Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1389378 |
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
Given the number of times I run into it I usually figure I'm dealing with a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all loving, when I'm dealing with the Christian God. If this isn't your basic description then inform me so I can adjust accordingly.
So far I got the feeling that different people are talking about different ideas of gods. The most common one is surely the omni-whatever father.
My idea of definition is something more general that could put together the other definitions. The downside to this is that a too-general definition may come out.
By the way, an all-around one would probably take a 100km post, and I'm not sure I am skilled enough to write it. I'll try to make a short version, just to give the idea: "something/someone that represent men's necessity to believe in something. Something/someone that hasn't got a define physical form, but it has got some clear basic concept (it is good, it wishes we to be free, it doesn't force anyone in to believe it). Books have been written about it, the most relevant is the Bible, which contains is a mix of 'raw information' written using a literary/mythical/metaphoric/etc. language, and so it has to interpreted..." I apologize in advance if it isn't a good description.
Christianity is based on Jesus, and God, and Bible, and men's interpretation, and so on, not just on one or two of these things.
You might probably have never felt sorrow. This is a brief example of your soul feeling pain.
You may want to study a bit of neurology and physiology.
There was a word that Communism was sent as punishment for people's sins, and WWII too.
Do you really believe this "word"? Communism is not evil, it's a political system that has been misused a lot. WW2 was due because of humans too. What did all the innocent victims had to pay for anyway?
No, failing to conceive means there's no soul involved in the process. But conceiving and failing to bear, by any means, has a soul involved, and is an event where an unborn baby died. Sometimes this death can't be blamed on the baby's parents, but in case of abortion, the blame is almost fully on their heads.
In absence of proof for the existence of a soul, your argument is not valid.
Seriously, there are cases where abortion is the best way out. I'm pro choice, because I think this is a matter different for every situation. You'd be introducing a lot of trouble and suffer if you'd completely prohibit abortion.
Do you really believe this "word"?Miracle of the Sun proves (at least for me, that is, qwerty1101 does not believe) the entire set of visions and revelations made there to the shepherds. So, yes I do believe in this. Note the time, May 1917, when Russia was in the state of relative anarchy. Communism involves antitheism, and this is evil. Did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church went into exile after early 1918, and remained there (and split there into face-up and catacomb church) until at least 1945, and at most 1991? So I expect you need some lessons of modern history.
You may want to study a bit of neurology and physiology.Hollow bragging? Links please.
In absence of proof for the existence of a soul, your argument is not valid.Prove me wrong, then. With links to the above, for example, that completely explain what is sorrow.
You're the one asserting the, in my opinion rather ridiculous, claim that something such as a 'soul' exists and as such the burden of proof lays with you to prove that it exists using scientific source material.
Hollow bragging? Links please.
Prove me wrong, then. With links to the above, for example, that completely explain what is sorrow.
Go to the library and borrow a book. I guess you're old enough for that. If not, there's still wikipedia. I wasn't restricting my argument to sorrow; we don't need the existence of a soul to explain how we think and feel. And that for, you need general information, which you are very well able to get yourself.
Well, it's hard to say weather or not you have a soul or not. Souls arn't ecactly visible and probably don't seem to make sense. but without them what goes on to heaven?
Fatima's "explanation" was refuted.
At what point was it being an optical illusion from atmospheric anomalies refuted?
You might probably have never felt sorrow. This is a brief example of your soul feeling pain. And yes, you've officially been labeled troll.
Considering this is label seems to be getting thrown out just to insult I have to wonder who really deserves it.
Links please? You seem to do the same.
Links to what? An earlier page in this thread? SERIOUSLY, This is getting ridiculous with you.
Well, it's hard to say weather or not you have a soul or not. Souls arn't ecactly visible and probably don't seem to make sense. but without them what goes on to heaven?
Nothing, the place likely doesn't exist.
Hmm... Well i can accept that once your brain reaches a certain level of complexity then you'll have emotions. But then, why don't computers have emotions.
Because computers rely on the instructions and input of people to perform tasks - they don't 'think' for themselves and, while you can programme a computer to do certain things or act in certain ways when stimuli are presented to them, you can't just write a piece of code like:
@Echo off
START Feelings
(Yes, it's true, I spent a lot of time messing about with batch files as a young'un)
Hmm... Well i can accept that once your brain reaches a certain level of complexity then you'll have emotions. But then, why don't computers have emotions.
A computer works differently then the human brain. It's like asking why you can't access the internet on a clockwork machine.
I don't think we need evidences to believe. There are so many theories about "what/who is god?" that we can't agree with them all. The most common one is about a great Holy Father, which is probably the hardest to demonstrate. But there are others. For instance, let's suppose that Holy Father doesn't exist (it's a legitimate supposition): well, in the world we live there are things like physical laws. What determined them? Nature, obviously (or call it however you want). Well some Christians actually say "I don't believe in any Holy Old Man, I believe in natural laws. I'd like to call that 'god'". I don't think Catholics to be of the same advice, but we are talking about Christianity in general, not only Catholicism. Someone other may say "I don't believe in Holy Father, but I think mankind's nature needs to know that there is something after death, and that there is one (or more) "superior intelligence" that rule the world. I call that necessity 'god'".
"God" is such a general therm. Anyway, we begun to talk about bible because of morality, not because we are looking in it proofs of god's existence (it's obvious that bible says god exists, that isn't a proof). If someone really wants to proof god's existence (or non-existence), he/she must look somewhere else. And be prepared to thousand of arguments pro and against it.
If there is no evidence then just say there's no God. There's no evidence for unicorns but that doesn't mean people believe in them. The fact that it's never a holy mother highlights the sexism. What you are talking about next is pantheism I think and not Christianity. You can't disprove Gods existence and if He wanted to prove it he'd have done it a very long time ago.
I don't have the morality I have because Christianity told me. Instead, I choose to follow Christianity because it has the same morality I've always had. ("always": I mean since I begun to think about morality, ethic, etc.)
So you follow the OT then. And by that logic you should follow my religion which has a really short holy book to save on printing. It is
Do what you think is right
This follow my morals so I follow it.
Literally, salvation. There are two kinds of people who are to be prayed for, alive people and dead people. We don't know the destiny of those already dead, so we pray for their acceptance in Heaven. We know that this life is temporary, but we know that the way how we lived here affects what awaits us in the eternity, so we pray that salvation will be granted to living people as well
But they are good they should go to heaven and if they aren't hell. The prayers shouldn't make a difference in a just system since a rich person could just pay people to pray for them.
Do you mind learning comma placement? This text is capable to be read in at least two ways, so it's unanswerable. And read about humanity morale evolution.
but my point is that God supposedly gives people morals and if he is standard on morals why should he ever change. I follow the evolved morals of humans but the Bible doesn't.
Fatima's "explanation" was refuted. Try again. Also Fatima is Christian because there was a documented vision of Holy Familty that's proven by this miracle.
Proven to be documented before the miracle?
You might probably have never felt sorrow. This is a brief example of your soul feeling pain. And yes, you've officially been labeled troll.
But not physical pain as in fire and brimstone. And quite a lot of emotions are just caused by glands so it would be lessened if not non existent. And then you are labelled superstitious idiot.
There was a word that Communism was sent as punishment for people's sins, and WWII too. In Garabandal, another vision sent a warning about us displeasing God with abortions as an example of a grave sin, and said if we don't repent, we'll get hurt harder than WWII - at least it's how I understood this. People will be given a chance to repent prior to suffering chastisement, and a miracle was promised. The Garabandal's vision is viewed by the Church as "non constat", so it might still appear false since we don't know the future, but since it wasn't yet named false, and some research have been conducted, there is no counter-doctrine evidence provided, meaning all that's spoken aligns with Christianity, so can be followed.
Yes, a just God gave us years of war and millions of death to punish 1 person. How just. And please explain why abortions are a sin. And just because someone says something will happen in the future it doesn't make it a prophecy
No, failing to conceive means there's no soul involved in the process. But conceiving and failing to bear, by any means, has a soul involved, and is an event where an unborn baby died. Sometimes this death can't be blamed on the baby's parents, but in case of abortion, the blame is almost fully on their heads.
Babies can't think so their soul is nothing. And God kills millions of babies so why can't normal people kill one before it develops.
Well, I don't need to prove that Earth is 7000 years old, since it's indeed wrong. The commentary to Gen 1 says in total, that "day one" "day two" etc are not directly days, after all sun, moon and stars were created on day four (my mistake about saying day three), which actually means that days 1, 2 AND 3 of that story lasted an indefinite amount of time. So, why not 4.5b years, why not 13.7b years since the Big Bang (current data)? And about Adam and Eve, that wasn't addressed to you, that's a Church dogma basing on the Bible. Yes, I believe there were Adam and Eve, and it's still possible that they weren't the first men on the Earth's surface, but the first whose seed still lives.
Explain dinosaurs and things like that then.
Prove me wrong, then. With links to the above, for example, that completely explain what is sorrow.
There is no need for a soul. For there to be one you must prove it.
Well, it's hard to say weather or not you have a soul or not. Souls arn't ecactly visible and probably don't seem to make sense. but without them what goes on to heaven?
There is no heaven so it doesn't really matter.
Hmm... Well i can accept that once your brain reaches a certain level of complexity then you'll have emotions. But then, why don't computers have emotions
Mainly caused by glands anyway and why would a computer need to feel happiness or anger. They're disadvantages
The Amygdala handles emotions, primitive responses (Flight or flight for example) and memory. Hence why teens make rather poor decisions, for they act on emotions and not forethought most of the time. (this is also why abstenice only never works, for the teen is thinking with their emotions and primitive responses, which in most teen males, consist roughly 95% of sex/how to get sex).
That's a bit mean. Maybe 90% sex and 10% next meal
( God -> ~God ) -> ~God, so ~God.
OK - let me justify this statement I made a little while earlier.
The existence of God implies that all morals are God's creation - all virtues stem from God alone (and nothing else). The statement (G [God] -> Morals from God [M]) is true.
But God could not accept morals that are not virtuous in themselves.
(G -> ~M)
Given these statements, we get:
1. (G -> M)
2. (G -> ~M) [an apparent contradiction from 1]
3. (M -> ~G) [Contraposition from 2]
4. (G -> ~G) [A syllogistic inference from 1,3 - and this is the antecedent of the quoted text]
5. ( (G -> ~G) -> ~G ) [A tautology]
6. ~G [Modus ponens from 4,5]
Any religion that states that God implies that Morality stems from God is false.
You must be logged in to post a reply!