Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1389409 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
goumas13, you're asking for evidence of existance, I'm asking for evidence of absence. I'm providing evidence for existance (not sufficient for at least MageGrayWolf to accept), you're providing none.
You are missing the point, I cannot provide definitive evidence that God does not exist because aforementioned evidence simply does not exist.
You are wrongly shifting the burden of proof to me.
Shifting the Burden of Proof is:
1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true, due to lack of evidence.
3. A states that claim X is potentially true despite the lack of evidence because B has not proved it false
The proposing person assumes to have the burden of proof, if I had said "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." -of course- I would have to provide proof.
Example:
A public prosecutor (who has the burden of proof) cannot argue "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime"
However, the defense can argue "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty"
I have given some proof. Still, MGW did say what you gave as an example, while not giving any proof. Hope he's now went to investigate the info I gave him. You might try searching for proof in there as well.
No atheists and no insults please
Just so you know you can't dictate who may or may not post in a thread or what they may or may not say so long as no one is breaking the rules. Nice try at censorship though.
I didn't know atheists couldn't read.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Exactly why religions are valid. Just because there is a lack of evidence, in your eyes, for God, doesn't mean he's not there.
Hi, remember me? Wolf, the pesky sarcastic guy who feels as if you've driven a bloody spike through his head right now because of all the sheer stupidity!
I just read several pages based off of a philisophical argument that I had no trouble following, but, which thepyro, and others simply denied out of hand, because it did not match up with what they WANT to believe.
Being deliberately ignorant is, too me, an insult. Few, if any of you, have considered the idea that those with valid, logical arguments, may be right. You continue to blindly assert your belief that they are wrong and that your version of the world is correct. When you are disproven you simply cry that you are being trolled. Alway me to clarify what trolling is.
Not trolling: A contribution to the discussion aka "I have evidence to discredit your claim."
Trolling: omshajgdi tyous sucks!!!!! NAHANAHAHAN
See the difference? Good. Moving on.
The Bible. Thepyro has claimed the bible is a historic text. As much as some of you do not wish to admit it, in some ways, it is. However, before you get up in arms over this little fact allow me to clarify. The bible is only historic in the sense that it has captured events in time. Much of what the bible claims, The Exodus, the Flood, even Jesus of Nazareth, did, or probably, happen. However, these events did not happen on the scale the bible claims they happened. It has been confirmed that there was a historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth. However, he's attributed to be a schizophrenic and a martyr who, by sheer accident, sparked a renegade form of Judaism. Yes, that's all Christianity truly is. There was a time where the Jews were oppressed in Egypt and left, were they slaves? Was there a Moses? Not likely, these are just added tidbits to make the story seem more glorious to the reader. The Flood. There is evidence that A flood did happen at some point. However, this is nothing new, we live on a water based planet. Regardless massive floods happen time to time. Obviously such events are recorded, however The Flood, is not to be taken literally.
Next let us move on to the creation of the bible. It's an interesting story. Christianity is not unique. In fact it's a religion based off of Judaism. The Old Testament (OT) is the Torrah, AKA, what the Jewish people are taught. Christians used the OT as a starting ground so that conversion would be easier. The begginning years were hard for Christians, they were a new sect of Judaism, a renegade, and they were severely oppressed. They used the OT as a basis of common ground in the hopes the Jewish population would be less harsh. As Christians began to find their own way in the world they wrote hundreds of books claiming everything from the divine to the mundane. Many Christians will claim that the bible was completed 70-100 years after the death of Jesus. This is untrue.
It wasn't until around 300AD that we see the bilbe in a form that would be recognizable to us, well, if we could read Latin that is. During this this time Christianity had grown tremendously, and had taken roots in the Roman Empire. Many were baffled, yet drawn to this strange religion. A religion that claimed to give up worldly possessions in order to find eternal life after death. Durring this time the Roman Empire was in a state of severe decline, the peasants were becomming riotous and the Senate was losing control of what it had worked so hard to build. The Ceasar was nothing but a figure head, and many longed for the days of a strong Emperor. Enter Constantine. Constantine saw the value of the new Christian religion and declared it the state religion of the Empire. Not surprisingly this kept the empire moving for another 100 years or so, by unifying the people under a common belief.
However, with the Roman people unified they now needed a common belief. A doctrine to be followed without exception. Unfortunately the Romans were left with over 300 texts to sort through. A council was formed to create a work that would allow the people to be moved to inspiration and docileness. So they looked for a heroic figure, a tragic hero. They found Jesus Christ. However, hundred and hundreds of texts claimed that Jesus was not the son of God. That he was, in fact, a mortal man. The Roman council decided this could not be allowed, and destroyed almost every text claiming this. What was left was the current rendition of the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apocolyptic texts were added shortly after.
So, you see, the bilbe can, technically claim to be histrical, however, it is not historical fact. It is to be taken out of context. Christianity is not a religion inspired by divineness, but the needs to survive. As is every religion. Mistranslations happen, the bible is corrupt with them, and therefore, should not be taken literally. Christianity is not original, it draws off of several tales told by other religions. It used these tales as common ground in order to survive the oppression years, naturally, they became farmilliar, and thus, indoctinated into the system. But, mainly, Christianity is, and always has been, a political tool. More so than any other religion.
Thepyro, who started the thread, discovered the same thing... He felt moved by God, even though he knew that there was a lack of evidence for God to exist.
Being felt moved by God doesn't prove that god is real. Sometimes my stomach aches when I see Justin Bieber, but hes probably not a god.
The thing I hate most about religious arguments is what happened above. Someone asks the believer for evidence, and they shift the argument to say "rove that god doesn't exist." The burden of proof is on the person believing it, not the person accusing it. It's also fairly annoying when anything you say at all is responded to by, "Dude stop trolling/flaming/hating/etc.." It's not trolling or flaming to ask a question, and just because you can't answer the question doesn't make it not a valid question that you shouldn't have to at least semi-look into in order to back up your point. Instead, all it's ever met by is "I don't want to go into this anymore" or "I don't have to prove my faith to you" or "You won't believe even if I say." Notice that not once is it answered. So if anyone ever wonders exactly why atheists are atheists, all you have to do is an actual debate with a religious person to see that there are no real answers, just dodges and statements of faith and belief, with the occasional contradictory bible verse to back up their statement.
However, he's attributed to be a schizophrenic and a martyr who, by sheer accident, sparked a renegade form of JudaismAttributed a schizophrenic by who? This has to be proven first. And why you say "accident"? He travelled around the Galilea and Israel teaching, so one should not say "accident". Note that you're implicating this "accident" into your following logical construction.
Someone asks the believer for evidence, and they shift the argument to say "rove that god doesn't exist."Have you seen me providing proof? If not, go google words I have given as directions. And yes, you all somehow shut up after being given evidence or dodge the argument yourselves. "You won't believe even if I say" once said by me is based on the required "incredible" evidence. You know, "something is incredible" means "one can't believe in this happening, even if it has happened", therefore instantly argued against. About "the Bible verse" - why you use "contradictory" the very instant it's said?
Attributed a schizophrenic by who?
Historians. It's debated of course, but I side with the schizophrenic theory.
This has to be proven first.
Like it or not this is relevant.
If you want more information they have a list of sources at the bottom of the page.
And why you say "accident"?
Because Jesus was Jewish, he had no intention of creating a new religion. However, his martyrdom left his followers firm believers in his teachings. That being said as time went on he become more and more myth like. Religion is never a planned thing. Thus it was an accident, a coincidence.
Note that you're implicating this "accident" into your following logical construction.
Again, religions are never planned things.
Also, I forgot to mention that you should read my entire post. Commenting on the later part, about the construction of the bible would be appreciated since it hold relevance to how Jesus is portrayed.
Because Jesus was Jewish, he had no intention of creating a new religion.Well, the Bible states he did intend to do something that will cause a religion to appear. He said "I give you a new commandment, love each other as I love you, people will know that you are My scholars when they see this" (rough translation from Russian, I'm out of time to search the English version, it's Jn 15:10 and following verses). Also He told his scholars that He will be killed, then will resurect and ascend to Heaven, and He did that, according to the Bible. The fact of resurrection has a pretty solid proof in Torino's shroud.
Like it or not this is relevant.Well, some analysis of what looks like a real Jesus is written, though too many words "apparently" meaning "robably" are in there, regarding His mortal life.
Religion is never a planned thing.Sorry, you're wrong. Sects, especially totalitary, are created by individuals who want personal power and has some kind of a charisma to hire or compel initial followers into belief that this human is some divine thing. If the movement they start receives any approval from the masses, this becomes some form of a religion and thus the only "accident" is a chance whether this will be approved my masses, or will those masses be compelled in this human speeches to be true. In fact what you say about Christianity being a sect is true if we will look at it from the position of the Pharisees, who were the local religious leaders - this teaching is moving people astray from Judaism, there's only one person who leads this, and there is a steady group of followers that are also proclaiming this "gospel", as they speak. But He proved that He is the son of God by resurrecting.
These are all your words here...
Negative claims require proof as well. Can you provide proof for your negative claims?
I need more, since I have an evidence of God existing, and the topic started has obviously received some evidence of this as well.
Me? I don't think anything will convince me about being wrong
And here's what I said...
Someone asks the believer for evidence, and they shift the argument to say "rove that god doesn't exist."
There goes #1...This is only the last four pages, going through all of them would likely take too much time picking out statements like these, but I think they prove my point. As for your "evidence" let's just wait and see if any of these so called miracles happen on those dates you provided.
And yes, you all somehow shut up after being given evidence or dodge the argument yourselves.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't consider it "shutting up" just because I haven't responded in the past 2 1/2 hours.
About "the Bible verse" - why you use "contradictory" the very instant it's said?
I'm not sure I understand your statement here, but I believe you are saying that I think any bible verse is contradictory regardless of which one. Not so, just all the main issues ones are. Loving god, free will, etc.
Sorry for the double post...but as for your history links on the three children predicting that event with the sun...there are SO many predictions and claims of these things, and almost all are wrong, but if 365 people each picked a different day of the year, and said "a miracle will happen on this day" ONE of them at least is bound to be correct, if you define miracle as something unlikely to happen. I personally would define a miracle as "something that cannot happen naturally" like someone rising from the dead, or turning stones to bread.
Well, the Bible states he did intend to do something that will cause a religion to appear. He said "I give you a new commandment, love each other as I love you, people will know that you are My scholars when they see this" (rough translation from Russian, I'm out of time to search the English version, it's Jn 15:10 and following verses). Also He told his scholars that He will be killed, then will resurect and ascend to Heaven, and He did that, according to the Bible. The fact of resurrection has a pretty solid proof in Torino's shroud
When a historian says probably, that means "most likely" All history has is what is left. Unfortunatly for us all that's left is scant physical evidence. As such the bible is NOT a historical text! Therefore to use it as an argument for historical basis is wrong. My point still stands, Jesus did not intend to create a new religion. Reinterprutting things of a current religion is done all the time, however it does not make it "new" for it is still under the umbrella of that religion from which it derives. It is only "New" if several fundamental beliefs change.
Sorry, you're wrong. Sects, especially totalitary, are created by individuals who want personal power and has some kind of a charisma to hire or compel initial followers into belief that this human is some divine thing.
Sect, cults what have you are not technically religions. Religions are large spread, based on a common belief. Yes a religion may have different sects, however those sects follow the core beliefs of that religion. They are not seperate religions. Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, ect, are all considered sect, but they are still under the religion of Christianity!
oh dear. About #1 - you will stand before Him, and He will prove you that He is God, but by other means - by showing you what have you done, thought, could do but failed to do, for your entire life. In case of God you are not the one who will determine the "experiment"'s conditions.
If God doesn't want to provide me with the biggest piece of evidence before I'm dead then it stands to reason he either doesn't exist or doesn't want me believing while alive.
The rest of your responses were absurd at best. I will look into the information provided by that link more though, so far what I'm finding isn't looking good for it.
Found videos of her telling the story in her own words. She says a manly looking child angel with pink wings showed up.
About #5 - you mean that those who have never contacted with representatives of some religion would believe in this? This has already happened, when the magi (Zarathustra believers) came to Jesus the infant and brought Him gifts.
<--- Take a close look at the name, I'm aware of this story. Stories in the Bible aren't going to cut it here.
Me? I don't think anything will convince me about being wrong, though I would look closely if you would provide me a complete flawless theory of how did the universe appear, and where it has been prior to the Big Bang, AND HOW.
So basically you really are closed minded?
I would love to be able to have a reasonable discussion but it seems all you guys want to do is bat around absurd claims and wallow in ignorance.
Exactly why religions are valid. Just because there is a lack of evidence, in your eyes, for God, doesn't mean he's not there.
That doesn't mean it's there either. If we are to believe in something because it lacks evidence then we should believe in magic pixies, pink unicorns, Thor, Zeus and a slew of other absurd claims.
You must be logged in to post a reply!