there Is No God?

[TheHate]

Hi everyone i am ashley, i am a senior in high school age 17
i just wanted to discuss the matter of religon
my mom has always gone to church and what-not
and tried getting me to go.
I agreed but did not like it...
i felt in my mind
how can you bealive some invisable man up in the sky, he gives you 10 things not to do, and if you do them you go to a fiery world?
does that should like love to you?
personally me it did not
and then to think, i get a person on my game messaging me daily saying "God loves you' EVERY DAY! i usually curse at him and not speak to him for a bit. But we had a heated debate on religion and i said"Tell me how you bealive something that has no proven facts NON" and he replys "because i have faith" , In retaliation i said "what if you are wrong?, what if there is nothing and you wasted your whole life"? and he replyed "i would have done it out of love"
Mind you, he is about 13 , but how are you going to waste your entiere life on something that may not exist . Then i relized, i am Atheists because i have had so many discustions on this that it is entierlly to confusing so Atheists is the way to go in my opinion.
But if anyone has anything to say otherwise i gues...enlighten me
but also my mind may not be changed easly
my mind is not easly corrupted

[Goat]

It is called logic. If they were not there when the god/man myth was supposed to have been alive in can only be a recording of oral tradition.

This entire argument is pure speculation. The first writing discovered could have been a copy of the original, which dated back earlier. Or perhaps it was the first official catalog. Maybe the words were taken from Matthew's (for example) journal. Or maybe it was passed down. A story like this, over the time of 30-70 years, certainly would not have been poluted into a legend. Honestly-- how does the story of several rabbi or just an ordinary teacher excalate into the Son of God, the long-awaited Messiah, who performed miracles and rose from the dead? And, behind all this is the fact that the early Christians were following someOne. They would not have faced relentless persecution if there was no One that had proved Himself, undeniably, as the Messiah, Son of God. I have yet to see this point properly addressed.

Why would it not be polluted into a legend after 30 to 70 years. We saw how the final words of one of the columbine victims turned into a legend, even after it was proven to be false.

Were the early CHristians following someone?? Or were they accepting information from Paul. Please, show me the evidence you have that comes from first century sources that are not forgeries or scripture. Do we have any writings from Jerusalem that predate the Jewish revolt, besides the fragmentary and altered letters from Paul?

I would like to see any Christian writings on Jesus that predate the Jewish revolt that is outside of Paul that are from the Jerusalem area. This is where the events are supposed to have happened, and that is where I woudl expect an eye witness to write about it.

[bernee51]

Hi Michael

It is called logic. If they were not there when the god/man myth was supposed to have been alive in can only be a recording of oral tradition.

This entire argument is pure speculation. The first writing discovered could have been a copy of the original, which dated back earlier. Or perhaps it was the first official catalog. Maybe the words were taken from Matthew's (for example) journal. Or maybe it was passed down.

And you call my words 'speculation'.

A story like this, over the time of 30-70 years, certainly would not have been poluted into a legend.

Ya reckon.

Have you ever visited spokes.com. If 'urban legends' can grow and proliferate now why not then?

Honestly-- how does the story of several rabbi or just an ordinary teacher excalate into the Son of God, the long-awaited Messiah, who performed miracles and rose from the dead?

It can escalate very easily. These were difficult times witht he nation underthe thumb of colonial rulers with a corrupt priestly class. Mr Joe Citizen would be crying out for a saviour.

And, behind all this is the fact that the early Christians were following someOne. They would not have faced relentless persecution if there was no One that had proved Himself, undeniably, as the Messiah, Son of God. I have yet to see this point properly addressed.

I don't know why you have a probl;em wiht this...people are dying for their beliefs everyday.

I do, however, think that at some point we will have to simply scrutinize each set of teachings and make an honest choice between the two. And the Bible's morals have never failed me yet.

I am pleased that you find moral guidance from your beliefs and hope that you have the courage and wisdom to live up to them.

Christian morals have also guided me. As has the words of the Buddha. And the words of Rumi. And the words of Patanjali.

Sin is in your mind Biker.

I couldn't disagree more. Sin is apparent. To deny sin is to deny self-awareness.

To acknowledge sin is to deny self awareness. Once self awareness is achieved sin is seen to be ONLY in the mind.

If you do not believe in sin, then how will you ever have an understanding of morality?

I define 'sin' as a trnsgression of 'god's law'. Immorality is apparent. Immorality is not sin.

Now I want to start an argument that is, in my opinion, a clincher between the Darwinist and Creationist world-views. It is the argument of the origin of life. Unfortunately for Darwinists, there is no theory that clarifies the origin of life other than that of a Creationist. Spontaneous generation, cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I would put it ...spontaneous generation, cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny - yet. More god of the gaps.

Also a problem in Darwinism is the fossil record. Please explain the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang," in which all life suddenly came about suddenly, without the subtlety described originally by Darwin's "tree of life." There is far too much missing in the fossil record, far too many "missing links," to keep Darwinism on the board. There is simply too much lacking. So please do not make the point that some animals are not fossilized, because we have found all sorts of fossils. None are the "missing links" that are called for. Just one discovery could make the difference; and yet that one discovery is lacking. There is too much missing for you to mask it with the incompletion of the fossil record. Even the timeline that you use to date your discoveries is based around the assumption, unbacked, that man is evolved from ape-like creatures. Scientists back-tracked the molecular clock in order to come up with a timeline by which to date the fossils and the layers of the crust that contain them. Circular reasoning takes over from there.

If this is a misconception, then please do not just say it is. I implore you-- correct me.

-Michael

I am not in a position to 'correct you'. However answers to the questions you ask are in all likelihood availlable. A good place to start is Talk Origins. Also much of what you refer to has been discussed on this forum in the Science thread. Jose in particular is quite knowledgeable.

[carolineislands]

And exstreemly soryy for my mispelling, i am not to consistant on trying to spell right lol

And extremely sorry for my misspelling, I am not to consistent on trying to spell right

I am not too consistent...

As for the topic, I have two comments. One -- God can never be proven by any scientific means as there is no observable data either way. You just have to decide whether or not you WANT to believe. Two -- According to the Abrahamic belief system there is no chance to come back and change your mind after you die. Thus, if you live your life as though there IS a God and then you die, you either find out if you were right or wrong. If you were right, things are good. If you were wrong, nothing... fade to black. On the other hand, if you live your life as though there is NOT a God and then you die, if you were right -- good... fade to black. But if you were WRONG -- big bummer... REAL big bummer.

Besides, living as though there is a God (unless you're a whacked out fundamentalist) usually makes life kinder and more meaningful for most people. For me, I simply CHOOSE to believe in God. I don't argue with people about it when they ask me why I believe I just say, "Cuz I want to."

The truth is that my life goes better that way. When I believe there is something good and divine inside of us and around us, and there is a goodness I can call out to during confusing or difficult times. Things just go better in my life.

One other thought. You know, to believe in God, you don't have to subscribe to your mother's religion. God is much more than religion and is understood in many ways around the world. The Sikhs, for instance, believe that God is within us and around us and in every living thing and that every religion or belief system is simply another language or another way of trying to understand God. I agree with this. I think religion is the little box people try to put God in in an effort to understand. All the while, God is probably shaking his head at our small mindedness and laughing about how surprised we're all going to be when we someday find out that we were all wrong and that none of us will ever understand or know who God is unless we do someday become spirit and crawl out of the bounds of our small minds and limited experience.

That's my two cents.

A friend of mine says that, when she is concerned about something she "puts it out to the universe." Perhaps you could put this concern out to the universe and sort of ask for guidance towards the Truth.

[carolineislands]

Isn't it illogical and unreasonable for an atheist to celebrate CHRISTmas?
Isn't it very disingenuous and two faced for an atheist to have anything to do with CHRISTmas?
I think it is a joke for an atheist to have anything to do with CHRISTmas!

Biker

Is it logical to position yourself as a representative of Jesus's message of love and compassion while boldly speaking in anger and prejudice, and then have the nerve to call others "two faced?"

[Cathar1950]

Isn't it illogical and unreasonable for an atheist to celebrate CHRISTmas?
Isn't it very disingenuous and two faced for an atheist to have anything to do with CHRISTmas?
I think it is a joke for an atheist to have anything to do with CHRISTmas!

Biker

Is it logical to position yourself as a representative of Jesus's message of love and compassion while boldly speaking in anger and prejudice, and then have the nerve to call others "two faced?"

I think you are being kind.
Given most of the Christmas traditions are of pagan origin is it two-faced for Christians to celebrate and use it for their purposes?
Where is it that Atheists can't give gifts, put up trees or even sing songs.
I think Biker has put the cart before the horse here and can't seem to understand that it is the Christians that have taken over the seasonal celibration and projected their ideas upon others not some atheist being two-faced.
Are only Christians suppose to love one another?
I think Biker just sound petty and bitchy, don't you?

[carolineislands]

Most Christians simply do not KNOW that the celebration they have on the 25th of December was a Pagan holiday that got hi-jacked by the early Church fathers. But then, most of them don't know much about church history at all. As one of the posters here said, perhaps God doesn't really care. I tend to think this is the case since God is spirit and therefore sees into the heart. It is therefore pretty likely that it's our intent that really matters. In which case, hate-based, malevolent intent would be moving away from God and compassionate efforts at understanding would be towards God. And so, a sincere, compassionate, questioning atheist could be much closer to God than the Fred Phelps mini-me's we so often see on these forums.

Biker doesn't realize that his attitudes are a very poor representation of his religion. He's not thinking about the fact that a young woman came to this forum looking for evidence of the goodness of God and he showed her the opposite. He obviously has not stopped to ask himself if he is acting in a "Christlike" manner or if he's acting like the devil while touting the love of Jesus. Nor has he considered what kind of effect this might have on a young, questioning mind, such as Ashley's. My only hope is that Ashley takes his words and attitudes with a grain of salt and understands that he really doesn't understand the message of the Christ he claims to follow.

Some folks just need to go back home and read their own book.

[Biker]

Isn't it illogical and unreasonable for an atheist to celebrate CHRISTmas?
Isn't it very disingenuous and two faced for an atheist to have anything to do with CHRISTmas?
I think it is a joke for an atheist to have anything to do with CHRISTmas!

Biker

Is it logical to position yourself as a representative of Jesus's message of love and compassion while boldly speaking in anger and prejudice, and then have the nerve to call others "two faced?"

Well, you could be right, if I was "boldly speaking in anger and prejudice, with nerve"! But I wasn't, so I'm not, and I don't!
I have observed this though, atheists seem to be easily offended and mischaracterize peoples intentions at a fairly regular clip.
I have also noticed that atheist/skeptics ruffle their feathers and start name calling to people who are just trying to have interesting debate!
I have never attempted to "position myself as a representative of Jesus' message of love and compassion". What I do do is, read the inerrant Bible and debate unbelievers from the context of it!
Hope that helps.
I would ask one though, was Jesus acting in compassion and love when He ran the money changers out of the Temple with a whip?
Will He (Jesus Christ) be acting with love and compassion when He sits on the Bema seat and judges all of mankind who ever drew breath?
I say, yes, to both! What say you?

Biker

[Biker]

Most Christians simply do not KNOW that the celebration they have on the 25th of December was a Pagan holiday that got hi-jacked by the early Church fathers. But then, most of them don't know much about church history at all. As one of the posters here said, perhaps God doesn't really care. I tend to think this is the case since God is spirit and therefore sees into the heart. It is therefore pretty likely that it's our intent that really matters. In which case, hate-based, malevolent intent would be moving away from God and compassionate efforts at understanding would be towards God. And so, a sincere, compassionate, questioning atheist could be much closer to God than the Fred Phelps mini-me's we so often see on these forums.

Biker doesn't realize that his attitudes are a very poor representation of his religion. He's not thinking about the fact that a young woman came to this forum looking for evidence of the goodness of God and he showed her the opposite. He obviously has not stopped to ask himself if he is acting in a "Christlike" manner or if he's acting like the devil while touting the love of Jesus. Nor has he considered what kind of effect this might have on a young, questioning mind, such as Ashley's. My only hope is that Ashley takes his words and attitudes with a grain of salt and understands that he really doesn't understand the message of the Christ he claims to follow.

Some folks just need to go back home and read their own book.

Are you a Christian?
Who is Fred Phelps?
Who is Ashley?
Since when did I become responsible for this Ashley in a debate site?
You may want to go home and study Matt 7:1-5 and Rom 2:1.
And get back to me.
You don't know what is in my heart!

Biker

[carolineislands]

Depends on how you define "Christian."

[Biker]

Depends on how you define "Christian."

How you define it.

Biker