Thread: If Jesus was not Son Of God, then who was He?

There are many texts on who Jesus was and what He did-He perfromed many many miracles as they were seen back then and even though the Catholic church supressed many documents about His more human side, if He was not The Son Of God, who is He and why would He tell everyone He is. There is no doubt someone did perform such miracles back then-I mean we can create a child in a womb without the act of sexual reporduction today-in effect the female being impregnated can have a child whislt still being a Virgin, so as I keep saying if He was not Son Of God, then who was He? I personally beleive He was and Is and Is to come, but I was just wondering what non-beleivers think He was-there is one thing no-one can deny, if He did not exist the story had to come from somewhere.

For example when He fed the 5000 with a loaf of bread, who's to say He did not put a huge amount of energy in it, by say closing the space in an atom to be able to contain more energy in the space we see, so when one did eat a crumb, they could have ate a loaf? Do you see what I mean, if He was a time traveller He may possess the technology to do that. Also curing the blind, rising from the dead what we don't know now may be known in the future, we cannot at least deny that.

I mean what if God is the same? A time traveller who is super intelligent and can evade us with say some invisible device for all our known detectable devices we can use-someone who possesses technology far beyond ours, He could have placed man on Earth long ago knowing that His DNA, or RNA or whatever would eventually become what it is today-thus allowing evolution. He could have come back because in the future that was what He was supposed to do. Just a theory-religous people might condemn me for thinking this.

Thanks for reading.

If Jesus was not Son Of God, then who was He?

.......................Mary got up the duff but forgot to exchange names :wink: then invented the story of the immaculate conception to get out of trouble with the help of a mug called Joseph?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

There are many texts on who Jesus was ...

Yet outside of the bilical texts there is no independent corroboration that he even existed. He may not have been a historical figure.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

There is no doubt someone did perform such miracles back then-.

There is every doubt. The sole evidence we have are anecdotal tales set down many decades after the events alleged to have occured. .

Originally Posted by svwillmer

-I mean we can create a child in a womb without the act of sexual reporduction today-in effect the female being impregnated can have a child whislt still being a Virgin,.

This implies you believe the story of the Virgin birth. If so, don;t you find it a little odd that the same story is to be found in more than one mythology? does this not strongly suggest a human origin for the myth, rather than a human reportage of a real event?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

-but I was just wondering what non-beleivers think He was-there is one thing no-one can deny, if He did not exist the story had to come from somewhere..

It could well have come from previous, very similar myths.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

-for example when He fed the 5000 with a loaf of bread, who's to say He did not put a huge amount of energy in it, by say closing the space in an atom to be able to contain more energy in the space we see, so when one did eat a crumb, they could have ate a loaf? Do you see what I mean, if He was a time traveller He may possess the technology to do that. Also curing the blind, rising from the dead what we don't know now may be known in the future, we cannot at least deny that.

But there are so many simpler explanations that do not require invoking strange powers or time travel. Why would you choose a more complex answer over a simpler answer?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

There is no doubt someone did perform such miracles back then-I mean we can create a child in a womb without the act of sexual reporduction today-in effect the female being impregnated can have a child whislt still being a Virgin, so as I keep saying if He was not Son Of God, then who was He?

There's no doubt that "someone" performed such miracles? Are you kidding me? Your only references that such miracles were ever performed are a handfull of anceint texts that are strongly contradicted by all other available historical evidence, and that appear to have stolen heavily from the texts of other religions.

I personally beleive He was and Is and Is to come, but I was just wondering what non-beleivers think He was-there is one thing no-one can deny, if He did not exist the story had to come from somewhere.

There are many stories about people, things, and events that never actually existed or occurred - as I'm sure you are aware.

For example when He fed the 5000 with a loaf of bread, who's to say He did not put a huge amount of energy in it, by say closing the space in an atom to be able to contain more energy in the space we see, so when one did eat a crumb, they could have ate a loaf? Do you see what I mean, if He was a time traveller He may possess the technology to do that. Also curing the blind, rising from the dead what we don't know now may be known in the future, we cannot at least deny that.

Assuming that any of this actually happened in the first place. Most people who don't believe in christianity don't consider the bible to be any more accurate than the stories of The Odyssey, Gilgamesh, or any other bit of ancient text that tells fantastic, magical stories.

If Jesus was not Son Of God, then who was He?

Ooos I forgot to summarize that: he was a bastard.

The immaculate conception is a mistranslation by Matthew (see 1:23) from Isaiah 7:14, this is no hidden secret, it's actually IN THE BIBLE!!! So why people believe it or it has caught on is beyond me! Also while looking at the prophecy of Isaiah notice there is no mentioning of the son born of Mary being the son of God.

The whole story of Jesus being put to death makes no sense. The whole doctrine is based on original sin from the book of genesis which is now widely believed by the church to be just a symbolic story (as science so badly destroyed any case for it being true!) . However Jesus was ACTUALLY put to death to free us from the original sin in that book which is "just a story"! No sense whatsoever.

Does anyone else know of any scientific inconsistencies (like those in genesis) not from the book of genesis?

how about the part where jesus comes flying down from the skies on a white horse to fight on the fields of har-magedon?
(place of popular battles during those times)

Originally Posted by Robbie

The immaculate conception is a mistranslation by Matthew (see 1:23) from Isaiah 7:14, this is no hidden secret, it's actually IN THE BIBLE!!!

just to confirm : the original hebrew says 'born to a young woman'
in the translation into greek this became 'born to a virgin'

Yes there are many tests regarding jesus. So are there regarding Hercules and almost THOUSANDS of other hero's, gods, and sons-of-gods!

Why in gods name you pick Jesus in particular is beyond me.

So if God didn't rape Mary and plant his seed, then who was Jesus? I'd want to see a picture of the mailman.

Factual tip of the day: Jesus did not exist.

Second factual tip of the day-think something doesn't exist and you'll never prove it right or wrong. Be more open minded that's all one can ask of you-at least be that.

Will you being replying to my points and questions anytime soon svwillmer, or do you simply intend to leave your response as a hit and run post in another thread claiming I have demonstrated closed minded atheism? (A humourous contention given that I am an open minded agnostic).

"For example when He fed the 5000..."

Big deal. I drove by a sign this morning and Ronald Mcdonald fed 99 billion. Ronald could beat the Jesus dude in a food fight war with one clown arm tied behind his back.

Then again, maybe Ronald Mconald is a time traveller and is the reincarnated Jesus.

"This Big Mac is my body and this shake is my blood "

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Second factual tip of the day-think something doesn't exist and you'll never prove it right or wrong. Be more open minded that's all one can ask of you-at least be that.

Hilarity. That's like asking a physicist to believe in a baseless hypothesis for the sake of "open mindedness". Do you even listen to yourself?

Were you aware (or even searched), I have already had quite a few discussions on the authenticity of Jesus. Each of them came up with further evidence towards his non-existence.

Finally, that isn't a fact. It's your biased opinion in an attempt to give some credence to your faith-filled and inane belief in one of MANY "historical" deified "gods/etc" of that era.

Now if you are DONE insulting those who actually have done the research with your bigoted display of ignorance, you can answer ophiolite.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Second factual tip of the day-think something doesn't exist and you'll never prove it right or wrong. Be more open minded that's all one can ask of you-at least be that.

Being open-minded doesn’t mean that you uncritically believe anything. It simply means that you give everything fair consideration. An open-minded person can consider a claim and immediately reject it as unlikely or absurd; it doesn’t make him any less open-minded. In order to not be open minded, you would need to reject an idea without considering it.

Originally Posted by Robbie

The immaculate conception is a mistranslation by Matthew (see 1:23) from Isaiah 7:14, this is no hidden secret, it's actually IN THE BIBLE!!! So why people believe it or it has caught on is beyond me! Also while looking at the prophecy of Isaiah notice there is no mentioning of the son born of Mary being the son of God.

It’s true that people today who try to use Isaiah 7:14 as proof that Jesus’ birth was “prophesized” are getting the translation wrong. But that doesn’t mean that the virgin birth was originally included because of Isaiah 7:14. The idea of a divine hero being born from a union between a god and a virgin human is a very common one that’s found in many mythologies that pre-date the bible. Whoever included the bit about the virgin birth was almost certainly ripping off other religious mythologies of his time, but he probably wasn't thinking about Isaiah 7:14 at all. The Isaiah/virgin Mary connection didn't pop up until Isaiah was badly translated out of the original Greek, long after Matthew was probably written.

Nor do I believe there was such an historical character as Julius Caesar. The earliest existing document which mentions this fictional character is dated to 850 C.E. (Christian Era) some 850 years after he is perported to have existed.

This is ample time for word of mouth legends of several Roman men to have been combined and ultimately materialize into a bigger than life super hero character. Writers of 850 and thereafter penned their fictonal histories and accounts, many of which they falsely attributed to non-existent earlier historians or deceptively inserted into the writings of earlier actual historians.

Several writers in collusion added to and refined the stories leading to a fictional Julius Caesar autobiography issued in approximately 900 C.E. (Christian Era).

There was no such person as Julius Caesar and anyone who believes he actually existed (ha ha ha ha), is seriously deluded.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Second factual tip of the day-think something doesn't exist and you'll never prove it right or wrong. Be more open minded that's all one can ask of you-at least be that.

Being open-minded doesn’t mean that you uncritically believe anything. It simply means that you give everything fair consideration. An open-minded person can consider a claim and immediately reject it as unlikely or absurd; it doesn’t make him any less open-minded. In order to not be open minded, you would need to reject an idea without considering it.

What? You mean there are no Leprechauns or Trolls and the Easter Bunny is just a ......

Then again, must keep an open mind. :wink:

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Nor do I believe there was such an historical character as Julius Caesar. The earliest existing document which mentions this fictional character is dated to 850 C.E. (Christian Era) some 850 years after he is perported to have existed.

Must you repeat the same old illogical "counter-argument" that has already been discussed ad-nauseum? I'm quite certain I already dealt with your (still used) "rebuking" that you seem to whip out anytime someone pulls out the obvious problem with any "evidence" put forth regarding Jesus.

Well here's a news flash. You're outdated. Not only does Julius Caesar pass the obvious test of cross-referencing, but also has a WEALTH of physical evidence supporting documentation on his reign and his very existence (statues, etc). Not only does this particular character lack the mythological markings of the era, but do explain to me how he's a "super being" when other historic figures accomplished even more than he did? (Alexander the great, anyone?)

Oh, what's that sound? Oh yes, it's the sound of your horribly constructed falsity collapsing. Case closed.

Obviously I must have said that before. What does jesus have? A lot of inconclusive documentation that has no validity in science or cross-referencing history. I've read the evidence you have presented for your misguided belief in the older discussion, and as always it's incorrect.

Yeah, you sure showed those non-believers dayton. Perhaps just showed them that we shouldn't listen to you.

I suppose ophiolite you are right, my interpretations of you were wrong, as perhaps yours with mine, I really enjoy the humour though that we can get out of these forums, I mean we are like the three musketeers of religious debate here, me svwillmer the believer, you ophiolte the agnostic and of course Jeremyhfht the athesit (if he is). I don't think anyone can get a word in edge ways without our collective three strong minded opinions eh? :-D :wink:

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Nor do I believe there was such an historical character as Julius Caesar.

I can't believe you are still trying to use this argument. It only serves to make you look absurd. You can stick your fingers in your ears and shout "There's just as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Caesar!" as much as you want, but that doesn't make it true.

There is a huge, overwhelming body of historical evidence that Caesar existed, including
-His own personal writings
-The writings of respected historians of his time
-The writings of his close friends, family members, and generals
-The writings of his political rivals
-Numerous statues and coins that display his face

This is ample time for word of mouth legends of several Roman men to have been combined and ultimately materialize into a bigger than life super hero character. Writers of 850 and thereafter penned their fictonal histories and accounts, many of which they falsely attributed to non-existent earlier historians or deceptively inserted into the writings of earlier actual historians.

If any of those writers claimed that he has magic powers, you might have a point.

If you non-believers have the authority to revise history that you dislike, there is no reason that others should not have historical revision credentials, too.

You somehow seem to think that by denying the existence of God and also Jesus as a person, you do not have to deal with the question of whether Jesus is God's son and you can thereby avoid facing God's wrath.

As I pointed out on another thread, we Christians often placate you non-believers by playing your silly little intellectual games and forget that our purpose here is not to win intellectual arguments, but to do exactly what Jesus did -- warn others that they are facing a judgment which will decide where they spend eternity -- either with the holy and righteous God of the universe or in a Godless eternity of agony, torment and despair.

We are not here to tell you what a great life Christianity is. In fact, Jesus promises his followers troubles, persecutions and tribulations, not a wonderful life.

It is unfortunate that 20th century evangelism has turned to misrepresenting God as some kind of sugardaddy who is going to solve all your problems and make your life just hunky dory. That's not what happens.

Using the Bible's recommended behaviors can assist in employing productive behaviors and reducing counter-productive behaviors, but that is hardly the main point of the Bible. It is not God's purpose to see if He can manipulate humans for His own sadistic pleasure.

The Bible has a simple two-part message. 1. No one is able to live his or her life without violating some of God's standards which disqualifies that person for entry into God's eternal kingdom and subjects him or her to God's wrath. 2. The way to avoid this wrath is to trust that God provided an escape when He sent His son to live a perfect life and die the same physical death we experience and to be resurrected.

Most of you non-Christians who dilly-dally around here have heard enough to know that if the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the God of the universe, you know that you are in deep poo-poo. You understand that if this really is God, you face a most horrible fate. Do you think that by denying that he is God, you will escape his wrath? That is that very thing which subjects you to His wrath.

As I also said on that other thread, as Christians we believe that non-believers are condemned to eternal damnation and that it is our responsibility to remind you at any and every opportunity of that. We do not want to see anyone spend eternity in agony, torment and despair.

If I saw you buying stock in a company that I believed was going broke, you would really be upset at me if I did not tell you and you went broke, too.

I don't have to prove God exists or that Jesus was a real person. I can tell you that I believe you have invested in what will surely cause you far greater loss than any money you might have lost in a bad financial investment.

I have no idea how long eternity is, but I think it is immeasurably longer than the 70-100 years most of the people posting here will live.

Oh, the good ol "believe or burn in hell" argument. Truly He is a Loving God.

OK, neutrino, let us say someone comes into your house and rapes, and tortures and murders your wife or daughter, or mother. Surely you have at least one of those.

He goes to trial and is convicted and the judge then says to him, "Well, I am a loving and forgiving judge, so you can just go free."

What kind of a judge would you consider that? Is that the kind of judge you want sitting on a bench -- one who just ignores laws and lets everyone go free even though they are guilty?

You cannot expect God to ignore violations of His law any more than you would expect a judge to ignore violations of man's laws in court.

daytonturner - are you seriously comparing the rape and murder of my family to believing in a God that provides no evidence for his existence?
If the God you suggest exists truly does then he is vile beyond all description.
Look at the world and at how many people do NOT believe in the same God as you. A God with an ounce of goodness wouldn't create a world where the overwhelming majority of people don't, AND HAVE NO REASON TO, believe in him then turn around and condemn them to eternal hell for it.
Quick edit: I feel like I should more clearly point out why the comparison is so horrible. When it comes to the existence of God and/or the divinity of Christ there is no dead family, blood-soaked carpet, signs of forced entry, DNA samples, and smoking gun lying in the living room. In other words, evidence.

Use your brain dumbass for once in you meanial incomphrehensible life, God does things way beyond what we can percieve so for all we know all the bad things could be for the greater good! FFS I say this to all those who are narrow minded about God-if He exisits (which I beleive that He does). This forum for example could be God's way of teaching you to one day believe in Him, granted it is not a very nice way of doing it but you've got to wake up to the reality my friend, even if God doesn't exist, the Universe is going to be one mean SOB, so if either God is true or false, either path that you'll go down is full of pain and suffering---many people have admitted and beleive this to be true-that is why they beleive-to follow someone who asks them to do good and will be returned to that good-those who don't well who knows. You know so many people are narrow minded, and as I said-even if God isn't real-the universe is going to take billions of human lives, so why not believe someone is there to help you-even if you can't see Him-it's done to HELP YOU! AND EVERYBODY ELSE. Besides everyone according to God and Jesus (depending on how you interperet things) will be forgiven anyway and live happily ever after-isn't that a nice thing to look forward to? Even if it was written by some nut job in The Bibles of the world-at least the idea is nice to think of-even if we may see it as pointless bull ****. Everything is relative to the observor-just remember that and show a little courtesy for others beliefs. I know you will try and twist my words to cover your own incsecurities due to your own inadequate level of life-but trust me-I was the same, now I feel better-granted, I don't beleive the whole burn in hell idea, quite frankly some people mis-interperet The Bibles to come up with some justifable means to do as they please-like muslim terrorists. I live a life that is Good, beleive Jesus as my saviour-the saviour to us ALL, and have faith and deeds in The LORD. If we all did that, life would be similar but free of pain. Remember, The LORD is in us ALL-even YOU! I was lost but am found, once blind but now I see. :wink:

PS if i have offended you it was to instigate a reaction to see if you can stand it and take an analylitacal point of view over an angry retaliatory one. No offense intended friend! :wink: Debate is the essence of discovery! :-D

Originally Posted by daytonturner

OK, neutrino, let us say someone comes into your house and rapes, and tortures and murders your wife or daughter, or mother.

Are you trying to excuse away why God raped Mary and planted his seed? You support rape?

"Hey, I bet Mary liked it and, besides,nine months later she got that little Jesus brat out of it.

Christians are sick m...f....s . Christians even praise the dude who burns non-believers in Hell for eternity. The Christian sickos support George the moron Bush's torture so why not support the Big Dude's torture?

Shut up turkey---Kidding! Chill out!

I'm not normally that common but I thought that would be funny :-D :wink:

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Oh, the good ol "believe or burn in hell" argument. Truly He is a Loving God.

If the Jesus guy tries to grab you and throw you into eternal Hell fire just poke the bastard (literally according to Christians) in the eye then kick him in the balls.

By neutrino's thinking, if I told you it was raining outside and you went outside and got wet anyway, it would be my fault you got all wet.

God provides a way to escape "burning in hell." Those who choose to ignore both the warning and the remedy provided cannot blame God.

What neutrinon says is, basically, this: "I don't believe in God; I don't believe in hell; I don't believe there is a need for salvation through Jesus. But if I do end up in hell it is all God's fault." This is logical?

Neutrino says that very few people believe in the righteous God and then blames God for all the evil in the world.

Do not atheists understand the concept of cause and effect? Fewer people believe in God and evil increases. You cannot see the relationship? And you expect me to respect your intellect?

Allow me to respond for Neutrino, as I think this is more my area of expertise.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

By neutrino's thinking, if I told you it was raining outside and you went outside and got wet anyway, it would be my fault you got all wet.

That assumes God is as easily provable as rain. Oh wait.

God provides a way to escape "burning in hell." Those who choose to ignore both the warning and the remedy provided cannot blame God.

Actually, yes, yes we can. On logical grounds no less. If you're the only God that exists, and there are millions of other Gods on the planet (some of which have similar "damning" evidence as you do), whose fault is it that there aren't believers in you? Your own for not doing anything about it, or the humans for attempting to find truth in the world?

Yeah, you know, sending someone to hell simply because they thought they found a fact about something doesn't sound very just.

Similar morality issues like this spring up all over in the bible. Most believers (and I think including you) just shrug it off as "God knows best". This is more of a scary thing than a good thing, since you then view God as a dictator, rather than one who guides.

What neutrinon says is, basically, this: "I don't believe in God; I don't believe in hell; I don't believe there is a need for salvation through Jesus. But if I do end up in hell it is all God's fault." This is logical?

In your mind that's what you think he is saying. Since you obviously are not looking at it without bias, you're sugar coating it to make it seem all that more ridiculous (this happens quite often with a lot of people).

Neutrino says that very few people believe in the righteous God and then blames God for all the evil in the world.

In the bible it says God created all things, then it stands to reason God created evil. Although that isn't the only side of the debate, just the one I'm more comfortable with following the bibles logic. There are extensive debates, both in book form, and on the internet, so it's obviously not a closed issue.

To claim that you have the answer despite such heated debate makes you step far over the boundary of arrogance and straight into hell. Literally. God doesn't like arrogance.

Do not atheists understand the concept of cause and effect? Fewer people believe in God and evil increases. You cannot see the relationship? And you expect me to respect your intellect?

We can, and in cases like these apparently we can see better than theists such as yourself can. The majority of people in prison are theists, not atheists. As are those that commit crimes, etc. Your illogical argument just collapsed.

As for true evil, not just those punishable, those behind them are more often than not Christian (depending on the geological location). Religion does not stop evil, in fact if someone is evil and they do believe they will just interpret the scripture as they see fit.

Your absurd claim that it somehow stops evil even contradicts what is shown in the bible.
If the bible was some ultimate text that left nothing to interpretation and actually said what it meant, and everyone viewed it the exact same way, then you would have a point. Since that is not so, your point is mute.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It is not God's purpose to see if He can manipulate humans for His own sadistic pleasure.

Then why did god created us ? Lets just say that there is a god, at some point in the past god decided to create the human race. What was the purpose of that ? To judge us ? To offer us the reward of an eternal life if (and only if) we believe in him, worship him and do everything we are told to do. If we don't do all of the above we are sent to hell to spend an eternity in pain and blah blah blah. What sort of fucked-up psycho would do such a thing. If i set a similar test for a litter of dog's i would be locked up for a long time.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

As I also said on that other thread, as Christians we believe that non-believers are condemned to eternal damnation and that it is our responsibility to remind you at any and every opportunity of that. We do not want to see anyone spend eternity in agony, torment and despair.

I'm not sure which is worse, an eternity in agony, torment and despair or being reminded by religious folk that they believe that there is a god.

----------

Do you or any of the other religious people really believe that hell exists ?

jeremy claimed:

We can, and in cases like these apparently we can see better than theists such as yourself can. The majority of people in prison are theists, not atheists. As are those that commit crimes, etc. Your illogical argument just collapsed.

There is some reputable study showing these outlandish claims?

Even assuming this were true, does such a statistic take into account how many of them became theists after going to prison and realizing how living their life their own way led to defeat?

Jeremy's arguments are less reasonable than the neutrino he thinks he must defend.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

There is some reputable study showing these outlandish claims?

...Wait, you're serious aren't you? You literally thought Atheists were the unholy baby-killing slaughtering evil minions of destruction that cluttered up our prison systems?

What kind of opinionated brainwashed bastard are you? I, sir, take offense at your bigotry! YES there are studies showing the OBVIOUS! Your arrogant nature apparently makes you immune to the simple logic that the MAJORITY is likely to be the MAJORITY in prisons! and everywhere else for that matter.

one website showing them is here: http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

And in my attempt to find studies hosted on the original government websites (FAR easier said than done, since they like to remove "old" data), I found this:

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...ists_In_Prison

Also this: http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

Read it and weep?

Even assuming this were true, does such a statistic take into account how many of them became theists after going to prison and realizing how living their life their own way led to defeat?

I'm afraid not, since that doesn't happen. If you're claiming it does, then the burden of proof definitely rests upon you.

It is really difficult to argue statistics and I seldom put much stock in them whether they seem to support or undermine my own position. The old, “Lies, damn lies, and statistics” observation.

What I did notice was that the first two links site the very same 1992 study of federal prisoners in the U.S. while the third link is a study of religions by world population – hardly a reasonable comparison regardless of the reliability of the statistics. The real question is what portion of that prison population will spend enternity in hell and what portion will spend eternity in heaven?

There are a number of studies of the religious affiliations of the general population of he U.S. in the same time frame as the study of the prisoners. However, the religious designations within the studies make comparisons difficult other than to suggest that generally, the religious affiliations of prisoners pretty much mirror the religious affiliations of the general population. http://social.jrank.org/pages/925/Re...filiation.html is a link to a report of religious affiliation of the general public.

Jeremy’s implication was that the percentage of religious people in prison was highly disproportionate to the percentage of religious people.in the population. This is plainly not the case, prison populations closely resemble the general population in relation to religious affiliation.

But we still lack an important aspect of the statistics relating to in-prison conversions.

Jeremy challenges (in relation to prison conversions)

I'm afraid not, since that doesn't happen. If you're claiming it does, then the burden of proof definitely rests upon you.

Just read a Chuck Colson book or two about his prison ministry. Since you seem to be better at name calling than presenting honest and well thought out, thoroughly investigated arguments, maybe you should write to him and call him a liar or something. Your observation of “that doesn’t happen,” is inaccurate. You are quickly becoming the Rush Limbaugh of the atheist set – maybe you could get a radio show or something.

I have no idea where this prison issue came from. I have never claimed that Christians were anything other than normal human beings who are saved by the grace of God. I have never said that Christians are “better” people than non-Christians or that atheists are “worse” people. Jeremy is arguing points that have no bearing on the issue I have brought..

I have only said that Christian fear that non-Christians are going to rot in hell for eternity and we would rather that didn’t happen -- even to obnoxious people such as jeremy. Sorry if you resent the idea that we believe hell is not a good place to spend eternity and that we merely try to warn you of that danger and attempt to apprise you of the way to avoid such a dire fate.

The only thing that should upset you, ultimately, is that perhaps we Christians are correct. This is not a matter of who populates earthly prisons, but of who populates hell. You do have a choice.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

There are many texts on who Jesus was and what He did-He perfromed many many miracles as they were seen back then and even though the Catholic church supressed many documents about His more human side, if He was not The Son Of God, who is He and why would He tell everyone He is. There is no doubt someone did perform such miracles back then-I mean we can create a child in a womb without the act of sexual reporduction today-in effect the female being impregnated can have a child whislt still being a Virgin, so as I keep saying if He was not Son Of God, then who was He? I personally beleive He was and Is and Is to come, but I was just wondering what non-beleivers think He was-there is one thing no-one can deny, if He did not exist the story had to come from somewhere.

Dont associate such lower animal's characters with the God.
If jesus is a son of the God Then Jesus should also be a god. Which is not possible. He himself is a human.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

I mean what if God is the same? A time traveller who is super intelligent and can evade us with say some invisible device for all our known detectable devices we can use-someone who possesses technology far beyond ours, He could have placed man on Earth long ago knowing that His DNA, or RNA or whatever would eventually become what it is today-thus allowing evolution. He could have come back because in the future that was what He was supposed to do. Just a theory-religous people might condemn me for thinking this.

You have misunderstood the concept of God. God is independent of all the dimensions of human. He is independent of time. He is the begening He is the end.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It is really difficult to argue statistics and I seldom put much stock in them whether they seem to support or undermine my own position. The old, “Lies, damn lies, and statistics” observation.

How convenient for you. However I did provide you with the obvious (at least to me) logical argument. The largest demographic will also be the largest in prisons. Statistics of prison population religion prove one very important fact in particular: Religion doesn't affect who goes to prison.

If atheists were the majority demographic, you can bet your sweet ass we would have more people in prison. The preset beliefs of a person don't really change who their environment (and possibly genetics) makes them.

What I did notice was that the first two links site the very same 1992 study of federal prisoners in the U.S. while the third link is a study of religions by world population – hardly a reasonable comparison regardless of the reliability of the statistics. The real question is what portion of that prison population will spend enternity in hell and what portion will spend eternity in heaven?

I gave multiple links so you would be capable of comparing the statistic percentages of the two same studies since they both provided slightly different interpretations. Also to provide a small comparison between the two so you'd get some further evidence that they were quoted appropriately.

On another note, you seem to be getting a few of your facts screwed up. The federal study was from 1997. It was the last study done since then (so I've found at least).

Also, all three links give the same study. I did that for this reason: It's the best I could do, since the original study appears to have since been removed from the original website (if it was ever there).

Jeremy’s implication was that the percentage of religious people in prison was highly disproportionate to the percentage of religious people.in the population. This is plainly not the case, prison populations closely resemble the general population in relation to religious affiliation.

What. The. FUCK? If you would care to reread my frothing, I stated the following:

Your arrogant nature apparently makes you immune to the simple logic that the MAJORITY is likely to be the MAJORITY in prisons!

Naturally at the time I was not amused. It basically is a less...expressed version of my statement above. The majority is the majority everywhere else. Including prisons.

Just read a Chuck Colson book or two about his prison ministry. Since you seem to be better at name calling than presenting honest and well thought out, thoroughly investigated arguments, maybe you should write to him and call him a liar or something. Your observation of “that doesn’t happen,” is inaccurate. You are quickly becoming the Rush Limbaugh of the atheist set – maybe you could get a radio show or something.

Hilarity. I was referring to your "interpretation" and statement that there is some mysterious mass conversion in prisons. Such an event never happens. I don't argue that since the prison populace tends to be...uninformed, that conversions don't take place.

Further evidence to my argument stems from the fact that the atheist demographic in prison equals the overall populace. If so many atheists converted, it seems to be implausible that the result would equal their demographic. Don't you think?

I have never said that Christians are “better” people than non-Christians or that atheists are “worse” people.

Really. I brought this topic up to prove a point. You stated the following:

Do not atheists understand the concept of cause and effect? Fewer people believe in God and evil increases. You cannot see the relationship? And you expect me to respect your intellect?

Well looky here. "fewer people believe in God and evil increases". Yeah, that's totally not saying we're worse. I provided the statement and resulting discussion because it was you that said it becomes worse when fewer people believe in God.

Your following megaparagraphs are a lot of preaching. Sure sounds like you're arguing a point doesn't it? Oh wait.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

What neutrino says is, basically, this: "I don't believe in God; I don't believe in hell; I don't believe there is a need for salvation through Jesus. But if I do end up in hell it is all God's fault." This is logical?

This is so logical you could sitck a toga on it and call it Aristotle.

If God exists he has created us with the capcity to reason; the capacity to question; the capacity to use logic. With these attributes we are able to account, in a natural fashion, for most of what we observe in the world.

We see no convincing or conclusive evidence for the existence of gods in general, and certainly not for the Christian God in particular. Therefore, if God wishes us to believe in her, she really should either have a) created us with less capcity for reason and a greater capacity for blind faith, or b) built more solid evidence for her existence into the Universe.

So, given that God stacked the ground rules against us, if we wind up burning in hell I certainly shall blame her.

Wake up Basim, if you REALLY knew God, you'd know He was not the beggining nor the end; He is eternal and always been-Holy Holy Holy is The LORD God Almighty who was, and is, and is to come.

Besides God has to come from somewhere, I am very religious and have faith and deeds in Him, my opinions are not my own, rather I am blessed with His knowledge for being pure-being pure allows me to be 'tuned in' with Him to recieve His messages, granted He doesn'nt tell me them to my face, they may be less subtle like an event in my life causes me to change my opinions. When you do things right people won't be sure you've done anything at all. All of you are kinda narrow minded-why? You're not pure, so you can't learn from Him well. Thats an observation. God made you who you are, be meek about that.


PS. Hey Ophiolite, I notice you give God a capital 'G'-as If refering to a proper noun. Teehee. But maybe God gives us logic and science and whatever to really see if we deny Him or accept Him as giving us those. That is His test? But for what? Like a child is given responibilty to perform a task, knowing they can gain themeselves out of it- I don't know say, given money to buy some milk from the shop; they have the option to spend some more of that money if they buy cheap-to buy say sweets or something-when all along the money was given the child with the knowledge that they may do either by the parent-a lesson to that child to see if they would or not obey or indirectly disobey the parent, maybe God does the same? One more question, would you beleive in God if He came down infront of you and showed your miracles and all that stuff? Then would you beleive God exists?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

There are many texts on who Jesus was and what He did-He perfromed many many miracles as they were seen back then and even though the Catholic church supressed many documents about His more human side, if He was not The Son Of God, who is He and why would He tell everyone He is. There is no doubt someone did perform such miracles back then-I mean we can create a child in a womb without the act of sexual reporduction today-in effect the female being impregnated can have a child whislt still being a Virgin, so as I keep saying if He was not Son Of God, then who was He? I personally beleive He was and Is and Is to come, but I was just wondering what non-beleivers think He was-there is one thing no-one can deny, if He did not exist the story had to come from somewhere.

For example when He fed the 5000 with a loaf of bread, who's to say He did not put a huge amount of energy in it, by say closing the space in an atom to be able to contain more energy in the space we see, so when one did eat a crumb, they could have ate a loaf? Do you see what I mean, if He was a time traveller He may possess the technology to do that. Also curing the blind, rising from the dead what we don't know now may be known in the future, we cannot at least deny that.

I mean what if God is the same? A time traveller who is super intelligent and can evade us with say some invisible device for all our known detectable devices we can use-someone who possesses technology far beyond ours, He could have placed man on Earth long ago knowing that His DNA, or RNA or whatever would eventually become what it is today-thus allowing evolution. He could have come back because in the future that was what He was supposed to do. Just a theory-religous people might condemn me for thinking this.

Thanks for reading.

You say Jesus is not the son of God?

Then who is he?

He is a figment of our imagination. That is what faith is. You imagine someone. You imagine someone in a time when you are in deep (____)?

Pity that this world of ours is run by people with imagination.

Other faiths condone the idea that a deity can be (blank)?

For a free pass out of the land of OZ, answer those questions.

[quote="svwillmer"] All of you are kinda narrow minded-why? ?/quote]On the contrary. The atheists and the theists amongst you are narrow minded since you have reached a conclusion on both the possibility and the actuality of knowing whether or not God exists. I remain open to all four of those possibilities. [He exists and we can know this; he exists and we cannot know this; he does not exist and we can know this; he does not exist and we cannot know this.]

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Like a child is given responibilty to perform a task, knowing they can gain themeselves out of it- I don't know say, given money to buy some milk from the shop; they have the option to spend some more of that money if they buy cheap-to buy say sweets or something-when all along the money was given the child with the knowledge that they may do either by the parent-a lesson to that child to see if they would or not obey or indirectly disobey the parent, maybe God does the same?

May he does, maybe he does not, but there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case. The possibility is no more founded than the tooth fairy.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

One more question, would you beleive in God if He came down infront of you and showed your miracles and all that stuff? Then would you beleive God exists?

Not necessarily. I would wish to explore the possibilities that I was hallucinating; that I was the victim of a complex hoax; that I was being deceived by aliens. If there is a God then I suspect she expects me to be sceptical.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

By neutrino's thinking, if I told you it was raining outside and you went outside and got wet anyway, it would be my fault you got all wet.

Only if you told me that it wasn't raining outside, painted my windows so it looked like it wasn't raining, and soundproofed my roof so it didn't sound like it was raining. You know, do what God did - make it LOOK LIKE it's clear outside to anyone who uses eyes, ears, and reason (all things that GOD gave you) but then send you to hell if you DARE get wet.
Damn straight it's God's fault if people go to hell.

God provides a way to escape "burning in hell." Those who choose to ignore both the warning and the remedy provided cannot blame God.

I don't recall getting a warning, when did I miss that email? At least not any warning that I can distinguish from the other hundreds of religious warnings out there. They can't all be right and yours doesn't seem to be special so how exactly am I supposed to believe YOU when YOU say "Yeah but mine IS the right one!". You're not special and neither is your warning.

What neutrinon says is, basically, this: "I don't believe in God; I don't believe in hell; I don't believe there is a need for salvation through Jesus. But if I do end up in hell it is all God's fault." This is logical?

Kinda, yeah, for reasons already explained. You can't expect someone to believe in something without giving them a reason to.

Do not atheists understand the concept of cause and effect? Fewer people believe in God and evil increases. You cannot see the relationship? And you expect me to respect your intellect?

LOL - please show me how atheism and evil can be linked. You talk like it's a given that atheists are somehow more evil but that's gonna require some support.

If jesus was not the son of God, maybe people failed to read the end of that story book where the son became the father and the father became the son.

In getting there and still not being amused by the whole thing of jesus being God, PEOPLE being God (in Jesus giving himself to people) in not being amused by that, in still holding out hope for another God:::::::WOW.

Wow.

HiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIII HaaaaaAAAAAA Haaaaaa Haaaa Haa.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It is not God's purpose to see if He can manipulate humans for His own sadistic pleasure.

Then why did god created us ? Lets just say that there is a god, at some point in the past god decided to create the human race. What was the purpose of that ? To judge us ? To offer us the reward of an eternal life if (and only if) we believe in him, worship him and do everything we are told to do. If we don't do all of the above we are sent to hell to spend an eternity in pain and blah blah blah. What sort of fucked-up psycho would do such a thing. If i set a similar test for a litter of dog's i would be locked up for a long time.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

As I also said on that other thread, as Christians we believe that non-believers are condemned to eternal damnation and that it is our responsibility to remind you at any and every opportunity of that. We do not want to see anyone spend eternity in agony, torment and despair.

I'm not sure which is worse, an eternity in agony, torment and despair or being reminded by religious folk that they believe that there is a god.

----------

Do you or any of the other religious people really believe that hell exists ?

I agree that any Jesus is a sick bastard. Him and Big Daddy creating man for their sadistic amusement. What's with their ego problem demanding constant worship? Why this need for constant attention? What type of being secure in their skin needs christian freaks groveling at their feet?

Please. Send me to Hell. I'd much rather spend eternity in Hell in the company of Darwin, Marx, Carl Sagan and similar folk than in Heaven with the likes of Gerry Falwell, Billy Graham and , YAWN, Mother Theresa. The topic, YAWN, every evening around the Heaven supper table for eternity:


Jesus "Who do you love?"
"We love you, Jesus"

Jesus "I can't hear you!"
"We love you Jesus"

Jesus "Louder"
"We love you, Jesus"

Jesus is one sick egomaniacal bastard

this might be an old question, but all the people that lived before christianity and all the people that never even knew of it (like the san, pigmys, etc), are all going to hell according to your religion? surely a god that is supposed to know all must know the exact reasons someone turned out an atheist or agnostic or rapist/murderer/etc. ? and given the fact that that person turned out the way he did, means all that shaped his psyche effectively MADE him what he his and should not be held accountable (to god). i think jesus might well have existed, but as a normal man, who's deeds were grossly inflated by "historians". the thing about recorded history is that is was written by humans and as such is prone to subjectivity and poetic license.

PS: Ophiolite refering to God as a her is funny and at the same same time indicative of his position, which i share.

Originally Posted by Jellyologist

Jesus is one sick egomaniacal bastard

Mind you, if you had created the entire Universe, all its laws, matter, energy, and emergent properties, you would probably be a bit egotistical.

Yes.

Yeeeeeeeees.

But you forget that everyone thinks Jesus decieved them.

Who do you think they will be running to?

To the "deceiver".

There's no escape, my precious.

HiiiiiiiIIIIIII Hiiii HiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiii

HaaaaAAAAAAAA Ahhhhhhhhh Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Jellyologist

Jesus is one sick egomaniacal bastard

Mind you, if you had created the entire Universe, all its laws, matter, energy, and emergent properties, you would probably be a bit egotistical.

...wow. So Megabrain might be God?

Did you believe in Megabrain?

Did he decieve you?

Did you find that the alternative was someone called Megbrain by virtue of a code that specifies the deceiver is the one we land in when we feel the God we trusted deceived us?

(Dorrrrrrothyyyyyy).

you know satanism is just as deluded as other religions

Ophiolite speaks for many:

We see no convincing or conclusive evidence for the existence of gods in general, and certainly not for the Christian God in particular. Therefore, if God wishes us to believe in her, she really should either have a) created us with less capcity for reason and a greater capacity for blind faith, or b) built more solid evidence for her existence into the Universe.

So, given that God stacked the ground rules against us, if we wind up burning in hell I certainly shall blame her.

This seems to be a common complaint among non-believers – that they see no evidence.

I happen to have monocular vision and those picture-within-picture thingys are invisible to me. I see only what is on the surface. Since I cannot see the picture within the picture I must either deny that they exist or accept the testimony of others. My question is if the maker of those things really wants me to see the picture inside the picture, why doesn’t he just lay it out there where I can see it instead of hiding it among all that other crap.

If only a few persons said they could see the picture in the picture but a large majority said they could not see the picture, I would be suspicious as to whether there was a picture within the picture. Just because I personally do not see the picture does not prove or disprove it’s existence.

My point is that God has provided considerable evidence of his presence in the universe. It is ample enough evidence that huge portions of the population see it and testify to their awareness of that presence.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at a simple mousetrap and realize it did not come into existence by accident, but they can look at the immeasurably more complex universe and conclude it just came into existence by random accident.

Neutrino laments:

You can't expect someone to believe in something without giving them a reason to.

Well, if God really is the God of the universe and is responsible for creating you, I should think you might at least be grateful to Him for your existence. On the other hand, if you believe you are a freak of natural selection and an accidental blip of protoplasm in a cosmos of random accidents with no real reason for being, you probably really don’t have a reason to believe in God.

If you are not concerned about where or in what state you well spend eternity, you have no reason to believe in God.

The basic thought remains -- those of you here of the atheistic and agnostic persuasion are intelligent enough and know enough to realize that if God really exists and He is the God described in the Bible as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you are in deep trouble with Him.

If He really is the God of the universe, your disbelief is inexcusable before Him and subjects you to grave and dire consequences which endure for eternity, forever, even beyond the end of time.

KALSTER asks what about people who died in past times. Well, I only understand the provisions for today. I do not quite know what provision God had for those people. I do know that Abraham and David lived before Jesus' atoning death and I expect to see them in heaven based on the claim that “Abraham believed and it was accounted to him as righteousness.” I am confident that God also made some provision for others.

Secondly, I can issue no warning to those who have already died. I can only witness and testify to those who are living. Even if all those people went to hell (which I would not really believe happened), it would not be a rational justification for people of today needlessly to go there when there is a way to avoid it. There is nothing that can be done today for those who have already died; their place in eternity has already been determined and finalized. It is only that brief moment on the cosmic clock while we are alive that we can influence our final destination.

That's a "philosophy patent waiting to happen": good on you.

(as you can tell, "I am barren": I am the parent of no child, a child of all parents)

could you please offer a response to these questions, if possible?

to quote myself:

surely a god that is supposed to know all must know the exact reasons someone turned out an atheist or agnostic or rapist/murderer/etc. ? and given the fact that that person turned out the way he did, means all that shaped his psyche effectively MADE him what he his and should not be held accountable (to god). i think jesus might well have existed, but as a normal man, who's deeds were grossly inflated by "historians".

Originally Posted by dayton

Originally Posted by Neutrino

You can't expect someone to believe in something without giving them a reason to.

Well, if God really is the God of the universe and is responsible for creating you, I should think you might at least be grateful to Him for your existence. On the other hand, if you believe you are a freak of natural selection and an accidental blip of protoplasm in a cosmos of random accidents with no real reason for being, you probably really don’t have a reason to believe in God.

I see. So if God really does exist then we should believe he exists. How obvious...
Unfortunately you can't begin by assuming that which is in question.

I request you read this one and reply appropriately. I'm conducting this in a more even tempered manner. Perhaps we can both learn a little this time?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

My point is that God has provided considerable evidence of his presence in the universe. It is ample enough evidence that huge portions of the population see it and testify to their awareness of that presence.

A huge portion of the population are uneducated masses. Normally more educated people have views less based upon religious texts and more based upon their own philosophies. Theistic or not. At least as far as my own observations have gone in those areas, I know of no studies that put it in statistics.

There is no real evidence for a Gods existence. All that really remains is philosophical arguments that war within ones mind day and night. Existential questions that can lead one to commit suicide. By the same coin (and philosophy) there is no hard-set evidence against a God (depending on your definition).

Yet looking at the religions provided today, there is tons of massing evidence for proving them all incorrect. Not only are most of the characters fiction (Jesus, Hercules, etc), but a lot of events depicted show massive amounts of dogmatic taint (if they happened at all). Which is common in most eras, since most history was originally spread through word of mouth before being written down.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at a simple mousetrap and realize it did not come into existence by accident, but they can look at the immeasurably more complex universe and conclude it just came into existence by random accident.

In never ceases to amaze me how many theists make that same illogical statement. Bear with me here, Dayton. A mouse trap is a transcribed piece of equipment. It requires a creator because no natural process can create it.

Therefore, in order to prove your assumption you must prove the universe cannot come from natural process. More and more, scientists are continually mounting damning evidence (and facts) that the universe can work purely on a conditional basis. This is by no means "Accidents", but cause and effect!

Surely you know of that, since you stated it earlier.

On the other hand, if you believe you are a freak of natural selection and an accidental blip of protoplasm in a cosmos of random accidents with no real reason for being, you probably really don’t have a reason to believe in God.

Further reason why you MUST educate yourself as to how the actual process works. There is definitely ample amounts of randomness to it, but quantum physics gives direct evidence to how it's perfectly predictable. If you had all the variables perfectly collected, of course.

If He really is the God of the universe, your disbelief is inexcusable before Him and subjects you to grave and dire consequences which endure for eternity, forever, even beyond the end of time.

I must interject and ask during your preaching tangents...why? You say God has made the evidence of himself perfectly clear, yet the most educated of all people are either skeptical, devise their own philosophy, or become entirely atheistic (I do concede their are conservative religious types amongst them, but they appear rare in my experience).

If this evidence is so clear, why do the most intelligent arrive at a loss for evidence? Why is it the least intelligent (by almost all standards) seem to believe without question instead?

If God is indeed so evil as to damn his own creation simply for doubting his existence due to lack of evidence, then he is no God I would want. Not everyone is capable of seeing the same thing the same way, nor learning about the evidence, nor anything else we take for granted (Africa and South America hate you).

To have the audacity to state God damns them because they're ignorant of this all-encompassing evidence you claim exists...is barbaric. To damn an intellectual for being skeptical and attempting to find answers...that too is Barbaric.

If you have any possible rationality for the reason you keep preaching about hellfire, do let me know.

"If you have any possible rationality for the reason you keep preaching about hellfire, do let me know."

Maybe there's some bonus plan for the Jesus freaks if they convert a heathen...a King-sized bed or free movie channel or a set of kitchen knives in their Heaven apartment. Perhaps when Jesus talks to his ass-kissers he sounds like one of those TV ad voices ...."If you act now and save a heathen I'll throw in a special bonus offer of...."

Jellyologist asks:

"If you have any possible rationality for the reason you keep preaching about hellfire, do let me know."

Well, the main reason is because you do not seem to be aware of or concerned about the idea that this is your eternal future. Nor do you seem to understand that you do not escape it by dissing the idea or ignoring it.

Jellyologist suggests:

Maybe there's some bonus plan for the Jesus freaks if they convert a heathen...a King-sized bed or free movie channel or a set of kitchen knives in their Heaven apartment. Perhaps when Jesus talks to his ass-kissers he sounds like one

Actually, you are the only one who would gain by receiving salvation. It is not a feather in my cap since my only function is to tell you what I believe to be the situation and I have done that.

And jeremy: sorry but I do not read your posts. Nobody calls me a bigoted bastard and retains either my respect or attention. I have placed you on ignore -- again.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Jellyologist asks:

"If you have any possible rationality for the reason you keep preaching about hellfire, do let me know."

Well, the main reason is because you do not seem to be aware of or concerned about the idea that this is your eternal future. Nor do you seem to understand that you do not escape it by dissing the idea or ignoring it.

you are more than guilty of the same, with one difference, your asking a rational man to think and act irrationally. he's asking the for you to try think (and I know it's hard) rationally. If you walked up behind him and hit him on the head with a mallet he may then and only then come round to your way of thinking.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Jellyologist suggests:

Maybe there's some bonus plan for the Jesus freaks if they convert a heathen...a King-sized bed or free movie channel or a set of kitchen knives in their Heaven apartment. Perhaps when Jesus talks to his ass-kissers he sounds like one

Actually, you are the only one who would gain by receiving salvation. It is not a feather in my cap since my only function is to tell you what I believe to be the situation and I have done that.

how the f**k will he gain, he has to first give up all rationale, and all his free thought and free will, and succumb, to your imaginary god concept. he actually loses much more than he could ever possibly gain.
do talk sense.
you want this man to go from a moral high ground to an inferior immoral base, why?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Well, the main reason is because you do not seem to be aware of or concerned about the idea that this is your eternal future. Nor do you seem to understand that you do not escape it by dissing the idea or ignoring it.

This is another argument that has always bothered me. You don't choose beliefs based on potential consequences. If I tell you your head will be chopped off by a Invisible Ghost Ninja if you don't get out of your chair and spin around 3 times, are you going to do it? Or more to the point, are you going to actually believe that your head will be chopped off if you don't? I'm guessing not. What if I emailed you a petition with 500,000 signatures claiming that yes, in fact, you had best hop out of your chair and spin around 3 times or the Invisible Ghost Ninja will appear and behead you.
And what's more, THEY TALK TO HIM so they know he's real. I'm guessing you still wouldn't.
Finally, I send you 100 more petitions all telling you something different. Some of them agree with the IGN, some of them say it's really a Goblin and not a Ninja, some of them claim you actually have to pat your head not spin in a circle, some of them claim you better keep your ass in your chair.
Clearly you will ignore them. That's what I do with religion.
I'll repeat: yours is not special, it's just one of many contradictory voices.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

And jeremy: sorry but I do not read your posts. Nobody calls me a bigoted bastard and retains either my respect or attention. I have placed you on ignore -- again.

Way to prove you AREN'T a bigoted bastard. Oh wait.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Well, the main reason is because you do not seem to be aware of or concerned about the idea that this is your eternal future. Nor do you seem to understand that you do not escape it by dissing the idea or ignoring it.

This is another argument that has always bothered me. You don't choose beliefs based on potential consequences. If I tell you your head will be chopped off by a Invisible Ghost Ninja if you don't get out of your chair and spin around 3 times, are you going to do it? Or more to the point, are you going to actually believe that your head will be chopped off if you don't? I'm guessing not. What if I emailed you a petition with 500,000 signatures claiming that yes, in fact, you had best hop out of your chair and spin around 3 times or the Invisible Ghost Ninja will appear and behead you.
And what's more, THEY TALK TO HIM so they know he's real. I'm guessing you still wouldn't.
Finally, I send you 100 more petitions all telling you something different. Some of them agree with the IGN, some of them say it's really a Goblin and not a Ninja, some of them claim you actually have to pat your head not spin in a circle, some of them claim you better keep your ass in your chair.
Clearly you will ignore them. That's what I do with religion.
I'll repeat: yours is not special, it's just one of many contradictory voices.

Excellent. :-D

Are you insinuating that if millions of folks once thought the Earth was flat that it isn't flat? Gosh, darnit. looks flat to me :wink:

Neutrino said:

If I tell you your head will be chopped off by a Invisible Ghost Ninja if you don't get out of your chair and spin around 3 times, are you going to do it? Or more to the point, are you going to actually believe that your head will be chopped off if you don't? I'm guessing not. What if I emailed you a petition with 500,000 signatures claiming that yes, in fact, you had best hop out of your chair and spin around 3 times or the Invisible Ghost Ninja will appear and behead you.
And what's more, THEY TALK TO HIM so they know he's real. I'm guessing you still wouldn't.
Finally, I send you 100 more petitions all telling you something different. Some of them agree with the IGN, some of them say it's really a Goblin and not a Ninja, some of them claim you actually have to pat your head not spin in a circle, some of them claim you better keep your ass in your chair.
Clearly you will ignore them. That's what I do with religion.

COME ON. You must be able to come of with something better than that kind of silliness.

You are trying to compare something you made up off the top of your own head, that no one believes and no one has ever believed to something (Christianty) which has been believed for nearly 2,000 years and currently is believed by about 25 percent of the world, including approximately 75 to 80 percent of the people in the United States. (I suspect most of the other 20 to 25 percent serve in an elected government office.) How could you even suspect this is a cogent, logical comparison.

This is as opposed to about 20 percent of the world population and maybe 10 percent of the U.S. population which admits to being atheist or agnostic.

And jellyologist’s agreement suggests you both share the same geletin material for brains. Jam would be better. At least it has some substance.

That was one of the most insipid (look it up) posts I have ever seen. But it is typical of much of atheist religious criticism which so often attempts to ridicule religion by comparing it to something no one actually believes.

So, if you don’t believe you will face God’s judgment when you pass from this life, what do you think will happen?

Whether one person believes an unsupported description of some aspect of reality, or two billion people believe it, has no relationship to the truth of that unsupported description of reality.
There is no evidence that the Bible is the word of God, other than the words in the Bible itself.
There are other religious works whose ideas are contrary to those in the Bible; which are equally unfounded; and which are nevertheless believed by millions of people.
You have chosen to adopt a world view that requires faith to believe in. Yet that same faith is could be applied to almost any belief. This sort of faith is a rather sad self deception.
You think the atheists are condemned to hell fire in the afterlife. I think you are condemned to a sad, self deluded world of falsehood in this one. By and large they seem to have the better deal.

Would someone care to inform him of the fallacy he apparently lives by?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Ophiolite, if you want to save your fingers extra typing work you should check wiki's list of fallacies first. All that really needs done.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Ophiolite, if you want to save your fingers extra typing work you should check wiki's list of fallacies first. All that really needs done.

I don't like to suppress my natural creativity. 8)

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Neutrino said:

If I tell you your head will be chopped off by a Invisible Ghost Ninja if you don't get out of your chair and spin around 3 times, are you going to do it? Or more to the point, are you going to actually believe that your head will be chopped off if you don't? I'm guessing not. What if I emailed you a petition with 500,000 signatures claiming that yes, in fact, you had best hop out of your chair and spin around 3 times or the Invisible Ghost Ninja will appear and behead you.
And what's more, THEY TALK TO HIM so they know he's real. I'm guessing you still wouldn't.
Finally, I send you 100 more petitions all telling you something different. Some of them agree with the IGN, some of them say it's really a Goblin and not a Ninja, some of them claim you actually have to pat your head not spin in a circle, some of them claim you better keep your ass in your chair.
Clearly you will ignore them. That's what I do with religion.

COME ON. You must be able to come of with something better than that kind of silliness.
You are trying to compare something you made up off the top of your own head, that no one believes and no one has ever believed to something (Christianty) which has been believed for nearly 2,000 years and currently is believed by about 25 percent of the world, including approximately 75 to 80 percent of the people in the United States. (I suspect most of the other 20 to 25 percent serve in an elected government office.) How could you even suspect this is a cogent, logical comparison.This is as opposed to about 20 percent of the world population and maybe 10 percent of the U.S. population which admits to being atheist or agnostic.

Because as Ophiolite pointed out, the number of people who believe something is irrelevent to whether or not that thing is true. As you've probably heard, everyone used to believe that the world is flat. Yet the world was no flatter then than it is today.
If God exists and an asteroid wiped out every believer on the planet (but miraculously spared the atheists - praise Jesus) then 0% of the world population would believe in God. That wouldn't make God any less real. And vice versa.

That was one of the most insipid (look it up) posts I have ever seen. But it is typical of much of atheist religious criticism which so often attempts to ridicule religion by comparing it to something no one actually believes.

Try looking past the ninjas and goblins to see the POINT of my post. You don't choose your beliefs based on consequences, and just because a bunch of people think the earth is flat doesn't make it flat.

So, if you don’t believe you will face God’s judgment when you pass from this life, what do you think will happen?

I think most likely I'll be stuffed in a box, buried, and will start to decompose. That's not as fun as giant family reunions and eternal happiness, but what we WANT doesn't define reality.
Again, the most important point: Your religion is not special. None of them are.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

By neutrino's thinking, if I told you it was raining outside and you went outside and got wet anyway, it would be my fault you got all wet.

God provides a way to escape "burning in hell." Those who choose to ignore both the warning and the remedy provided cannot blame God.

Wow, how nice of god to provide a way out of the fiery trap that he created for us and chooses to send us to. It's not like god came along, noticed that people were going to hell, and helpfully decided to step in and provide us with a way out. He's the one who deliberately created the entire screwed-up system where even nice people who spend their lives helping others will end up going to hell by default, simply because they made the mistake of not believing in the right god. And we're supposed to be grateful for that?

That's like me soaking someone in gasoline and waving a lit match near them, but before I light them on fire I give them a little spray bottle that they can use to extinguish my match. Then I say, "See how great I am? You were about to be burnt alive, but then I came along and gave you that spray bottle so that you could extinguish the match that I'm about the throw at you! I saved you! I am you savior. Aren't I just overflowing with compassion and mercy? Seriously though, you really need to use that spray bottle soon, because I am totally about to light you up. And remember, if I end up throwing this match at you before you use my spray bottle and you burn, it's your own fault. I tried to save you."

neutrino sez:

Try looking past the ninjas and goblins to see the POINT of my post. You don't choose your beliefs based on consequences, and just because a bunch of people think the earth is flat doesn't make it flat.

I did and your point was that because you could make up something that was unbelieveable, you were justified in not believing that which billions of people over the last two millenia have believed.

I agree that belief is not proof, but I think if you (and Ophiolite) look back at my posts, I have pretty consistently said that IF the God of the Bible is the God of creation and the universe, atheists are in for a rude awakening to a very unpleasant afterlife.

If He is not the God of creation and the God of the universe, you pretty much have nothing to worry about. If the God of creation and the universe is Allah, I don't know for sure what fate awaits those of us who do not believe in him. And just as you atheists and agnostics are not concerned about the consequences of non-belief in the God of the Bible and His son Jesus, I am not concerned about the consequences of non-belief in Allah.

I am merely relating what the Bible warns is the fate of those who die without salvation.

What I find interesting is that atheists and agnostics are generally upset to hear that warnings of the Bible, but hardly react to the warnings of other religions about the consequences of non-belief in their system.

To which you might reply, "Well, all those other religions are not haranguing us with their silly warnings of impending doom."

So, if they really, truly, honestly believed that you were facing impending doom, don't you think it would behoove them to tell you?

If I saw you driving your car down a road for which I had heard there was a bridge out ahead, what should I do? Should I warn you that the bridge ahead may be out? Or should I just say to myself, "Ah, hell, I don't give a crap about that guy, with bother him with something I can't prove?" and let you irreversably drive your car into the river? And why would you be so upset that I and/or several other people tried to warn you that we believed the bridge was out?

Those of us who believe in the God of the Bible believe there is an afterlife and that a very unpleasant fate of torment and despair awaits those who do not receive salvation from that fate. As such, we would be derelict human beings if we did not try to warn others and explain to them how to avoid that fate.

I should think in the bridge out situation, you would be very careful as you went down the road, knowing the consequences of speeding off the end of a broken bridge would be very, very dire, perhaps lethal. Those of us who are Christians believe the etermal consequences of ignoring God and salvation are far more dire.

And since our tactics are merely to tell you (as often as we can) what we believe the situation to be, I am not sure why you are so much more offended by us than by a religion which is known to evangelize by a convert-or-die technique.

Well, I guess I do understand that what we have to say is disturbing and unpleasant as well it should be. No worse fate could await any human being than an eternal afterlife of pain, torment and gnashing of teeth. However, those who experience that fate do so at their own choosing, or non-choosing as the case may be.

But then, as you seem to think, maybe the bridge is not out and you can just continue to fly down the road at freeway speed. This is your idea of living free.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

That's like me soaking someone in gasoline and waving a lit match near them, but before I light them on fire I give them a little spray bottle that they can use to extinguish my match. Then I say, "See how great I am? You were about to be burnt alive, but then I came along and gave you that spray bottle so that you could extinguish the match that I'm about the throw at you! I saved you! I am you savior. Aren't I just overflowing with compassion and mercy? Seriously though, you really need to use that spray bottle soon, because I am totally about to light you up. And remember, if I end up throwing this match at you before you use my spray bottle and you burn, it's your own fault. I tried to save you."

Save that one! Great analogy

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

That's like me soaking someone in gasoline and waving a lit match near them, but before I light them on fire I give them a little spray bottle that they can use to extinguish my match. Then I say, "See how great I am? You were about to be burnt alive, but then I came along and gave you that spray bottle so that you could extinguish the match that I'm about the throw at you! I saved you! I am you savior. Aren't I just overflowing with compassion and mercy? Seriously though, you really need to use that spray bottle soon, because I am totally about to light you up. And remember, if I end up throwing this match at you before you use my spray bottle and you burn, it's your own fault. I tried to save you."

Save that one! Great analogy

Yes, a classic.
Just remember that Jesus is 'Love' :wink:

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I did and your point was that because you could make up something that was unbelieveable, you were justified in not believing that which billions of people over the last two millenia have believed.

No, his point is that the unbelievable things that he just made up have about as much supporting evidence for their existence as god. So, since he doesn't believe in any of the outlandish things that he just made up, he also doesn't believe in god. Or, to put it another way, he was saying that believing in god is just as silly as believing in the things that he just made up, because both as supported by a roughly equal weight of evidence.

Oh, wait, I forgot. There’s just as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Caesar.

I agree that belief is not proof...

You say that in this paragraph, but in the paragraph that immediately preceded this one you say "not believing that which billions of people over the last two millennia have believed" as if the fact that billions of people have believed it somehow constitutes evidence that it is correct.

And since our tactics are merely to tell you (as often as we can) what we believe the situation to be, I am not sure why you are so much more offended by us than by a religion which is known to evangelize by a convert-or-die technique.

Well, I guess I do understand that what we have to say is disturbing and unpleasant as well it should be. No worse fate could await any human being than an eternal afterlife of pain, torment and gnashing of teeth. However, those who experience that fate do so at their own choosing, or non-choosing as the case may be.

If christians simply talked, most atheists wouldn't care. The problem is that christians seem to be driven by a strong desire to force everyone else to live according to their religious beliefs by codifying their religion into law. Since christians are actively trying to take away the freedom of atheists, atheists feel a need to argue back and try to talk some sense into christians. I realize that you personally might not vote for whichever political candidate promises to do the most to turn christian religious rules into national laws that everyone is forced to follow regardless of their religious beliefs (although I can't help but suspect that you do vote for such candidates).

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

That's like me soaking someone in gasoline and waving a lit match near them, but before I light them on fire I give them a little spray bottle that they can use to extinguish my match. Then I say, "See how great I am? You were about to be burnt alive, but then I came along and gave you that spray bottle so that you could extinguish the match that I'm about the throw at you! I saved you! I am you savior. Aren't I just overflowing with compassion and mercy? Seriously though, you really need to use that spray bottle soon, because I am totally about to light you up. And remember, if I end up throwing this match at you before you use my spray bottle and you burn, it's your own fault. I tried to save you."

Although if I really wanted this to be a good analogy, I suppose I should have mentioned that the unfortunate victim is actually presented with dozens of different spray bottle (only one of which will work) and he only gets one guess at to which one is the correct one. But remember, if he doesn't use the spray bottle (or isn't lucky enough to choose the correct bottle) he is choosing for me to light him on fire, and the whole thing is still all his fault. Because not wanting to be lit on fire but choosing the wrong spray bottle is the same as choosing to be lit on fire.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Although if I really wanted this to be a good analogy, I suppose I should have mentioned that the unfortunate victim is actually presented with dozens of different spray bottle (only one of which will work) and he only gets one guess at to which one is the correct one. But remember, if he doesn't use the spray bottle (or isn't lucky enough to choose the correct bottle) he is choosing for me to light him on fire, and the whole thing is still all his fault. Because not wanting to be lit on fire but choosing the wrong spray bottle is the same as choosing to be lit on fire.

So some of the spray bottles have water in them and some have gasoline in them . You have to hand it to god, theres never a boring moment with him.

True.

I'm inclined to view a Heaven as a big bar with God surrounded by Hitler, Stalin, Atilla, and the likes of that American dude who ate his victims. They're all throwing back a few beers and swapping stories.

"You think that was funny, did I tell you about the time I woke up with a colossal hangover and went out to take a leak and I pissed for 40 days and 40 nights. Drowned a few million little brats with that bladder release but when you gotta go you gotta go."

I have seen a number of scifor’s posts which are logical and post good objections and arguments. This I not one of them.

Scifor misunderstands:

Wow, how nice of god to provide a way out of the fiery trap that he created for us and chooses to send us to. It's not like god came along, noticed that people were going to hell, and helpfully decided to step in and provide us with a way out. He's the one who deliberately created the entire screwed-up system where even nice people who spend their lives helping others will end up going to hell by default, simply because they made the mistake of not believing in the right god. And we're supposed to be grateful for that?

Your analogy here ignores the idea that there are Godly laws which have been violated. In our system of government by law, when a law is violated, we expect there to be some consequence. The fact that Robin Hood was stealing from the rich and doing good with the money did not make him any less a thief.

As I related earlier, if some person goes in and rapes someone’s wife and then murders him and the wife, we expect the legal system to punish that person. So what if the judge found the person guilty and then said, “Well, you have done some nice things – mowed the neighbors yard, volunteered at the homeless shelter among other things – so I think I will just let you go?” You would not think that is a very good judge, turning loose a rapist and murderer loose back into society.

Now, I realize we are not really talking about actual rapists and murderers. And I realize that in our human legal systems, we have different penalties for different crimes, having decided that some are more despicable than others.

According to the Bible, which you don’t believe, any violation of God’s law is equal to any other violation and all violations make us ineligible to spend eternity with Him.

I do not know what hell is like. I, myself, have tried to focus on the idea that it is a place of extreme torment, agony and despair. Others have brought up hellfire and brimstone which I have play off of. My take on my description is that the torment, agony and despair are caused by the realization that one could have spent eternity in the light of God’s kingdom rather than the darkness outside His presence.

I do not think of hell as a place so much as a non-place. The Bible says God created the HEAVENS and the earth. It does not say he created a “place” called hell.

Scifor leaves out an important factor:

That's like me soaking someone in gasoline and waving a lit match near them, but before I light them on fire I give them a little spray bottle that they can use to extinguish my match. Then I say, "See how great I am? You were about to be burnt alive, but then I came along and gave you that spray bottle so that you could extinguish the match that I'm about the throw at you! I saved you! I am you savior. Aren't I just overflowing with compassion and mercy? Seriously though, you really need to use that spray bottle soon, because I am totally about to light you up. And remember, if I end up throwing this match at you before you use my spray bottle and you burn, it's your own fault. I tried to save you."

If you were completely in charge of world and had previously told the someone that if he came in and raped and murdered your wife, you were going to do those things to him and he came in and raped and murdered your wife, I would see little wrong with the scenario you describe with a couple of modifications.

In your scenario, you are unilaterally punishing someone without fair warning and for no stated reason. But even then, it is not so much that God is punishing people, it is more that he is not rewarding them in spite of wrongdoing.

I you want to take an airplane from NY to LA, say, and you do not have an airline ticket, is the airline punishing you by not letting you board the airplane? If God says you need a ticket to get into heaven and you don’t have a ticket, why do you think it is God punishing you? Your neglect to obtain the ticket is the reason you don’t get into heaven just as your neglect in getting a ticket is the reason you don’t get a place on the airplane.

There are other problems with your scenario when compared to the Bible. I think a more Biblical picture would have Satan holding the match and God holding the spray bottle and telling you all you have to do to avoid burning up is ask Him and he will put out the match.

My suspicion is that scifor and those who are patting him on the back for this inaccurate analogy oppose the idea of God because they think God's laws are designed to surpress them and deprive them of an enjoyable life.

So your god dude didn't create Satan or the match? Hitler isn't responsible for Mengele at Auschwitz?

Hitler: 'Gee, I didn't do anything. sure I built the gas chamber but I didn't pour in the gas.'

I'm surprised so much illogic flows in your brain without short circuiting.

Apart from such ridiculous arguments such as those from myopic Jesus cultists, I'm quite pleased these days as I surf around the Web. Except on sites where Jesus freaks gather to kiss eachother's ass, it's promising to not have religious nonsense left unchallenged. A recent poll came out in Britain and almost half of all British youths no longer have a belief in the Jesus mythology. Hopefully the trend continues in the western world. no more rolling over and playing dead when the Christians preach their hatred...Accept Jesus or burn in Hell!!!!

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I think a more Biblical picture would have Satan holding the match and God holding the spray bottle and telling you all you have to do to avoid burning up is ask Him and he will put out the match.

Why doesn't God just put the damn match out or kill Satan without you having to ask a stupid question. If you get lit up isn't God a little bit of an accomplice? Oh wait...this is a bible scenario...sorry.

OK, let's see if I have this straight from jellybelly and zingi.

One of the reasons you don't believe in God is because he does not run the universe the way you think he ought to.

I think you will get the same reaction from Him as you would get from your boss if you went into work and told him he was running the company all wrong.

no, the question is "is there someone in charge of the company at all, and if not who's doing the punishing ?"

You people are WEIRD.

The qestion was asked, "who is DA jesus".

Why don't I answer that question like he was xxxx all?

The Muslims say that xxxx all person was a prophet.

The JEWS disown that xxxx all person.

Anyone who wants to get out of jail for free uses that xxxx all person as their affidavit of freedom.

Jesus........well, it's a reason why the jews never find the end of their suffering, it's a reason why no one isn Islam ever underastands the punch line..........I mean, what could be a better God for capitalism?

But capitalism, so weak.

So very weak.

They sell their ideas of technology to people who are only going to fight over who DA jesus is or is DA not.

They should just fly into space and operate the planet like a board game.

I mean, Jesus, the xxxx-all thing, said, "don't worry about me or yourselves.........": he obviously meant to let everyone else xxxx-up-da-one-another-who-didn't-get-him.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

As I related earlier, if some person goes in and rapes someone’s wife and then murders him and the wife, we expect the legal system to punish that person. So what if the judge found the person guilty and then said, “Well, you have done some nice things – mowed the neighbors yard, volunteered at the homeless shelter among other things – so I think I will just let you go?” You would not think that is a very good judge, turning loose a rapist and murderer loose back into society.

Now, I realize we are not really talking about actual rapists and murderers. And I realize that in our human legal systems, we have different penalties for different crimes, having decided that some are more despicable than others.

According to the Bible, which you don’t believe, any violation of God’s law is equal to any other violation and all violations make us ineligible to spend eternity with Him.

If god created the universe and controls it absolutely, there is clearly no one who can stop him from making and enforcing any arbitrary laws and punishments that he wishes. The point I am trying to make, however, is that the god you describe is not at all merciful, just, or even sane.

You can say "any violation of God’s law is equal to any other violation", but that doesn't make it reasonable (or even sane) doctrine. Do you honestly believe that sending someone to prison for rape and murder is in any way analogous to condemning someone to eternal torment simply because they accidentally picked the wrong religion, even though they made an honest effort to determine the truth?

Since you seem to love analogies to human legal systems, consider this one: The god that you describe would be like a dictator who declares that any crime is equal to any other crime, and the punishment for all crime is to be slowly tortured to death. Rape and murder someone? You get tortured to death. Litter on the sidewalk? You get tortured to death. Forget to renew your car's license plate? You get tortured to death. I suspect that if you heard about such a dictator you would be immediately horrified, and would probably consider him monstrous - and yet, that is exactly the same way you describe your god as acting. It boggles the mind that you can claim your god is good and worthy of worship in one breath, and in the next breath describe your god's insane system of "justice" in which every transgression is equal to every other transgression, and the only punishment is not just death by torture, but unending eternal torture.

In your scenario, you are unilaterally punishing someone without fair warning and for no stated reason.

Of course I gave him fair warning - I clearly explained that he needed to use the spray bottle and that I would light him on fire if he didn't. As for there being "no stated reason," would you feel better about it if I told him that it was because he littered on the sidewalk? Or if I told him it was because of a crime that his distant ancestors committed thousands of years before he was born?

But even then, it is not so much that God is punishing people, it is more that he is not rewarding them in spite of wrongdoing.

I you want to take an airplane from NY to LA, say, and you do not have an airline ticket, is the airline punishing you by not letting you board the airplane? If God says you need a ticket to get into heaven and you don’t have a ticket, why do you think it is God punishing you? Your neglect to obtain the ticket is the reason you don’t get into heaven just as your neglect in getting a ticket is the reason you don’t get a place on the airplane.

There are other problems with your scenario when compared to the Bible. I think a more Biblical picture would have Satan holding the match and God holding the spray bottle and telling you all you have to do to avoid burning up is ask Him and he will put out the match.

You could certainly argue that people don't deserve eternal bliss basking in the presence of a perfect god. But that doesn't mean that we deserve to be sent to hell, either. You seem to be once again falling into the trap of talking like god came along one day and noticed that people were going to hell, and helpfully provided us with a way out. You are forgetting that according to your own doctrine, god is the one who set up the entire insane system in which even good people go to hell by default. According to you, god created a monstrously unfair system in which people can be condemned to eternal torment simply for making an honest mistake about religion, even though they try their best to determine the truth. If I'm facing eternal torment by default simply for having existed, then yeah, god providing me with a way out is the least he could do, much like giving a person a spray bottle is the least you could do when you have soaked them in gasoline and are about to light them on fire. But I wouldn't expect the person who I soaked in gasoline to be especially grateful, and I wouldn't call myself especially "merciful" for providing them with a way out of the horrible situation that I created.

My suspicion is that scifor and those who are patting him on the back for this inaccurate analogy oppose the idea of God because they think God's laws are designed to surpress them and deprive them of an enjoyable life.

Why do theists always insist on trying to play amateur psychologist? Is it really so hard for you to believe that many of us simply don't find your collection of 2000+ year-old magic stories involving talking plants, talking animals, and people conjuring things out of thin air convincing?

I mean, I could speculate that you only believe in god because you were taught to believe in it before you developed critical reasoning abilities, and so you've never really carefully examined your belief in god in the same way that you would examine any other ancient story that involved magic, and now you’ve poured so much of your self into your religious beliefs that you feel you would be directionless without them.

Like I'm gonna read that????

(I am a wanna be virgin bride for UUUUUUUUUuuuuuu").

Call 911

You know I put this question on to come to an understanding of opinions between atheists, agnostics, theists and believers, as a way to get along with one another-to understand each other and to respect each other; and all I see is arguing and bickering about their own beliefs-not even wanting to compromise and meet in the middle. It just goes to show that that religion is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands-most often the wrong hands are people who do not understand-i mean come on, you're all acting like children over who gets to play with the best toy-this isn't human-this isn't civilized-and it goes to show you that we do need an eternal omniscient super intelligently moral being to help us. Because if this is the best we can do-we might as well be back in the dark ages. Oh and one more thing, here non-beleivers are arguing a lot, if it were Buddhists, Hindu's Islamics, Christains whatever and were right in doing what their Holy books say, each one of those would respect one anothers opinions and agree to disagree, can we-a mature scientific community do that do that too? Let's see if the non-believers can prove we don't need a God by being nice from here on. The next replies will prove their theory or not.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

What I find interesting is that atheists and agnostics are generally upset to hear that warnings of the Bible, but hardly react to the warnings of other religions about the consequences of non-belief in their system..

Really?!! That is certainly not my position, or my experience.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

If I saw you driving your car down a road for which I had heard there was a bridge out ahead, what should I do?

The atheists and the agnostics feel you are determining the bridge collapse from the rumour mill, an astrological chart, or interpretation of an urban myth, not from any bona fide , substantive source. consequently it is bad advice, it is irrelevant advice, it is dsitracting advice.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

all I see is arguing and bickering about their own beliefs-not even wanting to compromise and meet in the middle

There is no middle to meet in. This is a black and white matter. There is no convincing evidence for God. Christians, at least, admit this in their talk of faith. Atheists and agnostics believe such an act of faith is an abomination. It undermines our very humanity; it discards logic and reason; it flys in the face of reality; and, for the agnostics, it is a vile insult to God if he does exist, since it requires us to ignore the abilities of reason , logic and thought that he has given us.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

...and all I see is arguing and bickering about their own beliefs-not even wanting to compromise and meet in the middle.

Compromise and meet in the middle? Why should we "compromise" on the truth? If I feel that your beliefs are wrong, I'm not going to compromise by pretending to partly agree with you when I really don't. I don't expect daytonaturner to suddenly say "Oh, I guess you might be right about my god not existing" if that's not what he really believes. Why should you expect atheists to suddenly start pretending that your magic fairy stories should be taken seriously?

It just goes to show that that religion is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands-most often the wrong hands are people who do not understand-i mean come on, you're all acting like children over who gets to play with the best toy-this isn't human-this isn't civilized-and it goes to show you that we do need an eternal omniscient super intelligently moral being to help us.

This is rational discussion. I’m sorry if it offends you that not everyone agrees with you.

Oh and one more thing, here non-beleivers are arguing a lot, if it were Buddhists, Hindu's Islamics, Christains whatever and were right in doing what their Holy books say, each one of those would respect one anothers opinions and agree to disagree, can we-a mature scientific community do that do that too?

Are you f***ing kidding me? You really think Hindus, Muslims, and Christians have a great history of sitting around respecting each other and "agreeing to disagree"? Have you not been paying attention to the last 1000+ years?

Let's see if the non-believers can prove we don't need a God by being nice from here on. The next replies will prove their theory or not.

I think the problem here is that you were expecting everyone to take your views seriously, when many of the people here think that your views are absurd on their face. I mean, you appeared to assume that atheists believed that Jesus actually existed and performed all the miracles attributed to him by the bible, and you proceeded to ask us if we thought he was a time traveler or something. Did you really expect any of the atheists here to take that seriously?

Originally Posted by svwillmer

You know I put this question on to come to an understanding of opinions between atheists, agnostics, theists and believers, as a way to get along with one another-to understand each other and to respect each other; and all I see is arguing and bickering about their own beliefs-not even wanting to compromise and meet in the middle. It just goes to show that that religion is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands-most often the wrong hands are people who do not understand-i mean come on, you're all acting like children over who gets to play with the best toy-this isn't human-this isn't civilized-and it goes to show you that we do need an eternal omniscient super intelligently moral being to help us. Because if this is the best we can do-we might as well be back in the dark ages. Oh and one more thing, here non-beleivers are arguing a lot, if it were Buddhists, Hindu's Islamics, Christains whatever and were right in doing what their Holy books say, each one of those would respect one anothers opinions and agree to disagree, can we-a mature scientific community do that do that too? Let's see if the non-believers can prove we don't need a God by being nice from here on. The next replies will prove their theory or not.

Respect eachother? I don't respect 24 hour a day/7 day a week Christian hate mongers who keep spewing out crap about kissing Jesus's ass or prepare to burn in Hell for eternity.

I'm also a scientist and I don't respect ignorance. I have no respect for those that applaud God for drowning everyone on Earth in a flood or love a God that sent plagues and pestulance to Egypt. I don't respect Christians who praise a god that raped the vigin Mary. I don't respect a belief that uses fear and bullying against children to make them behave 'or they'llburn in Hell'.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

I think the problem here is that you were expecting everyone to take your views seriously, when many of the people here think that your views are absurd on their face. I mean, you appeared to assume that atheists believed that Jesus actually existed and performed all the miracles attributed to him by the bible, and you proceeded to ask us if we thought he was a time traveler or something. Did you really expect any of the atheists here to take that seriously?

Precious. Jesus is Doctor Who. what's not to respect? :wink:

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by svwillmer

...and all I see is arguing and bickering about their own beliefs-not even wanting to compromise and meet in the middle.

Compromise and meet in the middle? Why should we "compromise" on the truth? If I feel that your beliefs are wrong, I'm not going to compromise by pretending to partly agree with you when I really don't. I don't expect daytonaturner to suddenly say "Oh, I guess you might be right about my god not existing" if that's not what he really believes. Why should you expect atheists to suddenly start pretending that your magic fairy stories should be taken seriously?

It just goes to show that that religion is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands-most often the wrong hands are people who do not understand-i mean come on, you're all acting like children over who gets to play with the best toy-this isn't human-this isn't civilized-and it goes to show you that we do need an eternal omniscient super intelligently moral being to help us.

This is rational discussion. I’m sorry if it offends you that not everyone agrees with you.

Oh and one more thing, here non-beleivers are arguing a lot, if it were Buddhists, Hindu's Islamics, Christains whatever and were right in doing what their Holy books say, each one of those would respect one anothers opinions and agree to disagree, can we-a mature scientific community do that do that too?

Are you f***ing kidding me? You really think Hindus, Muslims, and Christians have a great history of sitting around respecting each other and "agreeing to disagree"? Have you not been paying attention to the last 1000+ years?

Let's see if the non-believers can prove we don't need a God by being nice from here on. The next replies will prove their theory or not.

I think the problem here is that you were expecting everyone to take your views seriously, when many of the people here think that your views are absurd on their face. I mean, you appeared to assume that atheists believed that Jesus actually existed and performed all the miracles attributed to him by the bible, and you proceeded to ask us if we thought he was a time traveler or something. Did you really expect any of the atheists here to take that seriously?

Do you really want to know what KARMA is?

It's a royal family, a people born into wealth.

A people born into wealth who can the XXXXing say "I am born into wealth"?

Do you then think the British Royal family are Hindus, ORRR have a history of controlling India?

Well, Scifor, you have made a good post in response to svwilliver, although it does have a couple of unnecessary uncalled for cheap shots. But that’s OK, I get in some myself once in a while.

I certainly do not expect any of the resident atheists or agnostics to suddenly “see the light,” any more than I am likely to suddenly determine that I no longer believe, particular since I know both sides of belief having been a non-believer for some 35 years of my life. However, on a probability scale, the odds are slightly better that one of the non-believers will become a believer than that one of the resident Christians will apostate.

We late comer Christians are much like ex-smokers (I am one of them, too). Nothing is more repugnant to us than our former life – both as a non-believer and a smoker. I feel as much sorrow for those who are still smokers as I do for those who are still non-believers. We are far more likely to call your non-belief foolish and unwise.

There is a big difference in our approaches, though. I do not see Christian here calling non-believers names or calling them stupid or calling their beliefs silly or even unfounded – all things which atheists and agnostics seem to delight in doing to Christians. It seems strange that the atheists and agnostics – who claim to being more intelligent and having higher more logical thoughts than the religious -- must stoop so low as to make (and delight in making) reviling, gross and unnecessary comments.

I disagree with most of the arguments by which atheist and agnostics justify their non-belief. But I do understand that they do not value experience over raw hard core data. But experience is really the only thing that Christians have which differentiates them from non-believers.

What is strange is that atheists and agnostics tend to use some of their own experience to justify non-belief. I do not know how many different posts I have seen with the writer declaring that God cannot exist because of the condition of the world. Or God cannot exist because he hasn’t done things the way I think they should be done. This is nothing more than experience and personal observation, too.

But I think the most hilarious and most immature arguments are those in which the atheist or agnostic makes up some impossible, unbelievable allegory and thinks it is analogous to religion, whether it be Christianity or even some other religion. There is no logical comparison between that which no sane person could possibly ever believe and that which billions of rational, competent people have, for nearly 2,000 years, believed.

As someone suggested, mere numbers do not provide proof. I agree. However, they do provide credibility. An idea supported by billions of people is certainly more possible and probable than a claim supported by no one.

Oh, then there are claims that we Christian attempt to be holier than thou and sanctimonious. None of we Christians attempt to compare our conduct as being more holy or better than that of atheists and agnostics. We freely admit we are sinners saved by grace. Our conduct has been no different than the conduct of atheists and agnostics. It is atheists and agnostics who claim not to be sinners, that there is nothing wrong with their conduct. What could be more holier than thou than one person claiming his conduct is not sinful while another freely admits to the same conduct and admits that it is sinful before God?

It would be my guess that many of the people who post here, especially the most outspoken and least tolerant and most vociferous, are people who are younger that I was when met the Lord – that is, under 35. They remind me of myself at those younger ages, although I don’t think I was ever quite so disrespectful of other people’s beliefs or as blatantly defiant before God. I was merely an agnostic who did not know God or think He was particularly relevant whether or not He existed. Sometimes, I thought perhaps he might exist and other times, I was sure he didn’t.

But scifor is correct, there is no middle ground. We who are Christians believe we are in a battle for the hearts and souls of the unsaved. We believe that some will be saved and some will be lost. But since we do not know which are which, we feel it our job to consistently remind all of the unsaved of their perilous position and how to correct it.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

As someone suggested, mere numbers do not provide proof. I agree. However, they do provide credibility. An idea supported by billions of people is certainly more possible and probable than a claim supported by no one.

A billion people worship the cow so by your reckoning that is fairly close to being right on.

Saying your religion is the right idea and is more possible because of numbers still doesn't, no matter how you slice and dice, mean its credible. What part of belief do believers not understand?

If a billion Muslims decide to kill a billion Christians or vice versa then that idea has credibility???? I think you have just touched on the most scary tenet of religious belief which is.... if we all think it then we must be right. HOLY COW!!!

Well the responses recieved justify what I thought. Anyway, we have all now expressed our opinions and expressed them a lot. Now in a matter of one sentence could you all please tell me who you think Jesus was, be it our saviour, an imposter, a myth, a time traveller, God in human flesh, someone who never existed and is a fabric of imagination, a farily tale or simply a righteous man. No comments, no bantering, just one sentence please, preferably just what or who you think He was. Thanks :wink:

I believe he did exist. I imagine he had a hard upbring, an overactive imagination and was probably something of an attention seeker. A fool basically. Which brings to mind the old saying, Who's more the fool, the fool or the fool who follows him ?.

I agree.

I think the more we develop a broader understanding of all the various faihs across the planet, as through mediums such as this one the more in time we will be able to better piece it all together and establish the themes common to al.

Jesus is probably one of those figures created in folklore. Quite possibly he is the embellished representation of someone who actually lived at the time but its impossible to prove. He is the Jewish Robin Hood in some ways. A hero to the poor and downtrodden, not afraid to speak out against tyranny and oppression, or so goes the legend.

Zingi said:

A billion people worship the cow so by your reckoning that is fairly close to being right on.

Saying your religion is the right idea and is more possible because of numbers still doesn't, no matter how you slice and dice, mean its credible. What part of belief do believers not understand?

Well, as is usual with many atheists and agnostics, you take what someone else said and twist it to mean something completely different. What you are saying here is that I am suggesting you should believe in God because so many other people do. Not my intent at all, whatsoever. This is as opposed to atheists and agnostics making up some silly, baseless, fictitious non existent religion that no one believes in and saying that is justification for not believing any religion.

I do see what you are saying here, but it is not really a response to what I was pointing out. Nor do I understand why anyone would worship cows and starve to death rather than butchering the cows and eating them. Your quip at the end of your post, “HOLY COW” is sort of funny in a way. The situation may also explain the idea of Sacred Cows which are supposedly above reproach and beyond criticism.

However, I would not vilify Hindus because of their beliefs even though I do not agree with them.

But I would consider their religion much more credible than, say, that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the total number of Hindus living and dead could be similar to the number of Christians does not make either of these religions “the right idea” or the wrong one for that matter. I have agreed with that point several times before. However, they are more viable as religions than the FSM. Even if 99 percent of the people believed in God and Jesus, it would not prove their existence. But even if .000000000000099 percent of the people believed in the FSM, no rational person would believe in that.

Just because you can find some silly, baseless concept such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you know is baseless silliness, does not prove that all other beliefs are equally silly and baseless. And this is the reason atheists and agnostics bring up the FSM or some other such asinine made up belief. This is an absolutely illogical line of reasoning showing a lot of immaturity on the part of the advocate.

Nor have I ever suggested that someone should believe in God and Jesus because so many others do. I know of no one who has ever become a Christian because there are so many of them around. Each of us who has accepted Christ into his heart has done so on a personal and singular basis.

We (Christians) have each recognized, at some point, that we have offended God and want to make amends. Or that by following our own godless path, we have utterly failed in life. We show we are sorry by accepting, through faith, the sacrifice of His son as the payment for our offense.

We know that you atheists and agnostics do not like to be told that you are in trouble with God and in danger of spending eternity in some unpleasant existence where you will regret that you wanted to spend and chose to spend that existence out of the presence of God.

Someone above chastised God for “creating” what we commonly call hell. That is sort of like blaming God for creating darkness in response to the Bible claim that He created light. God did not create darkness, he created light to counteract the darkness which already existed. God did not create hell, it always existed. He provided the means to escape it.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Jesus is probably one of those figures created in folklore. Quite possibly he is the embellished representation of someone who actually lived at the time but its impossible to prove. He is the Jewish Robin Hood in some ways. A hero to the poor and downtrodden, not afraid to speak out against tyranny and oppression, or so goes the legend.

This is close enough to my view to serve as my response.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

However, I would not vilify Hindus because of their beliefs even though I do not agree with them.
But I would consider their religion much more credible than, say, that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Why! and before you say it, without prove they can all be classed as made up.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

The fact that the total number of Hindus living and dead could be similar to the number of Christians does not make either of these religions “the right idea” or the wrong one for that matter. I have agreed with that point several times before. However, they are more viable as religions than the FSM.

Again Why!

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Even if 99 percent of the people believed in God and Jesus, it would not prove their existence. But even if .000000000000099 percent of the people believed in the FSM, no rational person would believe in that.

yes, because we know it's made up, but how can you be so sure that any religion isn't made up, none have any prove. In 2000 yrs time the FSM could be just as believable, people once believed in Mithra, and Ra, etc... Are they still viable religions today.
hence why any rational person doesn't have a believe in, any religion.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Just because you can find some silly, baseless concept such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you know is baseless silliness, does not prove that all other beliefs are equally silly and baseless. And this is the reason atheists and agnostics bring up the FSM or some other such asinine made up belief. This is an absolutely illogical line of reasoning showing a lot of immaturity on the part of the advocate.

how so, how can you be so absolutely sure that all the other religions have a solid base, they could be just as baseless/made up.
After all L Ron Hubbard only started scientology as a bet.

Look, we're at it again. Lets just say that believers believe in what they want to and should have the freedom to do so, and non-beleivers should be able to have the freedom to beleive in not believing and should also have the freedom to do so. The point of a debate is to get one's opinion over to each other to come to an understanding-not for a believer to convert a non-believer and not for a non-believer to turn a believer into a non-believer. Anyone who disagrees feel free to debate so I can understand your opinion but don't try to force it on me by twisting my words or coming up with convienent quotes to offend me, that is not very nice and not very mature.

I find it sad that I'm apparently the only one capable of destroying dayton's illogical posts, yet he's dutifully ignoring me.

You other responders are mostly boosting his ego by letting him easily dance around you! Sheesh!