I have been gone for awhile from here, but I am back. I would like to see any thiest in here try to prove their religion to me. I am an athiest, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these beliefs.

I was going to post a sarcastic reply raising one of the more illustrious posters here at sciforums to deityhood, I decided this would be infantile and pointless and reflect badly on me. I did it anyway...


I have recently turned over a new leaf. I once was an athiest like yourself. Now I have come to know the truth. Xev is the Goddess incarnate on earth. No mortal being could contain such intelligence, wit, and sarcasm in one vessel without imploding. Because Xev exists there is a Goddess, I worship Xev.

"I would like to see any thiest in here try to prove their religion to me."
------------------------------------

I cannot speak for other religions, however, Christianity has a bevy of evidence supporting it. Eyewitness testimonies (corroborated by New Testament writers) that is historically accurate and archeologically consistent, fulfilled prophecies, etc. would be a couple of examples. If you say that this is not valid evidence, then why is it not valid? Perhaps, we would need to discuss what would constitute sufficient evidence for you and then proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective.





"I am an athiest, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert."
--------------------------------------

No, you won't. Your presuppositions will not allow you to accurately and objectively examine the evidences supporting the existence of God.




"If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these beliefs."
---------------------------------------

Christians do not have to prove anything to you, or anyone else. You are correct about one thing, though: as long as you hold onto your presuppositions that there is no God, you CANNOT understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells you that God does not inhabit unholy vessels.

><>

Stu,

I would like to see any athiest in here try to prove their non-belief to me.I disbelieve in the existence of gods. What more proof can there be?

You realize your question is as meaningless as asking someone to prove that they don’t like peanut butter.

I think what you really mean is that you’d like to see someone prove that god(s) do not exist.

But why would anyone want to do that? People just do not go around trying to prove things do not exist. Imagine the chaos of everyone trying to disprove all the fictional characters that people have imagined over time.

Non-belief or disbelief in gods is simply a statement that theist CLAIMS for a god are unconvincing. And until theists can show that such claims are something more than imaginative fiction then there is no reason for anyone to believe them.

It is the theists who have made claims for a god and the onus is always on those making a claim to prove it if they want anyone to believe them.

There is never any onus on anyone to disprove the claims made by others.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these non-beliefs.Your complete inability to show that a god exists is more than adequate proof of why everyone should not believe your claims.

After reading inspector's last post, I request the following information:

Christians:
I would like to know your views on who Jesus Christ is, and why it is different from that of the Jews. More importantly, explain why you worship Jesus Christ, and how this should not be considered worshipping more than one God.

Jews:
Please express why your religion does not accept Jesus Christ as a God (or any more the son of God than the rest of us.). Explain the main differences between Christianity and Judaism (anyone may explain this if they know).

Atheists/Agnostics:
Explain why you do not believe Jesus Christ was sent by God to pay for man's sins, etc. Explain why you do not believe in God, for that matter.

For clarification, I fall into the latter group.

Any input would be appreciated.

Stu,

Ha ha ha ha. You are a jokeWhy?

Any scientist would certainly laugh if they were asked to believe something without seeing support for a claim. Disbelievers are not making claims, but theists do.

Stu:
Cris,

Ha ha ha ha. You are a joke

Actually, I think it makes a lot of sense, Stu.

You want to convert to Atheism/Agnosticism? It's easy.

If you do not know if God exists or not, and you seek proof (or you aren't convinced enough to believe), you would fall into the agnostic category.

If you do not believe in your God (or any God/s, for that matter), and do not care to find out (or will not believe in a God no matter what), you would fall into the atheist category.

How can I prove to you that I DON'T believe that the evidence supports a God? I guess I could prove it to you by telling you that I don't pray to God.

I don't have a big book to read to tell me not to believe. I have my brain, that tells me that there is no unmistakable proof that a God exists.

I could tell you that I read passages from the Bible, and it does not prove to me that a God exists.

My mind (or conscience, or common sense) tells me that the Bible is a book that was written by men.

According to the Bible, men are not perfect, and routinely do things that God does not want them to.

In the Bible, God created man.

In the Bible, man is not perfect.

Therefore, God created man to be imperfect (or He screwed up).

So, my mind again tells me that if man says God created man, and man is not perfect, yet God lets man speak God's word, chances are man messed up God's word.

And, God hasn't spoken to me, or given me signs that prove He exists. He doesn't have to speak to me personally. Perfroming miracles in malls would be a good idea. Reach a lot of people at once. I ocassionally go to malls. If there is a God, I'm sure He knows this...

As an athiest, I'm not gonna bother answering any of the question given to athiests, there's no point

Sorry Thor, you are right.

It's obvious why atheists/agnostics do not believe in God. Bottom line they either need proof, or don't care at all.

My questions should be more focused towards Christians and Jews.

Inspector,

Christianity has a bevy of evidence supporting it. Eyewitness testimonies (corroborated by New Testament writers) that is historically accurate and archeologically consistent, fulfilled prophecies, etc. would be a couple of examples. If you say that this is not valid evidence, then why is it not valid?None of this claimed evidence has passed the tests specified by using the scientific method. If you believe I am wrong then please show such documented results.

Perhaps, we would need to discuss what would constitute sufficient evidence for you and then proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective.Science has proven itself repeatedly as a reliable method for the establishment of knowledge. Religions usually reject the scientific approach because it never proves what they want to hear.

Construct an experiment under strict scientific conditions that can show that a god exists.

No, you won't. Your presuppositions will not allow you to accurately and objectively examine the evidences supporting the existence of God.No that is false. There are instances where atheists have become religious and religionists have become atheistic. You cannot claim that someone will definitely not be convinced by convincing evidence. This is again empty tactics that indicate you don’t have any convincing evidence.

Christians do not have to prove anything to you, or anyone else.Yes they do if they want non-believers to believe them. It is the evangelical nature of Christianity to attempt to convince others of their claims. The fact that you can’t convince anyone who presents you with hard questions is a strong indication of the weakness of your case.

You are correct about one thing, though: as long as you hold onto your presuppositions that there is no God, you CANNOT understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells you that God does not inhabit unholy vessels.This is ludicrous. Your claim is that one has to feel convinced first before they can be convinced. This is irrational gibberish in an attempt to overcome your problem that you can’t convince people by any means other than asking them to believe you anyway.

WOOHOO!! I got something right!! In yer face Partay!!:D

Rock On

Thor

Christopher argues for the sake of hearing himself/herself/itself argue. He/She/It has no foundation of knowledge regarding Christianity and, therefore, is not qualified to comment on a professional level on it's contents.




"In the Bible, God created man.

In the Bible, man is not perfect.

Therefore, God created man to be imperfect (or He screwed up)."
------------------------------------------------------

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

For the record,

In the Bible, God created man PERFECT.
In the Bible, man became imperfect after the introduction of SIN.
Therefore, God sent his Son to REDEEM man's sinful nature.

The interesting thing about atheism is that most atheists are ignorant regarding the Bible and it's contents. Most have never read even the New Testament, let alone the entire book. Yet, they attempt to refute the Bible without having any appertaining knowledge. Learning atheism is simple because it is the same parrot talk time after time after time.............

><>

Learning atheism is simple because it is the same parrot talk time after time after time.............
There's nothing simple about being an athiest, not in my experience. Shunned by the elitist Christians :mad:
About the Parrot talk, I think its the over way

Most have never read even the New Testament, let alone the entire book
Erm...there's a reason for that you know

Vakemp,

If you do not know if God exists or not, and you seek proof (or you aren't convinced enough to believe), you would fall into the agnostic category.That is an atheist.

If you do not believe in your God (or any God/s, for that matter), and do not care to find out (or will not believe in a God no matter what), you would fall into the atheist category.Well that is one form of atheism but not the most typical, and involves a whole stack of variations.

There are only two conditions, either someone believes in a god or one does not. One is either an atheist or one is a theist, there is no middle ground. If one has doubts then clearly they do not believe and are therefore atheistic.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and is known more precisely as weak atheism. Those who hold a definite belief that a god or gods do not exist are more precisely known as strong atheists.

A weak atheist may indeed be looking for a god or is not convinced that a god exists, but all the time they are not convinced then they are not theistic and must therefore be an atheist.

Inspector,

Christopher argues for the sake of hearing himself/herself/itself argue. He/She/It has no foundation of knowledge regarding Christianity and, therefore, is not qualified to comment on a professional level on it's contents.It looks like this person you are referring to has really given you a challenge that is beyond your ability to respond in a respectful manner such that you must resort to attempts at ridiculing them.

I believe this is a well known political tactic. Attempt to discredit an opponent because you have no valid arguments of your own.

Cris,

Vakemp,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you do not know if God exists or not, and you seek proof (or you aren't convinced enough to believe), you would fall into the agnostic category.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is an atheist.


No, it's agnostic.

Courtesy, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
Agnostic-

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

I really didn't want to define the word verbatim like I did in the other post, but oh well...

"None of this claimed evidence has passed the tests specified by using the scientific method. If you believe I am wrong then please show such documented results."
--------------------------------------

'Evidence' does not have to pass scientific tests to be concluded as 'evidence'. Are eyewitness testimonies admitted in a court of law as 'evidence'?






"Construct an experiment under strict scientific conditions that can show that a god exists."
----------------------------------------

Okay. First, you construct an experiment, for me, under strict scientific conditions that can show that a 'thought' exits.

or

You construct an experiment, for me, under strict scientific conditions that can show that a 'feeling' exists.

Do you see the error in your logic? Not everything that exists can be validated by scientific scrutiny, much to the dismay of your science gods.




"It is the evangelical nature of Christianity to attempt to convince others of their claims."
---------------------------------------

Indeed, Christians are instructed to give accounts for their beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). My words cannot save you, only Jesus can do that. However, if you choose to deny God's existence, you will be held accountable. I am here more for the entertainment, which you consistently provide.





"Your claim is that one has to feel convinced first before they can be convinced."
------------------------------------------

One is saved by His grace through faith in Him.

><>

Inspector,
In the Bible, God created man PERFECT.
In the Bible, man became imperfect after the introduction of SIN.
Therefore, God sent his Son to REDEEM man's sinful nature.


Who created sin? If God created all, then He created sin, too.

If God knows all, He knew man would sin.

And again, if God created all, He could've created a world free of sin.

So, who created this, this, SIN!

Cris,
...again, from a dictionary:
Atheist-
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
Date: 1571
: one who denies the existence of God

Although your definitions of strong-atheist/weak-atheist are convincing, I like to go by what many accept as linguistic standards...hence the dictionary.

There's a difference between:

There is no God

and

There is no proof of God

I'm agnostic because I think there's a possibility God exists...I just have been given no proof.

If I said God doesn't exist, then I would be atheist.

inspector

Are eyewitness testimonies admitted in a court of law?

Not really. Eyewitness testimonies are categorically inadmissible and must be considered by the judge case-by-case. A judge must consider the testimony if offered but may dismiss it on the grounds that it would not be helpful to the jury. In any case, circumstantial evidence has jurisdiction over eyewitness testimony since it is admissible for every case.

Either way, the decision is left to the jurors who must be convinced of the evidence whether it eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence or empirical evidence.

In the case of the resurrection, we can consider all of us judge and jury. Therefore, we find that the eyewitness testimony may be used in this case. Please present your eyewitness testimony that we may all judge its credibility.

Cris,
I read all the words you say. What you say is nonsense, I think you did beleive once and it hurt you somehow, and now you hate it, yes?

"So, who created this, this, SIN!"
--------------------------------------------------

God did not create sin. God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of holiness. It is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). God is the author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy character (Exodus 20). Therefore, God cannot create that which is in direct violation of the Law any more than a person can wish himself to be bigger than the sun. It just isn’t possible.

God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible.

An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey.

Likewise, God has created the condition in the world where the ability to rebel against Him was possible. Yet, he is not responsible for that rebellion once it has been committed. Therefore, sin originated with Lucifer who was the first to rebel and entered the world through Adam who likewise chose disobedience.


Scriptures Quoted:

1 John 3:4, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."

Isaiah 14;12-15, "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13 "But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit."

Ezekiel 28:13-15, "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 "You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you."

><>

inspector,
This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will.

Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin

Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God

So, God did not create sin, huh?

Correct me if I'm wrong:

-Before Lucifer, sin did not exist.

-Sin was created by Lucifer

-Who created Lucifer? God.

-Lucifer betrays God. Sin is born.

-God makes man in His image.

-Man betrays God.

-Man sins.

So, God creates Lucifer, and Lucifer sins. God creates man, and man sins.

How is it that sin did not exist before God, does not exist in God, yet sin shows up in everything God creates?

God, who does not know sin, who is all-knowing, creates angels and men that are in His likeness, yet sin.

Does that about sum it up?

"Does that about sum it up?"
-------------------------------------------

No, but this might.

Man is sinful.
VAKEMP is man.
Therefore, VAKEMP is sinful.
Jesus died to redeem man's sin.
Man is redeemed by God's grace and forgiveness.
Grace is a free gift from God for those who have faith in God.
Christians have faith in God and are redeemed.
VAKEMP is without faith in God.
Therefore, VAKEMP does not receive grace or salvation.



'NOW, we see but a poor reflection, as in a mirror. THEN, we shall see face to face. NOW, we know in part. THEN we shall know fully.........'

><>

Ok, let's break this down:
'Man is sinful.'
(Man is created by God)
'VAKEMP is man.'
(Therefore created by God)
'Therefore, VAKEMP is sinful.'
(Because I was created by God)
'Jesus died to redeem man's sin. '
(Why?)
'Man is redeemed by God's grace and forgiveness. '
(Then I don't have to worship Jesus Christ? Who saves us, Jesus or God?)
'Grace is a free gift from God for those who have faith in God. '
(It is not free, then. You have to believe God exists. This is where the big disconnect is. You believe the Bible is the proof of God. I don't.)
'Christians have faith in God and are redeemed. '
(Jews believe in God, too. Christians believe Jesus was sent by God to redeem man's sin, remember? So what happens to Jews? Obviously, they already believed in God. Why should they be left out when they didn't need Jesus?)
'VAKEMP is without faith in God. '
(I need proof. You cannot provide that proof. Only God can. Sorry, I'm pickier than you.)
'Therefore, VAKEMP does not receive grace or salvation. '
(Based on your own interpretation of God. You are not God, so you have no right to judge me or my beliefs. I don't judge yours. I'm asking for proof, and you can't provide it. I'm not damning you to hell for not giving me proof. Yet, that is what you wish of me.)

VAKEMP, my friend. I do not wish anything bad on you. I am only a flawed human on a fallen planet, attempting to defend Christianity on a secular website. I am not all-knowing, or all-anything for that matter.

I have to go for the evening, however, I would like to discuss this matter further, at another time with you. You offer some interesting arguments regarding the existence of God. Perhaps, a private discussion sometime soon?

><>

Originally posted by VAKEMP
I'm agnostic because I think there's a possibility God exists...I just have been given no proof.

If I said God doesn't exist, then I would be atheist.
i think most people who are atheists are more agnostic

The whole atheist vs. agnostic definitions debacle seems to be a never-ending point of frustration on these boards.

Lately, people seem to have gotten it in their heads that an atheist is someone that could never believe in god no matter what. I have no idea where this nonsense come from...

Oh well, I give up.

inspector,
Perhaps, a private discussion sometime soon?
Perhaps.:)

Bachus,
i think most people who are atheists are more agnostic
I've defined atheist and agnostic already, in this post and in the 'God does exist' post. They are different words with different meanings. A person can be agnostic and not atheist, or vice-versa. ;)

Originally posted by VAKEMP
Bachus,

I've defined atheist and agnostic already, in this post and in the 'God does exist' post. They are different words with different meanings. A person can be agnostic and not atheist, or vice-versa. ;)
didn't see that, but i haven't been much on the religion forum lately. What i ment however that most people (could be) calling themselves atheist instead of agnostic because atheist is a more widespread word.

Bachus,
You are right. Not too many people know what the difference is. :D

Vakemp et all,

This is the view of agnosticsm that I use. It is a taken from a key athesist resource http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Note that dictionaries are fine up to a point, but many are out of date especially for such terms as atheist. The newer ones are slowly catching on, but most declare atheist as someone who believes God does not exist. And that is highly misleading.

The better approach would be to adopt real life curent thinking when using such terms rather than rely on potentially stale dictionary definitions.

One of the key readers for all atheists is the book - The Case Against God - by George H Smith. This includes a long and detailed discussion on the meaning of terms such as atheism and agnosticsm.

For this discussion you are and I are both right and wrong depending on whch resources have been referenced.

Anyway an extract from the website. Atheism is clearly defined there as well -

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.

Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on the original definition be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

VAKEMP,

And for atheism: I think you will find these are the common definitions currently in use by practicing atheists and accepted by all mainstream atheist organizations.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

Thanks for the explanation, Cris. I will check the link you provided.

There are undoubtedly different variations to Atheism and Agnosticism, just as there are devout, bible-thumping Christians, and people who call themselves Christians just because they were told it was good to call yourself a Christian.

If you deal with a large group of atheist/agnostic people, I can understand why you would need to categorize people's differences in opinion further. In that case, I would understand using your classifications. For me, the definitions in the dictionary work.

Once again, thanks for the info Cris!

Hockywings, welcome back and ........you suck. lol. Look what have you done now. It is turning into a fight between christians and atheists. I will join this soon. :cool:

Stu,

I read all the words you say. What you say is nonsense, I think you did beleive once and it hurt you somehow, and now you hate it, yes?It looks like you are desperately trying to understand how someone could possibly feel so strongly about something but entirely opposite to you.

It is true that I was a devout Christian for some years in my teens and early twenties, but I have been a practicing atheist for the past 30 years since then. And no I was never hurt in any way by my Christian experience. Some 15 years ago for several years I attended Sunday morning Christian sessions with a group of Christians specifically to debate face-to-face issues of the day and of course how Christianity would be involved. I was the lone atheist. The sessions were great fun and I think many came to understand my alternate views. I’m pretty sure I never converted anyone, but then that was never my purpose since I was there to learn.

To this day some of my best friends are devout Christians.

So I am afraid you are way off the mark.

Vakemp,

Hey no problem. But let's not bash each other to death over definitions. It should be possible to explain the principles of our philosophies without always having to refer to dubious labels. It might take a greater effort on the part of the poster though.

VAKEMP, Inspector,

Perhaps I can help you out a little. You seem to both be making some errors about Christianity. Here is a summary of the basic mythology.

Christian Mythology.

1. Adam was immortal.
2. To sin means to disobey God.
3. Adam sinned.
4. The punishment for sin is death.
5. Adam died.
6. All men after Adam inherited his mortality.
7. The nature of all men became sinful.
8. All men sin.
9. All men died.
10. Jesus was divine.
11. Jesus gave up his divinity.
12. Jesus came to earth as a man.
13. Jesus never sinned.
14. Jesus did not deserve to die because he never sinned.
15. Jesus accepted the punishment due to every man.
16. Jesus sacrificed himself to God in place of all mankind.
17. God could raise Jesus to life again because Jesus did not break his laws.
18. God resurrected Jesus.
19. God gave Jesus a new nature that was free from the sinful nature of man.
20. God gave man the gift of eternal life if man believed in Jesus.
21. Man no longer needed to die for his sins.
22. Man had to request forgiveness from Jesus if he wanted to live.
23. When men die they have to wait for the second coming of Jesus and judgment.
24. Those who are judged worthy will be resurrected to a heavenly paradise.
25. Those who are judged not worthy will suffer torment for eternity.

This I think is a fairly accurate summary of Christianity, however, there are many cults who will hold variations on this.

Note that if Adam did not exist then the whole basis for Christianity is nonsense.

Many suggest that the Adam and Eve story is just symbolic and that it isn’t possible that just two people were the cause of the whole of humanity.

If the story of Adam and Eve is just symbolic then it must also be true that the whole of Christianity can also be no more than symbolic fantasy. The purpose of Jesus was to save man from his sinful nature that was begun with Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve never existed then the basis for Christianity disappears.

"I cannot speak for other religions, however, Christianity has a bevy of evidence supporting it. Eyewitness testimonies (corroborated by New Testament writers) that is historically accurate and archeologically consistent, fulfilled prophecies, etc. would be a couple of examples. If you say that this is not valid evidence, then why is it not valid? Perhaps, we would need to discuss what would constitute sufficient evidence for you and then proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eyewitness testimonies? Could be. But when the eyewitness testimonies do not correspond correctly. God changing (merciful in new testimont, vengeful in old testimont). God limiting himself as Jesus(human form has its limitations in comparison to deity). I could go on. If you like me to I will explain these in more detail.

Hmmmm, historically accurate? Show me your archeologically consistencies for the flood. There was a great debate between 2 geologists, one christian and one atheist on this. Seems to favor the side of no great flood. Link to this would be http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/morrisdebate.html

Fulfilled prophecies? Explain. Give examples.

If these turn out to be legitiment, then of course they are valid, but you most give me the information first.

I am quite reasonable, and if you provide sufficient evidence, I will indeed convert.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, you won't. Your presuppositions will not allow you to accurately and objectively examine the evidences supporting the existence of God."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite quick to come to that assumption. Judging by how much you have seen me, or heard from me, how could you make such a judgement?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Christians do not have to prove anything to you, or anyone else. You are correct about one thing, though: as long as you hold onto your presuppositions that there is no God, you CANNOT understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells you that God does not inhabit unholy vessels."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well, you can hold that stance, but you tell your god that when someone reached out to you for understanding, you pushed them down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""In the Bible, God created man.

In the Bible, man is not perfect.

Therefore, God created man to be imperfect (or He screwed up)."
------------------------------------------------------

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

For the record,

In the Bible, God created man PERFECT.
In the Bible, man became imperfect after the introduction of SIN.
Therefore, God sent his Son to REDEEM man's sinful nature. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God being all-knowing, knew about the introduction of SIN before it was introduced, could have stoped it being all-powerful, and would have been unnessicary to send his 'son'. God being perfect could have created a world where sin would have NEVER been introduced. God being perfect could have created a MORE (?) perfect man who would have not been affecxted by sin. How can man have been created perfect if there were a form that could have been better?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The interesting thing about atheism is that most atheists are ignorant regarding the Bible and it's contents. Most have never read even the New Testament, let alone the entire book. Yet, they attempt to refute the Bible without having any appertaining knowledge. Learning atheism is simple because it is the same parrot talk time after time after time............. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most but not all, I assure you I have read it, and in fact took a course studying it, and in fact am a reverand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God created these conditions, then man was not created perfect, as stated by you in an earlier post. Someone who does not always do good, is not perfect, and God creating this condition and your earlier statement of God creating man perfect are in conflict with one another. Understand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analogy should seem ridiculous to you! How can you compare your almighty GOD with a sinful, limited parent? You should be ashamed. You cannot create an analogy between a limited sinful, parent, who never claimed to make a perfect child, with a limitless, sinless, god who claims to make the perfect man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I welcome you to argue with me more formally. My AIM sn is stefan719

"I have been gone for awhile from here too, and I am back. I would like to see any athiest in here try to prove their non-belief to me. I am muslim, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these non-beliefs."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you are a sir, so that is what I will refer to you as, if I am wrong I appologize.

Sir, if you think something is true you must prove it. If you think something is false that has yet to be proven, you have nothing to disprove. If you think something is false that HAS been proven, that is where I would have to come in and dismiss your evidence.

For example, I would not expect you to disprove that a man named fjioniaom giodhoniom lived 3670 years ago. It would be on me to prove that he lived, before you could disprove it. Understand?
I welcome you to chat with me to prove your deity. My AIM sn is stefan719

Originally posted by hockeywings

Sir, if you think something is true you must prove it.

So, "There is no God" if you think that it is true , then prove it!

You said that if you think something is true you must prove it. Understand!

So, "There is no God" if you think that it is true , then prove it!

That's easy! I don't see Him. There is no evidence that anyone has ever seen Him. I look up in the sky, and I don't see this so-called heaven. Astronauts go in space, and they don't report seeing any supreme being up there.

Basically, there is no evidence that a God exists.

What's that? You read something in a book? You don't have any other evidence that He's real but that book? Oh! That's different! I read in the Enquirer that Santa Clause exists, so there's my proof that he's real!

Let me get a tax break this year. I'll tell the IRS I have 100 dependents. When they ask for proof, I'll make up 100 names, write them down on a paper, and give it to the IRS. That should be all of the evidence they need, right? They just have to 'believe' I have 100 dependents, because it's written.

BTW, do you happen to work at the IRS? ;)

stu43t,
Your posts have been nothing but ridiculous.

The first post I saw from you was this:

I have been gone for awhile from here too, and I am back. I would like to see any athiest in here try to prove their non-belief to me. I am muslim, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these non-beliefs.

You're so creative, you copy hockeywings' post.

In my previous post, I was trying to show you why I find it so hard to believe God exists.

Saying He exists just because it says so in a book isn't enough for me.

If you are 100% secure in your relationship with God, then I'm happy for you. I respect that.

But if I were to say that I could believe in Him just because I read a book, I would be lying to myself. I could walk around and tell people I believe, but in my heart it wouldn't be true, because I have doubts. And everytime I seek clarification, this is basically what I get from 'Christians' everytime:

Please read this article I wrote, it applies to you:
Satans little helpers...


I'm being honest with you, and you damn me to hell.

Shame on you.

Said it a million times, but going to Hell is like going to Never Never Land!!!

So, I damned myself by questioning the written word of man?

Please explain to me how I damned myself to hell.

I've been to Hell (http://www.hell2u.com/) and back.

"So, "There is no God" if you think that it is true , then prove it!

You said that if you think something is true you must prove it. Understand!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't think it was neccisary to elaborate further, but your asinine comment seems to deem it neccisary. You have a topic, in our situation God, until it is proven, the neccesity of evidence lies on the advancer to prove it. If it were ever proven, then the neccesity of evidence lies on the person persuing it is not true.

just to explain further, I wish you to disprove that the man in my previous post ever lived. It is not possible. Until I prove it and you critique my evidence for it. Understand?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is lots of evidence, but you can't/won't accept it "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the SECOND time someone has said this. Neither time have either of you shown me such evidence, but just explicitly said you obtain such. I have never turned down 'evidence' from someone, and you assume I wont look at it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now you are been sarcastic."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He may be being sarcastic but it is a reasonable analogy, until this 'evidence' arises.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Satans little helpers

I believe that the thoughts of atheists on this forum are not open to discussion, they are only here to attempt to discredit God and the people who believe in God. They are working for evil in their attempts to scoff at the world and it's beliefs, they are not interested in Muslims, Jews or Christians as people. Their only purpose is to try to squash out any beliefs a believer holds. They are not open to any conversation that confirms God. They laugh, they blaspheme, they argue, they try to kill hope and faith, they try to extinguish any flicker of belief a religious person may hold, who else but the Devil could work like this. Athiests are truly satans little helpers.

I have also noticed that these atheists are very knowledgeable in the Christian faith. Now why would someone go to the trouble of studying something so intensely just to discredit it? I think it is because they are ultimately anti-Christian, not just atheist. If I didn't believe in something, I wouldn't go to the trouble of learning everything about it just to try and discredit the idea, that would be a waste of effort unless there is a motive behind it., and that motive here is to do the work of the devil, and to do evil work with evil words.

I do not hate people like this, but I do pity them. It must be an empty shallow life living without God. Although an atheist wouldn't say so, of course he wouldn't, would he/she?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT open to discussion? I opened this thread for your chance to persuade me, I offered no argument for my position, just being open-minded towards your position. NOT OPEN?

I am not here to discredit god, I am here to discredit a false assumption, false logic, and false reasoning. Give me a reasoned, logical arguement and I have nothing to discredit, CONSIDERING I have yet to give you an arguement for my side. I do not attempt to kill hope and faith, I DO attempt to kill BLIND hope and BLIND faith, for they do nothing but hinder your critical thinking skills.

Wow like I haven't been called the devil before. Original, and even more impressive being taht you are resorting to the work of the devil when you are asked to provide backing for your Religion(The most deeprooted thing in your life most likely)

I am very knowledgable of the christian faith. If I am going to 'risk' eternal damnation, I better be sure. I am trying to gain knowledge of the muslim faith, and slowly I am learning it. Not anti-christian but anti-illogical.

If you didnt believe something that COULD affect your life forever, it would be quite ignorant to not learn about it, just in case.

Why respond to my post if that is how you think? I was interested in the actually thought provoking religionists, if you cannot do this, I encourage you not to post in this thread again. Of course I cannot stop you but it will be a waste of my time, and more importantly to you, your time.

stu43t,
If you aren't going to answer my questions, then why don't you stop posting here? You aren't providing any evidence that God exists the way you believe He does, and you definitely aren't making a very good representative of Christianity...unless your beliefs include insulting others for asking questions.

(Edit: The similarity between hockeywings' post and mine is a coincidence. I had my reply page up for a while.)

Originally posted by stu43t
Atheists will say anything to make themselves sound plausible. You don't fool me, as I said "They laugh, they blaspheme, they argue, they try to kill hope and faith, they try to extinguish any flicker of belief a religious person may hold, who else but the Devil could work like this. Athiests are truly satans little helpers."

And now they try the trick of appearing reasonable, you will try anything to creep into the hearts of believers. No, you are evil.

If you truly want to learn your chosen faith then Do Not try doing so through a forum of this nature, but even you are intelligent to enough know this.
Amusing. When someone says that there is no proof for god's existence, you say "there's tons of proof." When someone asks for proof, you say "well, you just won't listen to me and stuff." Then when someone refutes your claims you call them helpers of satan.

Anyway, I think it's in everyone's (in including yours) best interests to go here. (http://www.anus.com/altar/index.html)

Thanks.

whether your muslim or christian, no matter. Either way you still have contributed nothing to this conversation. I ask you to please contribute

Originally posted by VAKEMP
That's easy! I don't see Him. There is no evidence that anyone has ever seen Him. I look up in the sky, and I don't see this so-called heaven. Astronauts go in space, and they don't report seeing any supreme being up there.




Intreresting, Since I can't see you...........you do not exists, but I can read you which tells me that you do exists that is why you are writing, same thing with your brain, no one can see you brain so it doesn't exists, oh and it only exists because doctor told you that it exists you have never seen your brain or have you? Humans believe in that for a very long time that brain exists even when they have never seen the xrays, they had to disect the head, you might as well wait for your death to see if God exists or not but it won't be much help or would it?.

My problem is that, I can't believe in so called chrsitian God. Since he was just a normal human like u and me but the Prophet of God not God himself. So I may stand little away from all of your biblical bs.

Later

Am I going to heaven or hell?

As far as I know neither. I plan to be cremated. Although this seems off topic, maybe you will link it some how.

"Intreresting, Since I can't see you...........you do not exists, but I can read you which tells me that you do exists that is why you are writing, same thing with your brain, no one can see you brain so it doesn't exists, oh and it only exists because doctor told you that it exists you have never seen your brain or have you? Humans believe in that for a very long time that brain exists even when they have never seen the xrays, they had to disect the head, you might as well wait for your death to see if God exists or not but it won't be much help or would it?."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand where you are coming from, but I would like to elaborate on VAKEMP, and VAKEMP interject if i'm wrong.

No one has EVER seen god to the point of not questioning them, No well documented case of the knowledge of god. While the brain has not been seen in the present, every past human has had a brain. There is no precursor to God existing. There is no past God we know of, one we can prove, that would indicate the present god (in any religion) is true without giving such evidence.

I guess a way to sum this up would be to say there is no past example we can use to refer god to.

VAKEMP and Hockeywings, here is another contribution, I have seen this on the forum, these things were written by athiests. Could it be that these athiests are the same sort of atheist as you VAKEMP and Hockeywings, if not then there must be various types of athiests, can you explain this?

Examples of atheists at work:

CounslerCoffee
El Presidente
988 posts

God is good
God is great
God knows who to masturbate!

By Counsler Coffee

P.S. I do poetry readings mondays and fridays at a cafe for old homeless jews, black crackheads, and white rapists.

Heres my take on that Jesus guy.

His family life: His dad to was a carpenter Jesus must of learned the tricks of the trades from him, his mom was a stay at home woman with little to nothing to do. He has no uncles, no brothers or sister, and no other relatives, lucky bastard. He is also Jewish.

His Parent's: I think the name of his mom is Mary but Im not really that sure, and his dads was something like Joe. It's obvious to anyone that thinks long and hard that Mary was cheating on Joe. Joe never had sex with Mary, Joe obviously being a repressed homosexual.

His Job: Jesus started out as a con-man, claiming to be the Son Of God, playing on peoples emotions and doing cheap parlor tricks. He started his own religion in the year 1976 known as christianity, it has since grown "out of control" in his own words. Jesus finally opted out of the religion business in 1993 and went to find work elsewhere. Jesus now works as a carpenter for IKEA making book cases and furniture, selling it to the masses and making a prophet.

That's all I really know about this Jesus guy, for more information look up Jesus on the web or read a bible, I think hes in it somewhere

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GB-GIL

YOUR PRIEST IS A LIAR AND YOUR GOD IS DEAD! The day of the serpent is nigh when your god will be denied you will burn in the flames of the hell you created while hordes of demonic legions sweep over a blackened and corrupt earth brining terror and destruction in their wake BLASPHEME THE GHOST SELL YOUR SOUL your satanic father is calling you to drown in the pleasures of degraded flesh without hope of heaven without redemption AVE SATANIS AVE SATANIS AVE SATANIS!

God is dead --Nietzsche

God is fucking gay -- You Killed Jesus

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TOTALLY GAY!!!

Hey! That's no fun! Say, in a very irritated-sounding tone of voice: "We don't believe in God here. We believe in Satan, and Satan will suck your fucking cock when you go to hell!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Killed Jesus

But god really is a big fag! I'd beat him up.
Rip the sacred flesh
Sodomize the holy asshole
Drink the red blood of the mother of earth
Masturbation on the dead body of christ
The king of Jews is dead
and so are the lies
Vomit on the host of Heaven
Masturbate on the throne of God
Break the seals of angels
Drink the sweet blood of Christ
Taste the flesh of the priest
Sodomize holy nuns
The king of Jews is a liar
The Heavens will burn
Dethrone the son of God
God is dead
Holyness is gone
Purity is gone
Prayers are burned
Covered in black shit
Rape the holy ghost
Unclean birth of Jesus Christ
Heaven will fall
Fuck the church
Fuck Christ
Fuck the Virgin
Fuck the gods of Heaven
Fuck the name of Jesus


Disemboweled on the altar jesus christ
Entrails in the pentagram circle
Spill his blood and reversing catholic humn
Invocate the onslaught of Satan

Master Lord lucifer
From behind the light thou shall rise
Drink ourselves as you feed
His offering of purity

Bible bleed, hell on Earth has been achieved
Thou will fail before Lord Satan
Casting sin, pissing on their crucifix
Stepping forth into his creation

Master Lord lucifer
From behind the light thou shall rise
Walk His Earth, invade in pain
His christians become the enslaved

What was once is never more
Infernal Lord Father restored
Blinding priest in disbelief
Revenge onto god he has sworn


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That Jerk

You stupid cock-sucking retard of a Christian motherfucker

GO TO THIS PAGE, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND READ IT. THEN DARE TO CALL ME A LIAR, YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Master of Illusion
Junior Member
26 posts

You Killed Jesus, I enjoy blasphemy, it's one of my "hobbies".

I especially enjoy modifying bible verses......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XEV

Tears of blood - from your fallen domination
Tears of blood - see your creation burn down
Churches and crosses destroyed by fire
Fire that one day will embrace the earth
Crying and begging for help from your god
Your god does not exist!

Religious demise, extinction of lies
When you burn on the cross as my servant
I can't describe the sight I saw, the sight of mighty fire
No thing is more beautiful than fire

Firestorms embrace the holy earth
Christ burn! Make my deed complete
Heaven lost, this battle we have won
We have won!

Fire glow into his blessed creation
Make them blind by your beauty
Blind by the light

Heaven burn, ashes to the ground
The cross of Christ denied

Churches and crosses destroyed by fire
Fire that one day will embrace the earth
Crying and begging for help from your god
Your god does not exist!

Oh fuck yes! Abuse me, God! Beat me! Punish me! I am a terrible filthy sinner and I deserve to be punished!

But anyhow, it doesn't matter 'cause Bush Sr. is a twat,

I GET TO VOTE TODAY, NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you implying that since we are atheist we all act the same way? of course not, everyone will go about their atheism differently just as religionists go about their religions differently, I have met religionists who attempt at giving me proof, and I have met religionists who just scream and yell at me and tell me I am going to hell. It is quite stereotypical of you to quickly judge me as such. OTOH these words mean nothing to atheists in these poems for no such god exists to them. This is WAY off topic, and I wouldnt consider it a contribution, I asked for you to prove your religion and you answer me back with trying to defame atheists? I ask you how this is a contribution, wait no I don't I would rather see you prove your religion than to answer that questions, lets get back to the topic eh?

"God limiting himself as Jesus(human form has its limitations in comparison to deity). I could go on. If you like me to I will explain these in more detail."
---------------------------------------------------

Please do. Begin with your understanding of Christian soteriology, please. Also, include your interpretation of the Trinity, please.

><>

Originally posted by stu43t
You Killed Jesus

As your name implies, and through the words you write and your link, you confirm every word I have said. You are a helper of satan.

Glad to be of service. :)

Originally posted by stu43t
Ask yourself this question, are you
going to hell or heaven when you die?
What is your definition of hell, heaven, and dying?

It's all perception people. None of this can be proven or disproven. What is the point of arguing a bunch of opinions? Truth in regards to Faith is subjective. The Eye of the Beholder determines ones Truth.

In my opinion, I don't agree with most of what religion has to offer. But that's just me. It may work and have a positive effect on someone else.

I sometimes find myself arguing religion but then I take a step back. It's all perception. One's person's truth is not the same as the next.

There seems to be a lot of Ethnosentric activity here...

"Please do. Begin with your understanding of Christian soteriology, please. Also, include your interpretation of the Trinity, please."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soteriology- In christian mythology it is based upon a couple principles, first that all humans have sinned or will sin and the second is that whoever sins dies. Now is when different versions of christianity differ from each other. One version says all you have to do is profess that jesus was your savior and you are saved. Others believed you needed to be circumcized. Another says you must do works and faith, another works, another faith. Yet another says you must confess to gain salvation. These are all possible for the how christians view soteriology.

As for the trinity. the trinity is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. 3 seperate entities, yet all one. which with normal common sense, and a lot of versions of christianity, it is dismissed entirely. Yet if you want me to explain this to you I will. The trinity seems to break up gods oneness to explain simple conflicts in the bible. Such as in Genesis were the bible says Us instead of I. But if they were the same, the father and the son. They would have the same qualities. Yet Jesus, being in human form, has limitations of being human. For one he can die. And one example of being limited is enough to show someone is not perfect, as a 'god' would be.

Originally posted by hockeywings

No one has EVER seen god to the point of not questioning them, No well documented case of the knowledge of god. While the brain has not been seen in the present, every past human has had a brain. There is no precursor to God existing. There is no past God we know of, one we can prove, that would indicate the present god (in any religion) is true without giving such evidence.

I guess a way to sum this up would be to say there is no past example we can use to refer god to.

You are very right, there are no examples past or present, because I believe human mind is only capable of so much.

Surah 112. The Unity, Sincerity, Oneness Of Allah


1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none like unto Him.

No comparison, exactly my point. There are no examples that one can give. You believe it or you don't believe it. That is individual's choice.


From the moment one opens his eyes to this world a great order surrounds him. He needs oxygen to survive. It is interesting that the atmosphere of the planet he lives in provides just the adequate amount of oxygen he needs. This way, he breathes without difficulty. For the existence of life in this planet, the existence of a source of heat is essential. In response to this need, the sun is located just at the right point to emit just the adequate amount of heat and energy. Man needs to be nourished to survive. Every corner of the world abounds with an astonishingly diversified food. Likewise, he needs water. Surprisingly, three fourth of the planet is covered with water. He needs to take shelter and in this world, there is proper ground and all sorts of materials to make shelter.

These are only a few among billions of details making life possible on earth. In brief, man lives on a planet perfectly designed for his survival. This is surely a planet created for human beings. A person's interpretation of the world rests on "acquired methods of thought." That is, a person thinks in the way he is indoctrinated. Under this guidance, a person often finds all the aforementioned to be "mundane realities." However, if he does not sidestep and start questioning the conditions making his existence possible, he will surely step out of the boundaries of his habitual thinking faculties and start to think:

How does the atmosphere serve as a protective ceiling for the earth?
How does each one of the billions of cells in the human body know and perform their individual tasks?
How does an extraordinary ecological balance exist on earth?...
A person seeking answers to these questions surely proceeds on the right path. He does not remain insensitive to things happening around and doesn't feign ignorance about the extraordinary nature of the world. A person who asks questions, who reflects on and gives answers to these questions will realize that at every corner of the planet, a plan, an order reigns.

How did the flawless order in the whole universe come into being? Who provided the delicate balances in the world? How did living beings, incredibly diversified in nature, emerge?

Keeping oneself occupied with a relentless research to answer these questions results in a sharp awareness; that everything in the universe, the order, every each living being and mechanism is a component of a plan, a product of a design. In every detail, from the excellent structure in an insect's wing to the system enabling a tree to carry tons of water to its top branches, or the order of planets, the ratio of gasses in the atmosphere, are all unique examples of perfection.

In every detail of the infinitely varied world, one finds his Creator. Allah (God), the owner of everything in the whole universe, introduces Himself to man through this flawlessness. Everything surrounding man, the flying birds and our heart, the birth of a child or the existence of sun in the sky, manifest the power of Allah (God) and His creation. And what befalls man is to conceive this fact.

These purposes owe their existence to the fact that everything has been created. An intelligent person notices that plan, design and wisdom exist in every detail of the infinitely varied world. This draws him to recognition of the Creator.

So you never feign ignorance that all living beings, living or non-living, show the existence and greatness of Allah (God). Look at things surrounding you and strive to practice appreciation for the eternal greatness of Allah (God) in the best manner.

The existence of Allah (God) is APPARENT. Feigning to ignore it would only be the beginning of a great detriment one could ever do to himself. That is simply because Allah (God) is in no need of anything. He is the One who shows His greatness in all things and in all ways. Allah (God) is the owner of everything, from heavens to earth. We learn the attributes of Allah (God) from the Qur'an:

Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permit? He knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). (Surat al-Baqara: 255)

"And one example of being limited is enough to show someone is not perfect, as a 'god' would be."
----------------------------------------------------


Thanks for responding, Hockey.

This is why Christianity is misunderstood by those who are not familiar with biblical doctrine. One of the doctrines that many people fail to understand concerning Jesus is the doctrine of the hypostatic union. This is in the teaching that Jesus has two natures: God and man. In other words, Jesus is both God and man at the same time. This is why we see some scriptures that point to Him being divine and others pointing to Him being a man. Below is an example illustrating the two natures of Jesus as derived from scripture. Jesus is one person, with two natures.

Jesus is God.

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 20:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

Jesus is man.

He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)


This is not a made-up doctrine. Rather, it is a doctrine derived from observing God's word. It is true that God cannot die. It is also true that man can die. But we see that Jesus has two natures, not one. It was the human part of Jesus that died on the cross, not the divine. But, because He is both God and man in one person, and because He was sinless, His sacrifice is sufficient to cover the sins of the world. Please take the time to review the biblical passages I have cited, as I have taken the time to post them here. BTW, your concept of soteriology is not exactly correct either, but I will perhaps tackle that one tomorrow.

><>

Markx, you describe the billions of small things that make life on Earth possible. Now, it is amazing that all these things are possible on this one planet.

But take a look at the universe as a whole, all the galaxies, all the planets, almost infinitely many, if not infinitely many. Now it is not hard to imagine, that out of all these INFINITELY many planets, one has the capabilities to support human life.

Another way to look at it is from an evolutionary aspect. We have a planet, organisms form, and humans adapt to the enviroment. We are the ones adapting to fit the enviroment that is here. Both of these are possibilities no?

An example to help explain the second scenario would be as follows: A deliquent child is sent to boot camp. He is forced to live as he can survive easiest there, (if he acts out of line, he is deciplined). Now the deliquent would be acting different if he was in different circumstances just as humans might be if we were in different circumstances.

In response to your paragraph about perfection of the world. The world is not perfect, there is disease, famen, injuries, death, terrorism, and dictatorships. There is an extreme waste of space particularly in outer space. Waste indicates something is not perfect.

If things are not perfect this negates your next paragraph of seeing a creator, Allah, who made this perfection.

I believe I have responded to all of your post, point something out if I didn't.

Perfect is having ZERO faults. Even if Jesus is man AND god, it does not hinder the fact that the man part can die, and that is a fault.

Another example of Gods imperfection is the need for a sacrifice. If god made his creation truely perfect, which is the only way a perfect being could, there would be no need for a sacrifice.

In reference to soteriology, I was giving you various ways different christians use it, I have personally been told this by various christians. How YOU view it may be different although. Which is yet another example of Gods imperfection. If he were perfect there would be no doubt what he says in his words.

Markx,
Intreresting, Since I can't see you...........you do not exists
If you want me to prove I exist, we can meet for tea sometime. I can prove to you I exist.

I've never been to Egypt, yet I believe it exists. Why? Because I know I could go there if I really wanted to. Right now, I can't prove to you that Egypt exists, and I can't prove to you that it doesn't. You would have to see Egypt for yourself to have undeniable proof that Egypt exists.

However, there is nothing that makes me question Egypt's existence, so there's no reason for me not to believe Egypt exists.

Now, if you can relate this to the Bible and Christianity, maybe you can see why I am asking for clarification.



You're right, there are so many things that we must believe exists in order to live the way we do.

We have to believe there are really satellites up in space beaming us our digital quality television broadcasts.

We have to believe that gas is pumped out of the ground for our use, and not a concoction created by Satan and all his 'helpers', and that its use doesn't automatically damn us to Hell.

inspector,

Jesus is both God and man at the same time. This is why we see some scriptures that point to Him being divine and others pointing to Him being a man. Below is an example illustrating the two natures of Jesus as derived from scripture. Jesus is one person, with two natures.

Jesus is God.

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 20:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)


First off, I know you are only trying to help. I want to thank you for your patience.

However, I have difficulty believing Jesus is God just because of these things. Very few of these things can be proven:

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

I believe these things to be true, because I have seen them. So, there is proof that they are true (to me at least).

This does not make Jesus a God, though. I can apply each and every one of the four listed to a rock.

The rest of your examples cannot be proven. I could elaborate, but I am sure it is obvious why the rest cannot be proven.

"In reference to soteriology, I was giving you various ways different christians use it, I have personally been told this by various christians. How YOU view it may be different although. Which is yet another example of Gods imperfection. If he were perfect there would be no doubt what he says in his words."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hockey, work with me here. God's Word is perfect. It is mankind that is flawed, due to the introduction of evil (Original Sin). It is the nature of man to fulfill selfish desires. This is why there are different interpretations of the Bible, and ultimately, different religions. I do not attempt to alter His Word in any way. This being said, soteriology is simply defined as the doctrine of salvation. According to the Bible, we are saved by the grace of God (a free gift) through our faith in Him. This is Romans 5:1.

><>

"This does not make Jesus a God, though. I can apply each and every one of the four listed to a rock.

The rest of your examples cannot be proven. I could elaborate, but I am sure it is obvious why the rest cannot be proven."
-------------------------------------------------------

VAKEMP, my friend. You are struggling with the concept of God because you are obviously hung up on this 'proof' thing. I understand how this can be a roadblock for you. I am currently addressing this issue on another thread here on this site. Regardless, if God were to furnish physical proof for everyone who demanded it (i.e. miracle after miracle), there would be no need for faith, would there?

><>

Originally posted by hockeywings
Markx, you describe the billions of small things that make life on Earth possible. Now, it is amazing that all these things are possible on this one planet.

.



Good, I was expecting you to bring this point up. I am sorry that you have to reply to so many people here. It is amazing isn't it that all of thses little things are possible on earth and I don't disagree with evolution either. I believe it was all part of a greater designe. But I don't believe that humans were monkey first. But anyways.


But take a look at the universe as a whole, all the galaxies, all the planets, almost infinitely many, if not infinitely many. Now it is not hard to imagine, that out of all these INFINITELY many planets, one has the capabilities to support human life.


Why one? I am sure there are more then one planet that can support life of certain form or kind. Since we haven't been to them we can't say that they don't have any life. So, If I take your logic, then you are saying that it is merely an incident? that earth is suitable for humans and animals and plants etc?.


Another way to look at it is from an evolutionary aspect. We have a planet, organisms form, and humans adapt to the enviroment. We are the ones adapting to fit the enviroment that is here. Both of these are possibilities no?

yes it is a possiblity, and I didn't reject the evolution.


In response to your paragraph about perfection of the world. The world is not perfect, there is disease, famen, injuries, death, terrorism, and dictatorships. There is an extreme waste of space particularly in outer space. Waste indicates something is not perfect.

Well, to me it is pretty simple. A world without deaths and diesee, injuries would be so weird. No one dies, no dieases nothing to comapre to good or bad. I think then it would be imprefect world where population will increase and resourcess will decrease. Do you see what I am trying to say?. What would you call it ? perfect or imperfect?. What would it be like, people living 900, 1000 years, then no diesease then there would be no cures? no medicine so that profession wouldn't even existed.If you look at logically you will see that the reasoning and pattern for humans and animals. Eevery thing is meant to be destroyed at a certain time. From humans to stars and galaxies, recent news on yahoo about two galaxies going into black hole or something. This is the part of designe. Every thing that we use is created by some one then what is a problem in believing that nature also requires a creater?. If every thing that you use is created by some one or something then why not trees, birds, and animals are created by some one or something?. I hope you understand what is my point.

Also, I don't see any waste of space in galaxies and etc. I will give you more insight on that soon.



An example to help explain the second scenario would be as follows: A deliquent child is sent to boot camp. He is forced to live as he can survive easiest there, (if he acts out of line, he is deciplined). Now the deliquent would be acting different if he was in different circumstances just as humans might be if we were in different circumstances.


I believe I have already answered it above?

Peace

About soteriology, there are vague verses in the bible which lead to different interpretations, not by the sins of man, but by the indiscrete version of the bible.

Circumcicion is believed to be needed by some christians based on Genisis 17:10 which talks of every male being circumcized.

Just some verses to read up on to give you an idea of why some believe it is works or deeds that you need WITH faith to gain salvation

Matthew 12:37
16:27
19:16-23 not to do with deeds, but shows that you need more than faith

Roman 2:6, 13

Roman 2:1 Condemn yourself if you judge another, another work that takes away your salvation

2 Cor 5:10

2 Cor 11:15

James 2:11-17, 21-26

1 Peter 1:17

And to question your reply to Vakemp, he needs not to do miricle after miricle, just to show him, and him being everywhere right now, would make it simplistically easy for him to do so, yet he doesn't. And considering how blind faith is so easily shown to be a crock of you know what, this would be a considerable thing to do from an all benevolent god.

inspector,
you are obviously hung up on this 'proof' thing.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that made me laugh.

You are right, I am stuck on the 'proof' thing.

Example:

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. If someone thinks they know why a rock falls the way it does when they drop it, I don't mind accepting their idea.

However, if how that rock falls is important to me, I will have to ask that person to support their reasoning as to why the rock falls the way it does. If they cannot prove to me they know why the rock falls in a certain way, I have to try and find out for myself.

In other words, if what that person says doesn't make sense to me, or doesn't explain to me why the rock falls the way it does, I shouldn't be expected to agree that a rock falls the way it does because someone said so, and that's the only explanation.

It doesn't matter if the explanation is widely accepted or not, if it doesn't answer all of my questins.

And if it doesn't fully explain why the rock falls the way it does, then to me that means there is a possibility that the rock falls the way it does for a completely different reason altogether.

BTW, this rock has no relation to the rock in my previous post. ;)

I wasnt implying that the theory of evolution by that lol, but to clarify, the theory of evolution doesnt say we are from monkeys, but that humans and monkeys came from a common descendent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why one? I am sure there are more then one planet that can support life of certain form or kind. Since we haven't been to them we can't say that they don't have any life. So, If I take your logic, then you are saying that it is merely an incident? that earth is suitable for humans and animals and plants etc?. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alls I said is out of the infinitely numourous planets, one has capabilities to have humans on it. I did not mean to say no other planet can. My mistake, I will try to be clearer next time.

I am saying that out of infinitely many planets, at least one is bound to have the capabilities to have humans on it. May be an isolated incident, might not be, we dont know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, to me it is pretty simple. A world without deaths and diesee, injuries would be so weird. No one dies, no dieases nothing to comapre to good or bad. I think then it would be imprefect world where population will increase and resourcess will decrease. Do you see what I am trying to say?. What would you call it ? perfect or imperfect?. What would it be like, people living 900, 1000 years, then no diesease then there would be no cures? no medicine so that profession wouldn't even existed.If you look at logically you will see that the reasoning and pattern for humans and animals. Eevery thing is meant to be destroyed at a certain time. From humans to stars and galaxies, recent news on yahoo about two galaxies going into black hole or something. This is the part of designe. Every thing that we use is created by some one then what is a problem in believing that nature also requires a creater?. If every thing that you use is created by some one or something then why not trees, birds, and animals are created by some one or something?. I hope you understand what is my point.

Also, I don't see any waste of space in galaxies and etc. I will give you more insight on that soon"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we were made to have infinite area, and use less resources, or need no resources, would that not be more perfect? If people lived forever, there would be no anquish of death or dieing to people. No need for medicine, because people would be perfect. I understand that in THIS world plants and animals die for a reason, but if the world was made perfect these things wouldnt be needed to replinish the earth.

The reason I do not believe in a creator of nature, birds, trees, and animals when I know everything we use has been created is as follows.

Everything we use such as clocks, computers, lamps, pencils was created by someone. Most of the time by more than one someone. If we use the logic of since these were made by creators, than the earth was made by creator(s), notice the S. We would have to say that more than one creator created this world.

Another problem with that arguement is that most inventions are not perfect. bulbs blow, pencils run out of lead, pens run out of ink, computers crash, clocks stop running, and we are supposed to believe that for the complexity of the world that only one entity created it? no, not plausible.

"It doesn't matter if the explanation is widely accepted or not, if it doesn't answer all of my questins."
--------------------------------------------------

Thanks for responding, VAKEMP. I've got about ten years on you, and I want you to know this. If you wait for all of your questions to be answered, then you are doing two things: 1. letting a wonderful life pass you by and 2. you will be waiting forever, because you will never have all of the answers to your questions.

Let me give you an example. Regarding that rock analogy you gave earlier, what if science couldn't explain why that rock falls the way it does? Would you simply deny that the rock even fell at all? No, you would have faith that if you dropped a rock also, then it would fall in a similar manner. You have faith in everything you do, even some things that you do not have answers to. For example, when you get up in the morning to go to work or school, do you sit around asking 'Will I make it to work or school today? Will I get hit by a bus?' Of course not. You go because you have faith that you will make it to work or school. My point is you will NEVER have all of the answers to some things in this life, so you will have to rely on your faith, whether it is in Jesus, or whatever.

><>

"And to question your reply to Vakemp, he needs not to do miricle after miricle, just to show him, and him being everywhere right now, would make it simplistically easy for him to do so, yet he doesn't. And considering how blind faith is so easily shown to be a crock of you know what, this would be a considerable thing to do from an all benevolent god."
---------------------------------------------------------

Hockey, you often present good questions. However, once again, if Jesus offered physical proof every time someone asked, where would the need for faith be? If we got proof every time we asked, and subsequently had no faith because we didn't need it, then we would not be saved, since 'we are SAVED by grace through FAITH' as Romans 5:1 reveals.

If you are asking for physical evidence for the supernatural, I can likewise ask for physical proof of the natural, of which there are many, many things that are beyond the scope of scientific scrutiny, hence unexplained. Yet, even without physical proof, we have faith and believe that such things exist.

><>

"Hockey, you often present good questions. However, once again, if Jesus offered physical proof every time someone asked, where would the need for faith be? If we got proof every time we asked, and subsequently had no faith because we didn't need it, then we would not be saved, since 'we are SAVED by grace through FAITH' as Romans 5:1 reveals.

If you are asking for physical evidence for the supernatural, I can likewise ask for physical proof of the natural, of which there are many, many things that are beyond the scope of scientific scrutiny, hence unexplained. Yet, even without physical proof, we have faith and believe that such things exist. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we all had seen him, even according to you we would still need 'faith' to believe.

For in just your previous response to vakemp you said "You go because you have faith that you will make it to work or school."

We had made it to work or school before without dieing, and this is faith, yet if we see jesus it is no longer faith on whether he is the one true savior? The people back in the old testimont saw god and his actions, now they dont have faith? people in the new testimont saw jesus and his 'miricles', do they not have faith? are matthew, luke, john, in hell now, BECAUSE they saw jesus?

thats absurd

"The people back in the old testimont saw god and his actions, now they dont have faith? people in the new testimont saw jesus and his 'miricles', do they not have faith? are matthew, luke, john, in hell now, BECAUSE they saw jesus?"
------------------------------------------------------

You have either misunderstood me, or you are attempting the typical ploy of twisting and using out of context what I previously stated. I never said that if you physically see Jesus you are not saved. You made that up. You are the one asking to see Him, or for Him to furnish proof. I am merely showing you that faith in Jesus, accompanied by His grace, is neccessary for salvation. Regarding Jesus' apostles, even though they walked along side of Him, they had faith that He really WAS the Son of God, and that someday He would return, thus fulfilling yet another prophecy.

Hockey, you seemed sincere from the beginning concerning your desire to understand the foundation of Christianity, however, I am now having my doubts.


><>

Great reply, inspector.

Once again, to a certain extent, I agree with you.

Like I have said several times, it is not the idea of a God existing that I dispute, as I see a great possibility that one does. It is the explanation of who God is and what He wants from us that I have a hard time accepting.

That is because the only information I can find about God was created by man. This is all I have to go off of.

God has not spoken to me. God has not shown me any 'signs' that He exists. Some people say they have been given signs before. I don't discredit them at all. If God has spoken to them, then they have been given proof by Him. Still, I cannot go off of one person's word that this actually happened.

And just to put it all into perspective, I will remind you that it was only after God had spoken to Moses that he became great. (To clarify, I am in no way comparing myself to Moses)

Sir,

"Regardless, if God were to furnish physical proof for everyone who demanded it (i.e. miracle after miracle), there would be no need for faith, would there?"

"if Jesus offered physical proof every time someone asked, where would the need for faith be?"

Now,

Quoted by me:"The people back in the old testimont saw god and his actions, now they dont have faith? people in the new testimont saw jesus and his 'miricles', do they not have faith? are matthew, luke, john, in hell now, BECAUSE they saw jesus?"

These people 'saw' the miricles from jesus, and the people from the old testimont 'saw' god and his actions. We have never seen these things, and you imply by us seeing them we would no longer need faith (your first qquote, and second quote)

Now if we saw the same things the people of the old and new testimont saw, why do they still have faith and we dont? I dont understand. Do we still not have this faith?

Quoted by you :"Regarding Jesus' apostles, even though they walked along side of Him, they had faith that He really WAS the Son of God, and that someday He would return, thus fulfilling yet another prophecy."
hmmm?

Do not tell me I do not understand the foundations of christianity, I may not understand YOUR foundations of christianity, but I am well understood of the Bible and its contents, the topic of this thread is to prove it to me.

Didn't mean to confuse you.

Okay. Hockey says prove it to me. My question for you is this: Would Hockey believe in God if Hockey said 'God, make this bush burn for me', and the bush immediately caught fire? Or, would Hockey look to naturalistic principles to explain the burning bush?

><>

Lets see, depends on the scenario, if I said god make this bush burn, then god/jesus comes in and say ok, poof bush burns, then yes i would believe. if it was possible for the bush to burn with natural causes then no. got it? really quite fair assessment i think.

"got it? really quite fair assessment i think."
--------------------------------------

Okay. Now, regarding something that 'exists', Hockey would basically need some form of physical or scientific verification before Hockey will believe that said thing 'exists', because, without verification, said thing does not 'exist', correct?

><>

"... without verification, said thing does not 'exist', correct?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
false. It would be ignorant to say such, before columbus discovered the western world, we had no physical or scientific verification of this, yet it existed

Stu, while I appreciate the compliment, I did not write the lyrics I posted. I think they're by a band called "Rotting Christ".

And I take offense at the implication that I "serve" anything.

Jenyar:
Good is what rewards goodness. Bad is that which rewards evil. God has only rewarded good. When we suffer it is because of people, and suffering can be a blessing if you know why it is happening and survive it. We are all sinners, and no sinner is any less a sinner because of his beliefs. That is not the point of Christianity - but it is the misconception perpetuated by the Church in the Middle Ages, and what Calvyn protested against.

"Good rewards goodness" doesn't tell me what "good" is.

Jesus preached salvation, not condemnation.

He preached a bit of both, really. Unless you take the stance that Jesus' references to Gehenna were later interpolations....I won't argue with you there.

You seem to project your preference for S&M onto God. Isn't that a bit shortsighted. In what way does God, or the idea of God, cause you pain?

*Grins* I wouldn't compare any of my friends to your God. (XEV! Low!)

Actually, I'm just bored and trying to fuck with Inspector's head. However, you can't really play mind games with the mindless. :)

However, on a serious note, I would think that the creation of somewhere to torment anyone who disobeys Him is a twee bit....well, sadistic? In the origional sense. *Grins*

I mean, do all those people who lived before Jesus deserve to go to hell just because they never accepted Jesus? They didn't even have a choice!

What do you hold on to and what can't you let go of? There definitely is something. Do you have a valid reason for resenting God? More valid than Job's?

I don't believe in God, thus I don't resent him.
Sometimes, well, often, the concept is a bit of a focus for my drive to never submit. That is, God is a proxy for the things that I can't see.

Basically, I'm feeling aggressive and fight club closes after 2am.

PS. Have you read Paradise Lost?

Reading it now, actually. That's where the quote in my signature comes from.

"false. It would be ignorant to say such, before columbus discovered the western world, we had no physical or scientific verification of this, yet it existed"
-------------------------------------------

My point exactly. There are things that exist that CANNOT be quantified, tested in some lab, or put in a jar.

><>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hockeywings
I wasnt implying that the theory of evolution by that lol, but to clarify, the theory of evolution doesnt say we are from monkeys, but that humans and monkeys came from a common descendent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you. Before I read Quran and became practicing muslim, I read about this theory or I say the fact that we are from the same descendent. For example, I can say that all the buildings are more or less are made by same materials but different sizes and designes. Same with humans and animals, pretty much the same material but differen sizes and designes and functions




If we were made to have infinite area, and use less resources, or need no resources, would that not be more perfect? If people lived forever, there would be no anquish of death or dieing to people. No need for medicine, because people would be perfect. I understand that in THIS world plants and animals die for a reason, but if the world was made perfect these things wouldnt be needed to replinish the earth.


No! I think it won't be perfect. Why would we live forever? with unlimited resources, when in Quran Allah/God mentioned that there is a reason we are here. What is our purpose here? This world would have been a worst palce, if one would find out that he/she won't die. I promise you that that there would have been more evil on earth then it is right now and the what would be our purpose to live at all? No deaths, no medicine so prolems and no conflicts?? I disagree. We might as well cows and sheep etc and it wouldn't make a difference. Since we have been given brains, they are there for a reason and not waste. If you look at animals and humans you will notice a different, if we were without any restrictions then i see no difference among humans and animals, poop where ever eat what ever go where ever etc etc. But that is not the case. While back I have read the yahya's article about humans and creation etc. I will post as much as I can remember and some from my notes. I will try to locate the full article for you and I hope it will make some sense to you.





The reason I do not believe in a creator of nature, birds, trees, and animals when I know everything we use has been created is as follows.

Everything we use such as clocks, computers, lamps, pencils was created by someone. Most of the time by more than one someone. If we use the logic of since these were made by creators, than the earth was made by creator(s), notice the S. We would have to say that more than one creator created this world.
Another problem with that arguement is that most inventions are not perfect. bulbs blow, pencils run out of lead, pens run out of ink, computers crash, clocks stop running, and we are supposed to believe that for the complexity of the world that only one entity created it? no, not plausible


Yes true and so does this world will run out of time and will be end soon or later. Perfect doesn't mean that it would last forever. Perfect, I used it in a sense for living conditions, breathing, vegetation, food, plants, trees and animals etc. Every thing ends at some point or time. So will this earth as promised.

One entity created the earth, now it is plausible or not it is for us to decide. We believe in God or we don't but once dead we will find out for sure. It might be too late for some of us. I looked it all from muslim perspective and not from Christian point of view anymore. It makes more sense to me. I send you something in pm please check it. I didn't want to take all the bandwidth here since Goofyfish is very sensetive about it. ;)

Please people. Let's not try to blend atheism with agnosticism. Very different.

:confused:

Proof alone can never convert someone.

God didn't create man
Man created God

enuff said

No! I think it won't be perfect. Why would we live forever? with unlimited resources, when in Quran Allah/God mentioned that there is a reason we are here. What is our purpose here? This world would have been a worst palce, if one would find out that he/she won't die. I promise you that that there would have been more evil on earth then it is right now and the what would be our purpose to live at all? No deaths, no medicine so prolems and no conflicts?? I disagree. We might as well cows and sheep etc and it wouldn't make a difference. Since we have been given brains, they are there for a reason and not waste. If you look at animals and humans you will notice a different, if we were without any restrictions then i see no difference among humans and animals, poop where ever eat what ever go where ever etc etc. But that is not the case. While back I have read the yahya's article about humans and creation etc. I will post as much as I can remember and some from my notes. I will try to locate the full article for you and I hope it will make some sense to you.
Wouldnt be more evil if people were created perfect in the first place......... I do not see the reasoning behind us not having problems and then us becoming like animals.....please explain.

And I checked out the pm, you got a reply.

First inspector:
My point exactly. There are things that exist that CANNOT be quantified, tested in some lab, or put in a jar.

uhhh I have absolutely no idea where you went with this... elaborate.


Next MarcAC:
Please people. Let's not try to blend atheism with agnosticism. Very different.

Who are you refering to, please elaborate.

Now Davearchy:
Proof alone can never convert someone.I dont see why not. if you can prove something why would someone go against it with eternal damnation riding on it?

Just found another pamphlet in the Mens room comparing Mickey Mantle's life and God's Will by way of metaphores......Geesh people, get a grip!!!! :D

Originally posted by inspector
"

Christians do not have to prove anything to you, or anyone else.

><>

Yes they do.

Originally posted by stu43t
I have been gone for awhile from here too, and I am back. I would like to see any athiest in here try to prove their non-belief to me. I am muslim, but if you prove me wrong, I will convert. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these non-beliefs.

You see an athiest doesn't have anything to prove because they don't believe in anything so that reverse tricknology won't work. To believe means to accept something as fact, a fact is something that can be proven. Belief is ignorance.

"You see an athiest doesn't have anything to prove because they don't believe in anything so that reverse tricknology won't work. To believe means to accept something as fact, a fact is something that can be proven. Belief is ignorance."
------------------------------------------

Many, many things wrong with these comments. First, to say that an atheist doesn't believe in anything is false. An atheist BELIEVES that God does not exist. Second, believeing does not mean accepting something as fact. Believing in something means acquiring valid evidence about something and drawing a logical conclusion based on the evidence. Third, to say that belief is ignorance is to say that atheism is ignorance, since atheists BELIEVE that God does not exist. So many pups, so little time.

><>

Well here is my take on this topic. Ofcoarse if "God" or Jesus came down from the heavens and proved to me that they are what the Bible says they are then I would accept it and become a die hard Christian and order a million of those pamphlets to pass out...LOL. But this is not realistic. The fact still remains that Christians and most other religious groups have blind faith and it will be something tha