AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism

3094 567291
kiddslayer12
offline
kiddslayer12
70 posts
Nomad

I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.

  • 3,094 Replies
BigP08
offline
BigP08
1,455 posts
Shepherd

Last time I checked, there was no back door out of hell.

Sorry, should've been clearer. No sin is unforgiveable on earth. Once you have reached Hell, because there you arne't sorry, you just don't enjoy the pain of Hell.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

That is what I mean when I say the Gospels are as close as we can get.


But it's not even the gospels who wrote the bible; they would have all been long dead by the time the bible was written.. which means that it is, at best, vague stories passed down generations until someone decided to ink it to paper; not even beginning to get into the fact that it's been translated & re-translated into so many different variants.

I probably should've added something about differences in religion, but I already made a post about it on page 115 about the story of the blind man.


Yes, I remember this. Point is though, I'm not blind. I know of the story of Jesus, and the bible, and god, but I choose to ignore them. So.. while I'm not evil, I just don't worship god - however in the eyes of the bible, that makes me evil. I want to know what *you* think about people like me going to hell. Since you believe, and.. know, or think you know what happens after we die, then you have to know where I and people like me are headed. I want to know how you feel about that.

The Old Testament is basically the Jewish faith


Did any of those new testament scripture quotes I made sink in? The old testament is still a part of christian faith, and is meant to be followed. Just because you don't think it all makes sense or maybe disagree with some of it - according to your own beliefs, it's not your place to make those decisions; unless you're not a believer, in which case you can think whatever you want.

If the circumstance AND the intention are not sinful, then it overides the act (for instance, killing in self-defense)


Well, according to many parts of the faith, conquest, religious domination & slaughter are A-O.K. From the bible there are many stories of conquest (the best ones are where they only kill the wives, husbands & sons, and take the virgin daughters for themselves), and from more accurate historical data, we can look to the crusades, inquisition, and witch hunts.

I would also give them a little extra lenience


At this stage though, we're not debating your opinion. The bible says it's wrong - I guess I'm having difficulty understanding your half-way stance on the subject & feeling bad for those people. Again, it's this case of the bible is the word of god, or it isn't. I don't have to care about any of the contents of the bible, but I find it very strange that many people who believe don't even read the bible or don't follow it's tenets as if it really was the word of god.

However, I'm sure you know of how anti-abortion many Christians are.


I sure do - but that's another opinion I feel they should keep to themselves. Fine - christians feel abortion is wrong & that a woman shouldn't have the right to control what's going on with her own body. So... christians shouldn't have abortions. Keep your fingers out of everyone else's pies.

Sex ed classes usually could only serve to show that sex can be made almost entirely safe. Some people will forget the almost, some will get careless, some will just get unlucky.


It's true though. It can be made almost entirely safe.. and yeah, some forget the almost, some will get careless or unlucky, or make mistakes. But those are their own mistakes to make. With proper education, they can make those educated decisions for themselves, and live with any of the potential consequences. But not preparing them for the possible outcomes I feel is irresponsible. We teach people how to drive properly, how to cook meat properly, to look both ways before crossing the road... should we tell people that driving is wrong and not show them how to do it properly because it *could* result in a serious accident if someone makes a mistake? No.

Now, for handmedown:

Well the argument has continued onwards but what I was implying by......is that religion is something that needs to be taken seriously.


I'm not implying, I'm making it quite explicit: Religion is something to be ridiculed, and the only reason why it should be taken seriously is because it is dangerous. Your obfuscated insult about me not having done my research is pathetic.

Additional writings from around the time (writen by non-believers) interestingly confirm that Jesus did perform these miracles, but they simply attributed them to 'mere sorcery'.


Yeah, and I've seen Penn & Teller do that bullet catch trick of theirs, and I'll be damned if I could ever figure out how the hell they do it. I don't trust the testimony of those in the bible, and I question the sanity of those who do. The church continues to show off 'miracles' in the form of statues 'crying blood' or mother teresa 'healing' cancer, but when investigated, they're either fabricated lies & the medical professionals involved can show data that mother teresa had nothing to do with it, or that the 'blood' is chicken fat with food colouring. Cheap parlour tricks. If our society is so advanced today and is still taken in by such tricksters, I doubt it would have been difficult in that day.

@HiddenDistance - A lot of Christians would have some serious disagreements with your interpretation of their faith.


I would hope 'All' would be a more accurate number - otherwise, they're not very christian at all. I don't particularly care of the faithful disagree with me; if they were able to see reason in the first place or had any notion to question anything of what they were taught, they wouldn't be christian for very long. Those that remain, are either intentionally, or unintentionally ignorant & I care very little about their distaste for my views on their faith.

Much like BigP08, you seem to be ignoring Jesus' own edicts that the old testament is to be followed as *law*. Who are you to say that "Oh, well, it's *only* the old testament, it doesn't really matter". Did you ask the lord? Did he respond to you and say "Yeah, sorry about all that - I was *really* high when I wrote all that - you can just ignore it"?

Also, I got a kick out of:
The Christian faith is unlike anything else


Look up the egyptian god Horus. See if he sounds familiar at all.

No mainstream scholar (Christian or non-Christian) refutes that Jesus was a real person.


That's not true at all. Many still refute his existence. Beyond the point though - even if he was a man, there's no proof that he was the son of god, or a god himself.
Handmedown
offline
Handmedown
9 posts
Nomad

I'm not implying, I'm making it quite explicit: Religion is something to be ridiculed, and the only reason why it should be taken seriously is because it is dangerous. Your obfuscated insult about me not having done my research is pathetic.


I don't gain anything from insulting you.

Yeah, and I've seen Penn & Teller do that bullet catch trick of theirs, and I'll be ****ed if I could ever figure out how the hell they do it. I don't trust the testimony of those in the bible, and I question the sanity of those who do. The church continues to show off 'miracles' in the form of statues 'crying blood' or mother teresa 'healing' cancer, but when investigated, they're either fabricated lies & the medical professionals involved can show data that mother teresa had nothing to do with it, or that the 'blood' is chicken fat with food colouring. Cheap parlour tricks. If our society is so advanced today and is still taken in by such tricksters, I doubt it would have been difficult in that day.


Well that's everyone's informed decision to make about whether they trust it and I respect it. As with all areas there are going to be sensationalists who claim these miracles/tricks. I'm not interested in defending arguments which aren't against what I believe.

I would hope 'All' would be a more accurate number - otherwise, they're not very christian at all. I don't particularly care of the faithful disagree with me; if they were able to see reason in the first place or had any notion to question anything of what they were taught, they wouldn't be christian for very long. Those that remain, are either intentionally, or unintentionally ignorant & I care very little about their distaste for my views on their faith.


I don't have a problem with you expressing your views on their faith but you can't argue against what you think they believe, its irrelevant.

Much like BigP08, you seem to be ignoring Jesus' own edicts that the old testament is to be followed as *law*. Who are you to say that "Oh, well, it's *only* the old testament, it doesn't really matter". Did you ask the lord? Did he respond to you and say "Yeah, sorry about all that - I was *really* high when I wrote all that - you can just ignore it"?


Had Jesus died when he said that?

That's not true at all. Many still refute his existence. Beyond the point though - even if he was a man, there's no proof that he was the son of god, or a god himself.


Of course there are people who refute him, but as I said mainstream scholars don't take them seriously. If the bible can be trusted to be reliable and truthful (in particular to his ressurection), then I think it can be believed he was the son of god. Obviously because it is regarded as 'supernatural' this isn't the case.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

I'm not interested in defending arguments which aren't against what I believe.


I'm using it as a parallel. People see 'magic tricks' in shows these days, and it's entertainment, and a night out, and not real. When you use magic tricks on children, they think you're actually performing magic. I don't think it would be a stretch to regard people in ancient times 'children' in regards to their capacity for intellect & education. I'm presenting a case that Jesus could have easily have been a shyster.

I don't have a problem with you expressing your views on their faith but you can't argue against what you think they believe, its irrelevant.


No.. but I can argue against things people have said in this forum; things religious people have tried to argue with in other settings, and with the bible itself; which is what I'm limiting myself to. Why would I argue a point that no one brings up? If you think I'm confusing your beliefs, perhaps you aren't making them clear.

Had Jesus died when he said that?


How am I even respond to this sentence? Dead people don't talk.

Of course there are people who refute him, but as I said mainstream scholars don't take them seriously.


Perhaps you should have said 'mainstream christian scholars'.

If the bible can be trusted to be reliable and truthful (in particular to his ressurection), then I think it can be believed he was the son of god.


How can the bible be trusted to be reliable and truthful, and *especially* with regards to Jesus supposed resurrection? I've already established a case as to why it's not sufficient evidence. It's like scientologists using the works as L. Ron Hubbard claiming the truth of scientology by quoting his books. Circular arguments do not have any thread of rationality behind them. Obviously my viewpoint is that it can't; and the only supposed source of evidence is dismissed, leaving no proof for the existence of a god.
Handmedown
offline
Handmedown
9 posts
Nomad

How am I even respond to this sentence? Dead people don't talk.


Well it is because of Jesus' death that the ways and laws of the Old Testament were changed. Prior to his sacrifice of course they would have to be obeyed.

Perhaps you should have said 'mainstream christian scholars'.


It is a very weak arguement that from the available evidence he did not exist; his existance is well documented and confirmed by mainstream scholars and historians (regardless of faith). Being such a contraversial topic no doubt extensive research has been done into the reliability of the evidence.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

Well it is because of Jesus' death that the ways and laws of the Old Testament were changed. Prior to his sacrifice of course they would have to be obeyed.


Funny, I don't remember that passage. Perhaps you could present it to argue your case.

It is a very weak arguement that from the available evidence he did not exist; his existance is well documented and confirmed by mainstream scholars and historians


Funny, I haven't seen that in any of the scientific journals I read - they post a fair amount of literature on the subject, and all of it tends to go in the other direction - you know, the shroud of turin being a fake, no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. There are no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. And to your postulate that it is a weak argument - you haven't provided any of this evidence that he *did* exist - and remember, the burden of proof does not lie with me - it lies with you to prove that he did exist. You haven't bothered to do that at all, which shows me that not only is your argument weak, but you don't have an argument *at all*.

The new testament & the words of Jesus were written on heresay, and as such, is likely a work of fiction, espescially due to the fantastical nature of the content.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, nor does honest, intelligent modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, should be dismissed.
Handmedown
offline
Handmedown
9 posts
Nomad

Funny, I don't remember that passage. Perhaps you could present it to argue your case.


You can already see throughout the new testament in Paul's epistles that the ways God's people were living have changed. It is what was interpretted from the events in the gospel, which I am sure you're aware of. You can't just base it on an isolated passage.

Funny, I haven't seen that in any of the scientific journals I read - they post a fair amount of literature on the subject, and all of it tends to go in the other direction - you know, the shroud of turin being a fake, no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. There are no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. And to your postulate that it is a weak argument - you haven't provided any of this evidence that he *did* exist - and remember, the burden of proof does not lie with me - it lies with you to prove that he did exist. You haven't bothered to do that at all, which shows me that not only is your argument weak, but you don't have an argument *at all*.


Well I actually already have. Go check Annals by Tacitus.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

Your abbhorence to include quotes and evidence in the forum setting is distasteful still. "throughout the new testament"? Have you even read the entire bible, or are you just hoping that I haven't? Write in the scripture that proves your point or don't bother trying at all.

As for the annals by Tacitus - he certainly makes reference to christians causing trouble in rome, but no imperial document refers to any Jesus at all - they only use the term "Christ" - but not in reference to Jesus. The terms "Christos" and "Chrestos" & were terms used to describe already popular gods in Rome - Serapis & Osiris. Emperor Hadrian also used the term to describe the entire rabble of gods, kings & priests.

Further on that point, Church father Lactantius wrote:

Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings.


I'm amused, also, your distaste to address the other, far more important point. Even if Jesus did indeed exist as a person with some very interesting ideas, there is no evidence to support that he was, is, or ever will be, the son of a god, or a god himself.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

I was *really* high when I wrote all that - you can just ignore it"?


That was slightly harsh, but sill funny. Congrats!
-----------
That's not true at all. Many still refute his existence. Beyond the point though - even if he was a man, there's no proof that he was the son of god, or a god himself.

That is, beyond hi sown testament-and eyewitness accounts and testimonies like that tend to be quite inaccurate.
------------
Religion is something to be ridiculed,

I take issue with this statement. Sure, someone my be deluded by religion, but if it takes the stress of of their back and makes them happy, then so be it. It isn't really even a major distortion of reality. Your view on religion is probably similar to the view of most religious people in regard to atheism. I'm not religious, and I sometimes pity those who would completely shroud themselves in it, but if it's a small part of their life and it serves as a good stress relief, let them believe whatever crazy stuff they want to religiously.
----------------
That's not true at all. Many still refute his existence. Beyond the point though - even if he was a man, there's no proof that he was the son of god, or a god himself.

One interesting argument I heard about the resurrection was that he never actually died-because our definition of 'death' has changed so much, even since just the 1950s. So, it is possible that he never actually died on the cross. Just a thought; kind of an interesting experience.
--------
Ack, sorry if I ever sound too harsh. I'm a victim of my own past experience in relation to these types of situations.
Handmedown
offline
Handmedown
9 posts
Nomad

Please be reasonable, it is not possible for me to quote all Paul's epistles in a forum setting. If you have read it, then you'll have a rough idea of the contents anyway; this area does not require specifics, it's fairly generalised my point. You can't isolate passages without context - they are misinterpreted.

Well apparantly you have already proven that the gospels (let alone the entire bible) are unreliable and inaccurate. So in doing so I would get the standard response often based on incorrect belief. But I can see when I'm not getting anywhere and when to step out.


Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

I take issue with this statement. Sure, someone my be deluded by religion, but if it takes the stress of of their back and makes them happy, then so be it.


Okay, so what about the molestation of boys, or the deaths of innocents at the hands of religious fanatics? Suicides because of religious persecution? Demanding creationism or 'Intelligent Design' (a term has never been more poorly named) be taught in science classes where people go for a *real* education.

Additionally, Judaism is the cause of baby males to be mutilated on birth. In North America & many first world countries, we find the concept of female circumcision to be abhorrent, violent, unnecessary, and cruel. Apparently though, it's fine to put baby male through the same torment & rob them of something they were supposed to have in the first place. And somehow... religious people can never keep their nose out of things which are none of their buisness, be it abortion, or sex, or censorship.

let them believe whatever crazy stuff they want to religiously.


To this I would point out that people who believe in such things without the aid of a holy book are regarded as mentally ill, and sometimes wind up institutionalised.

One interesting argument I heard about the resurrection was that he never actually died-because our definition of 'death' has changed so much, even since just the 1950s. So, it is possible that he never actually died on the cross. Just a thought; kind of an interesting experience.


Now that has some scientific credence to it. My mother was at a funeral where right before they were to close & lower the casket into the grave, the man stood up & walked off down the road to the local pub for a glass of scotch. His life signs were so faint that they had declared him dead, no one had noticed, and they prepared him for the funeral. It doesn't make him god though.

I am being reasonable. I'ev already read the bible in its entirety, and I found nothing to contradict the very firm and numerous assertations that the old testament is still law. If you can't present counter evidence, then you'll have to concede the point.

Of course you're not getting anywhere. You have a point of view that is based on faith, not logic. Since we're having a logical debate about the existence of a god, you're already at a loss. I can't argue with 'faith'. I think it's silly, but it's not like I'd be able to convert you. I might turn a few heads of people sitting on the fence though, and get some people to start asking questions & thinking for themselves.

I love that quote. My interpretation was always: "Keep religion away from people with the capacity to think for themselves, because they will destroy it".

And one last thing I did want to mention, as I don't want to be hypocritical myself in not presenting something rather specific with regards to modern scholars and decrying Jesus -

Richard Dawkins was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Essentially, his job was taking complex scientific ideas & and communicating them to the general public, who have no background in complex science. Oxford university is one of the most respected post secondary education institutions in the world, and some would argue (and have a case for it) that it could be the most respected.

Richard Dawkins denies the existence of Jesus Christ as people know or think to know him today.

Don't get much more mainstream then that.

And with that, I'm going to bed. Back tomorrow.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

Okay, so what about the molestation of boys, or the deaths of innocents at the hands of religious fanatics?

That is an action restricted only to the person him/herself; and I never justified fanaticism.
-----------
And somehow... religious people can never keep their nose out of things which are none of their buisness, be it abortion, or sex, or censorship.

I can't argue a point when I agree with it.
--------------
Additionally, Judaism is the cause of baby males to be mutilated on birth.


It's not just Judaism. Male circumcision has become commonplace, which you mentioned, though it depends on your definition of 'mutilation' as to whether or not it is a bad thing. It would be as bit of an exaggeration to say that Judaism alone brought circumcision to America.

Also, is any of your family religious? Because you seem to be prejudiced against religion.
-------------
Suicides because of religious persecution?

It's awful when that happens. But at the same time, the persecution would be the action of the persecutor, not the religion.
-------------
Demanding creationism or 'Intelligent Design' (a term has never been more poorly named) be taught in science classes where people go for a *real* education.

Demanding religious beliefs to be taught in schools is too much. But, at the same time, that is not the action of the individual. It is the action of the higher-ups in the religion. Just because I am fine with religion doesn't mean I condone all of it's activities.
-----------------
I love that quote. My interpretation was always: "Keep religion away from people with the capacity to think for themselves, because they will destroy it".

Hehehe, most religious beliefs are quite easy to refute. Even for a 12-year-old.
johnathann
offline
johnathann
78 posts
Nomad

I consider myself Christian, but one who studies the field of astronomy and science to get answers.
I used to be one of the people who just couldn't believe god could coexist with science, but now after studying the big bang and evolution, I believe that it is possible for the Big Bang to have happened and for god to still exist.
There are some things in the bible that I just cannot believe, call me a fake christian if you want, but I do not believe that the world was created in 7 days, or that the earth is only 10000 years old. Science has proven over and over again that the earth is hundreds of billions of years old, and this is shown by rock sediment in certain places in the world.
Of course, as I stated before, I still believe. I still share all the values any other christian would have. I follow their beliefs and go to church every sunday ( at least I try to! ). Most fanatics might disagree with everything I said, and will start calling me an Atheist, but I am not one of those.

Before you start calling me a scientologist, ask yourself, can't god and science exist together? Is there no way for this to be possible? Do some research on the big bang theory, and you might agree with me.
Thank you,

Johnathan

BigP08
offline
BigP08
1,455 posts
Shepherd

I do not believe that the world was created in 7 days, or that the earth is only 10000 years old.

Old Testament is full of a lot of metaphors. Possibly it meant each day was God's day, which could've been a day, a year, a century... after all, there was no time until the universe was created. You're not an atheist, though, I know plenty of Christians that follow the Big Bang and evolution, just as holy as the next.
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

Old Testament is full of a lot of metaphors



Thats what I was thinking also, maybe each day is like a thousand years or something.

but then again some people insist that 7 days means 7 days.

Personally I would like to believe the entire bible is a metaphor for how to live and interact with society, but as you can see there are some very radical people who attempt to instill their beliefs on others.
Showing 1141-1155 of 3094