad works? Are they just forgiven as if they were not a big deal in the first place? Are they permitted into bliss? Are they mere illusions thus leaving no problem whatsoever? None of these options are suitable. Concerning illusion, sin is too real to us to be explained away as illusion. Concerning sinfulness, when we are honest with ourselves we all know we have sinned. Concerning forgiveness, to simply forgive sin at no cost treats sin like it is not of much consequence. We know that to be false. Concerning bliss, "bliss" is not much good if sin keeps getting smuggled in. It seems like the scales of karma leave us with sin on our hearts and a sneaky suspicion that we have violated some ultimately personal standard of right and wrong. And bliss either cannot tolerate us or it must cease being perfect so that we can come in.

With Christianity, however, all sin is punished though that punishment has already been satisfied in Christ's personal sacrifice on the cross. God become man, lived a perfect life, and died the death that we deserved. He was crucified on our behalf, a substitute for us, and a covering (or, atonement) for our sins. And he was resurrected proving that not even death could conquer Him. Furthermore, he promises the same resurrection unto eternal life for all who have faith in Him as their only Lord and Savior (Romans 3:10, 23; 6:23; 8:12; 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:21).

Finally, in Christianity we can know that we are saved. We do not have to rely on some fleeting experience, nor do we rely on our own good-works or fervent meditation, nor do we put our faith in a false God whom we are trying to "believe-into-existence." We have a living and true God, a historically anchored faith, an abiding and testable revelation of God (Scripture), a theologically satisfying basis for ethical living, and a guaranteed home in heaven with God.

So, what does this mean for you? Jesus is the ultimate reality! Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. God offers all of us forgiveness and salvation if we will simply receive His gift to us (John 1:12), believing Jesus to be the Savior who laid down His life for us – His friends. If you place your trust in Jesus as your only Savior, you will have absolute assurance of eternal bliss in Heaven. God will forgive your sins, cleanse your soul, renew your spirit, give you abundant life in this world, and eternal bliss in the next world. How can we reject such a precious gift? How can we turn our backs on God who loved us enough to sacrifice Himself for us?


Islam - Christianity:

True Christians are followers of Isa/Jesus. Since the Qur’an commended Isa, faithful Muslims should study Isa’s teachings and obey them (Surah 3:48-49; 5:46). What does the Qur’an say about Isa?

    * Allah sent Isa, supporting Him with the Holy Spirit (Surah 2:87)
    * Allah exalted Isa (Surah 2:253)
    * Isa was righteous and sinless (Surah 3:46; 6:85; 19:19)
    * Isa was raised from the dead (Surah 19:33-34)
    * Allah commanded Isa to establish a religion (Surah 42:13)
    * Isa ascended into heaven (Surah 4:157-158)


The Bible is Jesus’ Word
Isa’s teachings were recorded by His disciples in the Injeel (Gospel). Surah 5:111 states that the disciples were inspired by Allah to believe in Isa and His message. As Allah’s helpers (Surah 61:6, 14), Isa’s disciples would have accurately recorded His teaching.

The Qur’an instructs Muslims to uphold and obey both the Torah and the Gospels (Surah 5:44-4smilies/icon_cool.gif. Muhammad would not have given that instruction if the Gospels had been corrupted. Therefore, the copies of the Gospels in Muhammad’s time were trustworthy and accurate. There are copies of the Gospels that precede Muhammad’s time by 450 years. When comparing the most ancient copies, the copies from Muhammad’s time, and the copies dated after Muhammad’s time, all the copies of the Gospels are consistent in their testimony of Jesus and His teaching. No evidence can prove that the Gospels have been corrupted. Therefore, all of Jesus’ teachings are preserved accurately in the Bible.

Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection
Knowing the Gospels are true, what do they teach about Jesus? The Gospels record that Jesus foretold His life’s work: He said He would be crucified, killed, and raised from the dead (Matthew 20:19). The Gospels record this happening exactly as Jesus predicted (Matthew 27-28; Mark 15-16; Luke 23-24; John 19-21).

Why would the sinless Jesus allow Himself to be executed? He said that there is no greater love than to sacrifice your life for your friends (John 15:13). Why would God allow His prophet to be mistreated and killed? John 3:16 says that He loved us enough to send Jesus to be a sacrifice for us.

Jesus sacrificed for our sin
Why do we need Jesus to sacrifice His life for us? This is the key difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam teaches that Allah judges us based on whether our good deeds outweigh our bad deeds. Even if it were possible to outweigh bad deeds with good deeds, God is so holy that He will not allow anyone into heaven who has committed even a single sin (James 2:10). The holy God cannot allow anything short of perfection into heaven. We all belong apart from Him in hell.

God knew that we had all sinned and therefore could not enter heaven. God knew that the only way we could be forgiven was for our sin debt to be paid by a perfect One dying in our place. God knew that He alone could pay such an infinite price.

God’s plan to save us
Therefore, God sent His Son to be born of a virgin. Jesus is God’s Son – not that God had parental relations with Mary but in the sense of His relationship with God and deity (John 1:1, 14). Jesus Christ proved He was God’s Son by His sinless life, perfect message, death for sin, and resurrection from the dead.

What does Jesus Christ’s life and death mean for you? God offers salvation from sin to those who trust Jesus as their Savior from sin and Lord of life. Jesus declared, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father [God] except through me” (John 14:6).

Clearly, Jesus taught that He is the only way to God. Only by Jesus can we reach paradise. God will forgive our sins, help us live for Him, and give us eternal life. How can we reject such a precious gift? How can we turn our backs on God who loved us enough to sacrifice Himself for us?



That is the reason why I am Christian, I find it to be the one, and only truth.

...Now that I have found a love that never ends. User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. click to show.
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:52 am
I don't have a question as much as a comment to make. I went through a period of my life as an agnostic. I just had to have proof that God existed. You know what? He showed me he existed by laying his loving hands on my life. Christ has shown me so many times that he is with me and when my faith gets tested he makes his presence even more tangible. I can't say that I respect what you believe because I know that Christ is the living Son of God. I am not going to berate you or call you names or act nasty to you because Christ calls us to love everyone as much as we can, even those who don't believe. I feel a strong urge to pray that Christ will touch your life in such a way as to leave no doubt in your mind that he is the great lover of your soul. I am a firm believer that Christ is coming soon to rapture his church and then the Great Tribulation will begin. I am not saying this to try to scare you into coming to Christ because nothing we say on this page can do that. It is a personal chioce you will have to make. Just don't make the mistake that so many other athiests make in thinking that God is supposed to be love only. God is love! But God is also holy, holy, holy, and righteous. God loves justice and despises sin. God knew that man was seperated from him because of sin and that nothing we could do could reconcile that sin. That is why Christ came down, became human, and laid his life down for us.
It saddens me that you say that even if you wanted to believe that you would not. It says in scripture that in the last days God will harden the hearts of unbelievers to the point that they will know he is God but will be unable to change their minds. You may ask how is this fair and why would God do this if he is loving, but I ask you how many chances have you had to turn to him for forgiveness? I pray for your change of heart and ask Christ to intercede on your behalf.  

nightshade213126

nightshade213126's avatar


nightshade213126

nightshade213126's avatar

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:19 am
If Christ appeared before you and showed you his wounds would you believe then or would you just rationalize him away?  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:13 am
Eaten By Cheese Wrote:
Atheism is not about living for some afterlife, but for living for today, and making the best of your life.

I didn't realize that was part of the official credo, but maybe I missed a memo somewhere along the line. Still, that sounds more like Absurdism to me.

Medanite Wrote:
@ Blue: That wager says nothing about Jesus, but anyway. I doubt that Viewing Christianity as a wager is the wrong way to go, but its gotten to where the point where most atheists will just scoff at you for talking about heaven and hell, it just doesn't seem logical to them, therefore the only way to really reach them is by using their logic.

Not specifically, but the wager only works perfectly when you assume two choices: belief or unbelief. Once you start multiplying the number of mutually exclusive beliefs with a reward/punishment dynamic (Christianity and Islam being mutually exclusive, hence my inclusion of them in my example) and/or adding other beliefs without any eternally negative ramifications (i.e. Buddhism and many versions of Hinduism), the returns on any single belief become increasingly marginal.

And then there's the fact that the terms of the wager can be modified at will. I could posit a wager wherein God rewards people based on correct actions instead of correct beliefs, in which case belief and unbelief have the same returns. I could keep modifying it, but the point is this: the wager is entirely dependent on the terms you use, meaning that it has not real persuasive power, since I can come up with my own, more favorable terms to counter your.

nightshade213126 Wrote:
If Christ appeared before you and showed you his wounds would you believe then or would you just rationalize him away?

First, I'd take a heavy dose of anti-psychotics and then, if he kept showing up, I'd start saying the occasional prayer, just to be on the safe side.  

Tarrou

Tarrou's avatar

Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games