if christ returned,how would Atheists take it?

M*W, read revelations and tell me you dont picture special effects.
Hey, I'm not trying to change anyone or convert you guys. were just having a conversation. i'd like to understand the atheist better. But It seems like some of you have a hostility towards christianity. why the hostility? Im not hostile towards atheist. and if what i'm saying isn't true, well I'm wrong and your right. no harm, no foul.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SOME money?
churches scam millions if not billions from gulible religious suckers
whos only reason to donate $$ is in hope that preachers will put in a good word with the big guy upstairs who will then asure you a nice spot in the "imaginary"heavenly paradise,

I dare any religious God worshiping believer to honestly say this aint true!

now its not my money so I couldnt care less,however if the churches did something good,productive with all that wealth,feeding the hungry,poor,homeless,(like Jesus preached,btw!)everything would be fine in the world,
instead it goes like this
www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

you dont lose just some free time and heluva lots of money,you lose your dignity,and pride covering like a coward before some imaginary sky bully.

also denying the scientific knowledge of evolution while blindly holding onto some silly prehistoric creation myth as described by the book writen by primitive people who had no clue what makes the world turn,or the rain to fall etc,so they invented this big G who makes things happen,
and you want to teach this idiocy in schools,in this day and age,holy $hit,you'll be the joke of the whole world if you do!

no one cant make themselves believe in idiocy like that once you realize the contradictions of gods belief,
its imposible
anyway
if you want to believe people have souls that live after death why couldnt those souls just get reincarnated as some religions believe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lostmind: M*W, read revelations and tell me you dont picture special effects.
*************
M*W: Revelations is an allegory. It's not talking about real events. It's been written in a code. The Beloved Disciple was not John, in fact, there may have not even been a disciple named John. Biblical scholars believe Mary Magdalene wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations. If you were to study the truth about Mary Magdalene's life and mission, you would be able to clearly see the symbolism in Revelations from her standpoint. Unfortunately, christians believe the lie.
*************
lostmind: Hey, I'm not trying to change anyone or convert you guys. were just having a conversation. i'd like to understand the atheist better. But It seems like some of you have a hostility towards christianity. why the hostility? Im not hostile towards atheist. and if what i'm saying isn't true, well I'm wrong and your right. no harm, no foul.
*************
M*W: It's not a matter of who's right or who's wrong. The hostility you may be sensing is because the christians lack objectivity. Perhaps if you could do some outside reading about Mary Magdalene and Jesus, we would have something to discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Q25: "however if the churches did something good,productive with all that wealth,feeding the hungry,poor,homeless,(like Jesus preached,btw!)everything would be fine in the world"

well I cant speak for all churches but the church I attend feed the poor, help people with utitly bills, give away clothing. THis lady I work with is a missionary, she goes to africa to bring them medicine that we take for granted. They're are crooks in every religion, we cant all be painted with a broad brush. like i said, If you guys are right, I would feel stupid but if your not, I could go "nah, nah,nah,nah, nahhhh" just kidding.
you guys are great! this is very educational and I appreciate you trying to save me from the lie but I think I'll ride this "GOD" thing out and see how the story ends.

 

Yep, maybe everybody has seen this - and the sElection is over, but its good!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

lol lol lol lol, bravo! funny thing is, with every post i read, i can rememember parts of the bible that talk about what u guys are saying. how man would curse his name. My beleif has strenghten since I've came here to sciforum. thank you all.....peace

 

Hmmmmm - but, that ad didn't really question GeeeeZHuuuus. It poked at GW -- and your reaction seems to imply that you think Bush then either is God or speaks directly to him?! An ad pointing out that Bushes actions contradict what Jesus said makes you even more certain of your Gawwwd?

Again, pay attention now - that parady Doesn't Actually Question Jesus - it questions how Christian Bush truly is. So then . . . it makes you remember parts of the Bible that says people would question Bush?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Scary!

 

no, silly. your such a smarty pants. how old u gravity?

 

Huh? "No, silly"? That was not much of an answer man! The point stands, you took that ad as an attack on Jesus - but its not. Its an attack on President Shrub. And its pretty telling, and scary, that you didn't see that!

How old am I? Generally older than anybody who asks such a question of a stranger. How about you?

 

lost mind :with every post i read, i can rememember parts of the bible......

notice I said with every post I read. I looked at all the post in totality and compared it to what the bible said on how people would forsake him and curse him. yours was seperate from those. notice I laughed and said Bravo. can you not take applause? Im 32 and u?

 

I don't believe in existensial fallacies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry.

 

Perhaps none. I'm not an atheist because of personal benefits, but because there is no evidence to suggest anything else is the case.

This is something I have always found a bit 'suspect' about most christians. I am reminded of the time on this forum when I asked a particular person, (I think it was Jenyar), why he didn't believe in other such things like bigfoot and leprechauns. The answer was that bigfoot didn't offer eternal life. It seems as time has progressed, that the christian mind has become all the more corrupted, and sees god as little more than father christmas. C20 is just like that aswell.

It's sickening to think people just believe something because it claims to have a personal benefit at the end of it, as opposed to believing something because of what the evidence shows.

They would have lost a lot more than that.

No disrespect but a spot in heaven doesn't sound all that enticing when you really give it some consideration. In either case, an atheist would have remained true to himself, instead of being so easily coerced into something merely because a prize is offered.

 

Nice comments SnakeLord - hey, with that name - sure you are not a Pentacostal like Ashcroft? Dancing with snakes and speaking in tongues?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Kidding!

Yeah something I've realized about all these ''morality'' arguments coming from Christians lately - that is very ironic. I feel that I'm MORE moral than them. I'm honest, loving and giving because it makes me feel good. Because I know the world works better and we are all happier when more folks do that. Because it seems that when you are confident in yourself, and open to others - its just the natural instinct! But those who can only behave honestly, lovingly and be giving because of bribe or threat - carrot or stick - heaven or hell . . . ? Thats simply feigned morality, not honest morality.

And, thats fine - if most of them are sociopathic by nature, and if they didn't have a bribe and threat hanging over them WOULD be horrible. And whatever myth they believe in makes them actually behave better towards the rest of us, thats cool - sad that such is needed - but fine. But again, that means its not an honest morality, it just an animalistic fear/hope driven behavior rather than an honest and internal behavior.

And of course unfortunately once somebodys behavior is dictated purely through the heaven/hell carrot/stick -- they can be manipulated easily. Such as the Jim Jones Kool Aid Drinkers, the pilots on 9/11, the soldiers during the crusades, the witch burners in Mass, and of course MILLIONS of other examples.

And to answer your question Lostmind - I'm 35.

 

"Im not hostile towards atheist. and if what i'm saying isn't true, well I'm wrong and your right. no harm, no foul."

I think its funny when christians say stuff like this. ....Forget about the fact we firmly believe you will all be burning in a lake of fire for eternity....no big deal....

 

I would hide my fig trees.

 

Hello SnakeLord,

There are differences between the ten plagues and the bubonic plague. The most obvious one being that the 10 plagues freed hundreds of slaves from captivity.

My take on natural disasters like regional floods etc. is due to original sin. It’s mans fault that these things are happening in other words. The alternative to this explanation is everything just happens (there can be technical explanations but no reasons why, think about it), which in turn seems illogical to me.

Romans 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Back to the plagues. If a scientist accepts the Bible as truth then I wonder how they could explain ten plagues being unleashed within days of each other on the same people? Also the plagues lifted within days, very different to the bubonic plague. As you know it is impossible for me to give you a satisfactory answer but I can only hope this doesn’t fall on deaf ears.

What does not apply?

Yes, not so long ago it was believed that draining the body of blood would cure many illnesses, yet in the Bible it says that the blood is the life just people ignored it.

Nope. Maybe in your mind. That’s the problem with all of the atheists; they think they have all the answers typically through science and that most of the world’s population is delusional except them. Science is a good tool but it doesn’t contain all the answers by a long shot, and good science never pretends too.

I don’t know much about Sumerian text, certainly not as much as you so how do the linguists know that they’re interpreting anything correct?

I don’t think the mention of “a deity” by the experts (unless you’re an expert) is unfounded; I’d call it imaginative license which is used throughout this type of work. In other words, the Sumerian texts are open to the same criticism.

What is wse.edu?

Well, the Bible says so. I trust what is written in the Bible. Now I can’t explain why in a handful of sentences, but let me just say that to get where I’ve got has involved much experience, study, an open mind and above all the willingness to have my pride bashed. You may have studied science, nature, people, religious texts, history etc. more than me so I can’t really put my finger on why people arrive at completely different places. I believe all people are capable of having faith, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe some people are just too proud to get on their knees and pray and ask for forgiveness. They just think it’s daft because they can’t perceive anything physical so it’s all crazy to them; they just keep their minds closed. Maybe people don’t want to know that they are accountable for their actions beyond the authorities they can see and touch.

What was the question?

Second one up. How do you conclude there isn’t?

Apart from some things, public opinion matters not in this subject.

The Bible actually holds answers (like God created all that exists), whereas clay pots and stone tablets do not. If everyone followed Jesus’ teachings don’t you think the world would be a better place? He knew all of us wouldn’t (this would justify some of the scripture you have scoffed at in this thread) He did actually tell us the two most important commandments. Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul (pretty difficult if you don’t think you have one), and love your neighbour as yourself. Who else said this before Jesus?

Why? Do you think men are gods?

"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves.."

Likeness being the keyword. Find a good commentary if you like on this passage, it all makes sense.

I think it’s being very honest, not like most sites.

SnakeLord, there goes your imaginative license. Let me use mine then. The spokesman said “a deity” because no other deities were found on the object. We could conclude that they believed in One Almighty God. The other gods depicted on other objects might be angels or men in high authority.

Where do you think those words came from? The same people whose religion was monotheistic, so why are you applying our language limitations to scripture written long ago and then strangely investigating the English wording?

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

This is where I would certainly be heading (everyone has lied at least), but I have Jesus on my side, and His blood covers my sin.

Not far off a dice roll, I call it a calculated bet to begin with, and then as you grow in the Word it becomes a certainty. What have you got to loose by believing in Jesus Christ? Believing in God doesn’t shut off your brain you know, if anything it opens your mind.

The word faith I use when conversing with others like yourself (who sometimes want physical evidence), but in my mind the line between faith and fact is very blurred.

No offence taken.

Dave

 

I've seen now a couple of people engage in Pascals Wager here now, which is one of the sillier ideas around - if anybody takes the time to think about it!

Here is a good little description of it from: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal

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

Pascal's Wager (God is a safe bet)

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

 

What has that got to do with the plague being caused by god or not? Is the freedom of slaves a necessary requirement for god to act?

Do not forget god can get angry and cause plague for minor reasons such as people complaining too much, (Deut). As such, would it not be prevalent to state that god actually caused the bubonic plague because of his anger and wrath focused at Europeans?

So why is it, someone who will happily assert that the ten plagues were caused by god, then state that rats caused the bubonic plague? The most likely explanation for this, is that there is no NNT, (New New Testament), detailing any of god's actions within the last two thousand years.

Perhaps if god was to write another biography, we would learn that he had caused the bubonic plague and other such disasters.

The amusing thing is, that if someone sat down and wrote the NNT, and claimed god had dictated it to them, you would shrug it off and consider them mad men. And yet on the other hand you just accept the word of people you don't know, who knew nothing about disease, and nothing about the planet they lived on.

I guess it's just so much easier to dismiss someone as a lunatic when you can see them.

...

What kind of 'reason' do you want?

Pfisteria.

You see, fish become covered in sores and end up dead. They leak a red substance into the water, which turns the water red. This is pfisteria, which is caused by pollution.

The pollution would have driven the frogs inland, where they would die causing a mass explosion of flies and lice, (in the bible it mentions that all the frogs died and were thrown into a massive pile. This would cause a mass infestation of flies, mosquito and other such insects). These flies would "hand out" all kinds of diseases, to people, livestock, and especially young children.

Also there is no reason to say "within days". This whole story could have taken months, and most probably did.

The New Jerusalem Bible says:

Exodus 7:25 'After Yahweh struck the river, seven days went by'.

So we're talking at least a week before these two plagues - which seems accurate, given the rate at which pfisteria does it's job.

Now tell me David, would you expect the Egyptians or Jews capable of working any of this out? Do you think somehow they could have figured out what pfisteria is? Do you think if people could not work out what cased the bubonic plague, that they would have put it all on a deity instead?

But no, let's just trust the word of people who knew nothing. People who had absolutely no idea about anything, let alone diagnosing pfisteria.

There is no indication that this took a day or two.

I think you've missed what I have been saying. In our modern times, even most christians will concur that earthquakes happen due to movement of tectonic plates, tornados happen due to wind patterns or whatever, and so on. They will not turn round and say "god did it". The only time they will seemingly do that, is when an old book says that was the case.

As I mentioned earlier, if the NNT was written, most christians would then say god did cause the bubonic plague, the LA earthquakes and so on. It is merely because an old shepherd tells you that god did it, that you say "god did it". In instances where no old shepherds have said "god did it", you accept the scientific explanation, and god takes a back seat.

Does it not seem apparent that these people simply did not know the reasons behind the disasters that afflicted them, and if they had have done, god would never have been mentioned?

Is it not worth some time spent considering that perhaps these people simply explained a natural occurrence in the only way they could? Is it not worth some time considering that their explanations are completely invalid, and while it served them well enough, it simply is not true?

There must come a time for all of us, when the bible is best ignored. That includes you.

A little while back, someone sat down and read Deut, and found out that god had commanded that a person take their child to town if he was naughty, and get him stoned to death.

Now, this person sat down and contemplated it for a moment.. He said to himself; "Well, I know it's the word of god, but somehow it just seems too heartless, too immoral. I wont do it."

And since that day, people no longer take their sons to town to get them stoned to death.

You, me, the priest at the local church, everyone... ignores the bible to some degree.

I've explained it above. It's nothing to do with "my mind", but how things actually are. For the most part, all religious people will accept science. It's a must. When you're dying, it's very unlikely you'll say it's god's plan because he loves you, and be happy you're about to meet him, but instead you will ask science to save and prolong your life here - which actually keeps you away from that which you apparently desire the most. I could list a billion examples, but there's little need. Science works, but like the bible, christians pick and choose which parts they want to accept.

I think you missed my point. I am not implying that science knows it all, but that as it progresses, god moves further into the distance. As science determines a truth, religion tries to change in order to stay in line with that reality.

In exactly the same manner they know they're interpreting the bible correctly. As with the bible, there will be some slight discrepancies, but it works in general.

I know this is about as layman an answer as can be given, but I do not have a degree in the subject, and it is something that needs to be studied to understand fully, (the same as everything else I guess).

Sumerian is still present in modern day language. 7 of the 12 Israeli months are Sumerian words, (and gods).. for instance Tammuz. It is also generally similar to Hebrew, (the word Shemesh, for sun, is written as Shamash in Akkadian).

Further to that, translation tablets were found by archaeologists, that had dictionaries carved on them, saying; this word in Sumerian is this word in Akkadian, this word in Akkadian is this word in Assyrian, etc.

The Sumerians were the forefathers of the Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians and the Hebrews, and as such language has filtered down from there. We can see that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy are all based upon Sumerian stories, Abraham was from Sumeria, and the bible even places the garden of eden in Sumeria. In Sumerian, E-din means 'house of purity'. The story was that the humans were put to work in the gardens of the house of purity, (i.e the garden of eden).

That's fair enough, but imaginative license doesn't imply truth. They do not know. They are happy to state they do not know, but based upon understanding of cultures as a whole, they can make an assumption that the sumbols represent a deity, or perhaps just the contents of the jar...

One day they might be able to work it out, and realise that these people worshipped a god named 'pickled cucumber'.

There is a big difference.

Apologies, wsu.edu, (Washington State University).

Ok, that's fair enough.

Let me ask you a quick question though.

How extensive was your study?

(Before you answer... I'm not asking how extensively you studied the bible - you probably did study that extensively. What I am asking, is how extensive you studied other religions, and other texts. Did you study Hindu texts, Muslim texts, Sumerian texts, etc etc etc? If the answer is no, then wasn't all of your study completely biased? Would it not then be true that your study wasn't a study of possible choice and truth, but a study of something you already wanted to believe was true?)

Can you not understand that pride is not the issue? It's a common religious mans mistake. Let me try and hopefully clear it up for you..

I don't get down on my knees and beg leprechauns to tell me how to get to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It has nothing to do with pride, just no evidence that leprechauns exist.

By that same token, I don't just get onto my knees asking for anything from beings that have no evidence to suggest they are real.

Pride is irrelevant.

Were you saying that age and prominance determine reality?

By exactly the same method I conclude there aren't leprechauns. Can you honestly fault me for that?

And as a result, that tiny little cult of 50 people could have the right answer, as opposed to the several billion christians. Without studying each and every single belief on the planet, how can you work out which, if any, are true?

That can be summarised as: "If everyone was a christian don't you think the world would be a better place?"

My answer to that would be: "certainly", but would also be the exact same answer if you had have said: "If everyone just agreed with each other don't you think the world would be a better place?"

Because man has his own opinions, feelings, thoughts and ideas that often conflict with others, there will always be disharmony. The only way to change that is to make us all identical. Although being identical would make the world run smoother for us, would you really want that?

That is seemingly what every christian wants, and is asking for.. including jesus.

While religion strives to make us all sheep, science explains that we're all unique.

Love your god? What if your god is someone else, for instance Apollo?

Three things..

A) because we're all different, there will always be disharmony. Loving your neighbour is futile - unless you're identical.

B) jesus never wanted us to love our neighbour.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34)

This would show jesus was far more interested in causing the disharmony that you credit him for trying to remove. How can I love them when jesus wants me to go against them?

C) Perhaps nobody said it before him, but given his other statements, it is meaningless.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. The text implies that he is referring to beings of the same nature and status to himself - which would disclude angels.

Sure, and the end result is that they'll probably never know what the symbols mean - and as such, it's far too early to assume it related to a culture worshipping one god and one god only.

Nothing was found on the object, other than some symbols - which these very same people state could be the contents of the jar. This deity of yours could be nothing more than "green olives".

Well, there is a lot of evidence to show that the early OT was based upon Sumerian texts, and that the plurality shown in the early OT is a sign of trying to amalgamate many gods into one. The resulting 'Lord', shows a sign of rank status among a collection, not a sole being.

Let's consider for a moment...

The bible puts the garden of eden in Sumeria. From this we can conclude that the very first people on the planet were Sumerians. Sumerian texts predate the bible by over 1.5 millennia, and yet those stories can be seen within biblical texts. As a result, we can clearly see that these people were created, wrote about it, and then the stories followed them throughout the ages.

Eventually people have thought.. "why have many gods, when one can be powerful enough to do everything?" They rewrote the stories using a single god. However, translation of the stories still left some errors with plurality and ranks, which can be seen in the bible.

I too have lied before, but my humanity covers my sin.

I apologise, but I do not see it as a competition. Alas, many people do. It has nothing to do with losing or winning.. I merely follow the evidence. I don't believe dogs have seven legs, because there's no evidence to suggest they do. The same applies here.

How so?

 

Bravo Snake"lord" and Gravity!
You have very good arguements but lets break it down like this:
You cant prove GOD is not real, and I cant prove God is real.
lack of proof doesn't prove anything except it cant be proven.

We could argue this everyday but theres only one true way to find out. You have to die. but then you cant come back and tell anyone. auuuuuugh!!!!
It's quite a pickle......

 

Even as an atheist, I can completely agree with that.

Most scientists do the same with science. In ecology, nullists are waging a war as hostile as any theological debate against the classical niche theorists. Newtonian physics break down at the particle level, laws of relativity remain unproven, Linnaeus style classification has been found lacking. No one knows what causes an event horizon, or whether black holes even exist.
Scientists pick and choose what they want to believe all the time, and time will vindicate some of them. Fortunately, science is constructed on faith in change, logic, investigation and progress.

Very well done refutation, SnakeLord.