anaylis what makes you athiest?

my apologies i couldnt think of a better title so please read the whole question or rather multiple questions

but why do athiest nit pick religious text to death especially the bible and to an even greater extent mormon text in the sense one phrase someone summarizes the entire book but yet when studying history books or science books they will read the entire book and judge it that way?

furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?

furthermore in terms of christianity why do mormons receive the most scrunity? why exactly is the book of momron considerd even more unrealistic than the bible? and why are they unrealistic? even going so far as to call mormons non christian how is this possible both profess a beleif in Christ? and why is the polygamouns sects of mormonism are considered mormon yet each time they come out the church leaders get on tv and say clearly WE DO NOT SUPPORT POLYGAMOUNY ANYMORE yet people deny it constantly why is this? yet once again other religions receive free passes and dont receive scrunity nobody bothers budda monks

why exactly is science dcotrine fact yet somehow its a total lie that God created the earth? why is not plausible that God merely assembled earth from old matter when science teaches us matter cannot be created nor destroyed so why is it so unreasonable that pershaps God and science should work hand and hand that perhaps science has discovered some rules that God established for the universe to maintain its balance and stepping out of those rules throws the entire system into a cluster bomb?

and what makes the concept of beleif in God so difficult what exactly makes you an athiest? why exactly is it so inconceiveable that there could be a God and that people can in fact come to know and he can in fact talk to his people on this earth that he made? and if there be no God then what do you suppose created us how did we come to be where are going and what is the purpose of life? and to the who created God question what are your theories or is it just too unacceptable that he always existed if its true that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and all things are matter then is God not matter so therefore he must of always been in some form or another? and using this logic did we not as humans must of existed in some form or another before we were born and given life? else we are created and therefore violate matter cannot be created nor destroyed? or is God and pre life above and outside of the rules of the universe if so how else could you explain a being being eternal and always there but not getting stuck on the question of if hes not eternal who created God?

sorry its alot sorry im not a member here but i am curious to hear athiest views on this.

my apologies i couldnt think of a better title so please read the whole question or rather multiple questions

but why do athiest nit pick religious text to death especially the bible and to an even greater extent mormon text in the sense one phrase someone summarizes the entire book but yet when studying history books or science books they will read the entire book and judge it that way?

kayoticdreamz

I think your assertion is wrong. I think a naturalistic outlook means looking at evidence skeptically. With this mindset, skeptical scientific enquiry needs to be justified with evidence and subjected to scrutiny before it is accepted as a discovery. This is the scientific method. Much of our history is being re-written as its bsing reviewed analytically. History was mostly personal testimony, rather than physical evidence. If you use the same standards to analyse religious doctrine, it has too many answers that don't fit with the rational questioning used.

furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?

kayoticdreamz

I don't particularly hate Christianity more than any other religion, but since I was bought up a Christian, I find I can relate to the faith more than I could relate to Islam or Hindi. I would defend the right to argue against all religions though, not just Christianity. I think youll find that much of the "jew hate", as you call it, comes from other faiths, rather than atheists.

furthermore in terms of christianity why do mormons receive the most scrunity? why exactly is the book of momron considerd even more unrealistic than the bible? and why are they unrealistic? even going so far as to call mormons non christian how is this possible both profess a beleif in Christ? and why is the polygamouns sects of mormonism are considered mormon yet each time they come out the church leaders get on tv and say clearly WE DO NOT SUPPORT POLYGAMOUNY ANYMORE yet people deny it constantly why is this? yet once again other religions receive free passes and dont receive scrunity nobody bothers budda monks

kayoticdreamz

They don't. We have just been fortunate here in having a couple of Mormons who are prepared to debate what they believe recently. I consider the Mormon faith more unrealistic than the Christian faith because I believe it has a unique American slant to it and the stories about its inception and foundation are questionable to the realms of farcical fantasy. Wasn't Jo Smith a convicted charlatan?

why exactly is science dcotrine fact yet somehow its a total lie that God created the earth? why is not plausible that God merely assembled earth from old matter when science teaches us matter cannot be created nor destroyed so why is it so unreasonable that pershaps God and science should work hand and hand that perhaps science has discovered some rules that God established for the universe to maintain its balance and stepping out of those rules throws the entire system into a cluster bomb?

kayoticdreamz

Is that what you think? Is that thinking the same as Christiain thinking? Science is based on rational deduction - a type of logical thinking that reaches conclusions only based on evidence. Other sorts of logic can be used - like you have - like inductive logic, or inference, like exploring various possibilities of what could or might be. Although these possibilities could be the case, there is no evidence that shows them to be (i.e. like there is evidence to show why we believe the big bang happened).

and what makes the concept of beleif in God so difficult what exactly makes you an athiest? why exactly is it so inconceivable that there could be a God and that people can in fact come to know and he can in fact talk to his people on this earth that he made? and if there be no God then what do you suppose created us how did we come to be where are going and what is the purpose of life? and to the who created God question what are your theories or is it just too unacceptable that he always existed if its true that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and all things are matter then is God not matter so therefore he must of always been in some form or another? and using this logic did we not as humans must of existed in some form or another before we were born and given life? else we are created and therefore violate matter cannot be created nor destroyed? or is God and pre life above and outside of the rules of the universe if so how else could you explain a being being eternal and always there but not getting stuck on the question of if hes not eternal who created God?

kayoticdreamz

Which God are you talking about? There are thousands of them - as believed by people in various forms! What is the purpose of your life? - assuming that you do believe in God. Why are you specifically here? Why are you so sure your God is the right one? Matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa. Who made your God and why does God exist? Religions are supposed to supply the answers to those questions. Atheism rejects those answers for good reason, without necessarily supplying any of its own.

sorry its alot sorry im not a member here but i am curious to hear athiest views on this.

kayoticdreamz

Please do read up on some of the other threads here in this union for more background on views and arguments used here. We do welcome people of all faiths (and none) to share their views and experiences - and ask questions. So welcome and thanks for showing an interest. I hope you find my reply a suitable opening to further discussion.

and what makes the concept of beleif in God so difficult what exactly makes you an athiest?kayoticdreamz

You're the one who recently read that book on Gnosticism, aren't you? :P I'm not making fun, but it just reminds me of a period of my life when I was really involved in that sort of thing.

Android339

furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?kayoticdreamz

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]and what makes the concept of beleif in God so difficult what exactly makes you an athiest?foxhound_fox

i suppose i am saying if there be a God then surely he must be some all powerful being simply because the whole idea and notion of God entales some super powerful being rather than a weaker mystical personifaction or the even weaker roman and greek gods. however i am not saying only to consider the bible kind of God but as far as definitions of God goes the bible God appears to fit a more beleivable all powerful being rather than many other interuptations of weaker gods that dont seem all that great. but this is again if your going to beleive in God i would think he has to be a rather kick*** being as far as power goes at least and im imagining patience to put up with us lol.

and ok so let me ask you this then what makes you for certain for fact that God does not exist? whether that is roman gods bible god or mystical experience personifcation god or something else all together?

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

my apologies i couldnt think of a better title so please read the whole question or rather multiple questions

but why do athiest nit pick religious text to death especially the bible and to an even greater extent mormon text in the sense one phrase someone summarizes the entire book but yet when studying history books or science books they will read the entire book and judge it that way?

RationalAtheist

I think your assertion is wrong. I think a naturalistic outlook means looking at evidence skeptically. With this mindset, skeptical scientific enquiry needs to be justified with evidence and subjected to scrutiny before it is accepted as a discovery. This is the scientific method. Much of our history is being re-written as its bsing reviewed analytically. History was mostly personal testimony, rather than physical evidence. If you use the same standards to analyse religious doctrine, it has too many answers that don't fit with the rational questioning used.

furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?

kayoticdreamz

I don't particularly hate Christianity more than any other religion, but since I was bought up a Christian, I find I can relate to the faith more than I could relate to Islam or Hindi. I would defend the right to argue against all religions though, not just Christianity. I think youll find that much of the "jew hate", as you call it, comes from other faiths, rather than atheists.

furthermore in terms of christianity why do mormons receive the most scrunity? why exactly is the book of momron considerd even more unrealistic than the bible? and why are they unrealistic? even going so far as to call mormons non christian how is this possible both profess a beleif in Christ? and why is the polygamouns sects of mormonism are considered mormon yet each time they come out the church leaders get on tv and say clearly WE DO NOT SUPPORT POLYGAMOUNY ANYMORE yet people deny it constantly why is this? yet once again other religions receive free passes and dont receive scrunity nobody bothers budda monks

kayoticdreamz

They don't. We have just been fortunate here in having a couple of Mormons who are prepared to debate what they believe recently. I consider the Mormon faith more unrealistic than the Christian faith because I believe it has a unique American slant to it and the stories about its inception and foundation are questionable to the realms of farcical fantasy. Wasn't Jo Smith a convicted charlatan?

why exactly is science dcotrine fact yet somehow its a total lie that God created the earth? why is not plausible that God merely assembled earth from old matter when science teaches us matter cannot be created nor destroyed so why is it so unreasonable that pershaps God and science should work hand and hand that perhaps science has discovered some rules that God established for the universe to maintain its balance and stepping out of those rules throws the entire system into a cluster bomb?

kayoticdreamz

Is that what you think? Is that thinking the same as Christiain thinking? Science is based on rational deduction - a type of logical thinking that reaches conclusions only based on evidence. Other sorts of logic can be used - like you have - like inductive logic, or inference, like exploring various possibilities of what could or might be. Although these possibilities could be the case, there is no evidence that shows them to be (i.e. like there is evidence to show why we believe the big bang happened).

and what makes the concept of beleif in God so difficult what exactly makes you an athiest? why exactly is it so inconceivable that there could be a God and that people can in fact come to know and he can in fact talk to his people on this earth that he made? and if there be no God then what do you suppose created us how did we come to be where are going and what is the purpose of life? and to the who created God question what are your theories or is it just too unacceptable that he always existed if its true that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and all things are matter then is God not matter so therefore he must of always been in some form or another? and using this logic did we not as humans must of existed in some form or another before we were born and given life? else we are created and therefore violate matter cannot be created nor destroyed? or is God and pre life above and outside of the rules of the universe if so how else could you explain a being being eternal and always there but not getting stuck on the question of if hes not eternal who created God?

kayoticdreamz

Which God are you talking about? There are thousands of them - as believed by people in various forms! What is the purpose of your life? - assuming that you do believe in God. Why are you specifically here? Why are you so sure your God is the right one? Matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa. Who made your God and why does God exist? Religions are supposed to supply the answers to those questions. Atheism rejects those answers for good reason, without necessarily supplying any of its own.

sorry its alot sorry im not a member here but i am curious to hear athiest views on this.

kayoticdreamz

Please do read up on some of the other threads here in this union for more background on views and arguments used here. We do welcome people of all faiths (and none) to share their views and experiences - and ask questions. So welcome and thanks for showing an interest. I hope you find my reply a suitable opening to further discussion.

Here let me pitch a scenario. Take george Washington we know he lead the troops in the American revolution we know he sat in the room where the constitution was written yet you and I never saw this happen. Well take moses again he parted the red sea in both cases the story got written it got passed down as fact and probably both had witnesses yet you and I saw neither happen so why exactly is the story about Washington pure fact yet moses's story is pure fiction? And why exactly is this idea to ask this question considered laughable this all im getting at a certain weird questionable anaylisis of history when for all we know 10 years before I was born is when the US constitution was written and history was rewritten to match it. I have no clue I never witnessed these facts what makes on account more plausible than the other?

I don't recall jo smith being a convicted anything what besides cant a leader have screwed up at some point in the past a lot of the prophets in Christian belief made some big no-no's. Why exactly is the mormon story more fantasy than the rest of the bible seems to be about on par honestly and what is wrong with being a patriotic religion? Further more why do you separate mormon from Christian my understanding is both belief in Christ do they not? Both read the bible do they not? How exactly can you call mormons something other than Christian?

Except there is no evidence to the big bang theory in fact in comparing the two something made us vs a spontanoues combustion the something made us sounds far more realistic than spawning out of pure utter nothingness and just randomly exploding which is about the sum of that theory and as far as beliefs on the universe go its about the most far fetched ill even take aliens planted us here over that at least theres some possible hope to that tunnel. And im also merely asking why exactly must the concept of God go against science why cant the two go hand and hand why is not plausible that perhaps science has stumbled onto rules of the universe like matter and 2+2=4 I would find it a weird notion that a god any god would try and convince 2+2 does not equal 4 so why cant a god any god be bound to a certain realm of rules or are we to just assume science must be independent of any notion of god because the two cant co exist. I guess more to the point why exactly does being a sciensist generally mean being atheist or evolutionist or big bang theory supporter what ever happened to a religious sciencist?

Exactly that's my point religion provides an answer to nearly all questions so why exactly do you as an atheist reject those answers and replace them with something else or even nothing? Im also just referring to a general generic god in this case for if there is a god then surely he must be rather powerful at least I would imagine just because of the very definition of the word if he is not then perhaps the term god isn't applicable? Take your pick merely getting at why you reject all religion and its answers and replace them with athiesim? I suppose what I really want to know is what lead you to your non belief in any kind of god and are you open to the idea of there being a god supposing someone told you how to find this god would you do it or are content in never knowing about any kind of god period?

Ya ive noticed I may read some old posts but im not going to guarantee it is a lot to read.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?foxhound_fox

hm i would wonder why most athiest were christians before? my general observation of people in general is athiest have a very much religion is bad mentality and i like to wonder what makes their route any better?

and nothing wrong with questions questions are great!

and yes i suppose why exactly would an athiest find Jesus a liar but not albert einstein or anybody else what exactly puts a religious figure into greater question than a sciencist or any other non religious figure?(not just picking on Jesus but rather just used that name but we can use anybody)

but why do athiest nit pick religious text to death especially the bible and to an even greater extent mormon text in the sense one phrase someone summarizes the entire book but yet when studying history books or science books they will read the entire book and judge it that way?kayoticdreamz

Not all of us are like that. One should take the time to learn about Christianity's doctrines before critisizing it, so if you run into an atheist who likes to rip verses out of context while refusing to be corrected or reasoned with, that person is probably not worth your time.

furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?kayoticdreamz

Most of us are from the west, and because Christianity is by far the biggest religion in that area, it's a religion that most of us are familiar with.

furthermore in terms of christianity why do mormons receive the most scrunity? why exactly is the book of momron considerd even more unrealistic than the bible? and why are they unrealistic? even going so far as to call mormons non christian how is this possible both profess a beleif in Christ? ?kayoticdreamz

I wouldn't say that mormons recieve anywhere near the most scrutiny, but I guess that depends on where you're from. The Book of Mormon [and other LDS scripture] portrays Jesus in a way that only vaguely resembles the Bible's depiction of Jesus. If those scriptures are supposed to go alongside the Bible, we should see a consistent portrayal of Jesus throughout the Bible and LDS scripture-- but we don't see that. Instead, LDS scripture testifies of a Jesus who is a created being, is not God almighty and did not create all things.

why exactly is science dcotrine fact yet somehow its a total lie that God created the earth? why is not plausible that God merely assembled earth from old matter when science teaches us matter cannot be created nor destroyed so why is it so unreasonable that pershaps God and science should work hand and hand that perhaps science has discovered some rules that God established for the universe to maintain its balance and stepping out of those rules throws the entire system into a cluster bomb?kayoticdreamz

It's possible that God created the earth and has used things like evolution to interact with his creation, but I have seen no reason to believe that that's the way it happened.

Here let me pitch a scenario. Take george Washington we know he lead the troops in the American revolution we know he sat in the room where the constitution was written yet you and I never saw this happen. Well take moses again he parted the red sea in both cases the story got written it got passed down as fact and probably both had witnesses yet you and I saw neither happen so why exactly is the story about Washington pure fact yet moses's story is pure fiction? And why exactly is this idea to ask this question considered laughable this all im getting at a certain weird questionable anaylisis of history when for all we know 10 years before I was born is when the US constitution was written and history was rewritten to match it. I have no clue I never witnessed these facts what makes on account more plausible than the other?

kayoticdreamz

I don't know too much about George Washington as I assume you do. I live in England, so have heard of his achievements, but I'm pretty sure I don't feel in any way as connected with him or with Americanism or US culture as you do (assuming you are from the States). This is because we have different views and perspectives on history by virtue of us living in different places.

What I can say about history and about George Washington is that there was much independent physical evidence left behind as a result of his being and actions. Singular witness testimony is viewed far less favourably nowadays than it used to be (thanks to evidential standards and research in court actions). But the journals of many independent witnesses, who were aligned variously for Washington, ambivalent to him, or against him, told the same stories of his actions is powerful evidence of his existence. His actions were also enshrined by reasoned objective debate with others about what should be law for people. But despite all this, I'm still not absolutely certain that he did exist. It is more plausible that he did exist as history records because there is substantial objective evidence that suggests he did, against no evidence backing up your position that he was invented 10 years before you were born.

The difference between Washington and Moses is that Washington never claimed to do anything that was impossible or previously unachievable, whereas Moses parted a sea. (He also wrote about his own death in Deuteronomy!) With your logic, how can you have any clue about Jesus or God, unless you have seen them with your own eyes?

I don't recall jo smith being a convicted anything what besides cant a leader have screwed up at some point in the past a lot of the prophets in Christian belief made some big no-no's. Why exactly is the mormon story more fantasy than the rest of the bible seems to be about on par honestly and what is wrong with being a patriotic religion? Further more why do you separate mormon from Christian my understanding is both belief in Christ do they not? Both read the bible do they not? How exactly can you call mormons something other than Christian?

kayoticdreamz

Don't you recall it because you don't know, have not researched, or wouldn't care to remember? I hope there is another reason, since those three sound highly suspect from an adherent of Mormonism. You then seem to admit that he was a naughty man - I read he was imprisoned for pretending to find buried treasure using his seer stones. Didn't he have to move from Palmyra because he'd double-crossed his partners in his treasure-hunting company by taking the plates?

The fantasy element comes in the finding of the Golden scrolls, then placing them inside a hat, then Joseph pressing is face up to the hat, then translating the book of Mormon from "revised Egyptian" that's subsequently been alleged actually to translate part of the "Book of the Dead". What about his glasses with seer stones as lenses? This is all supposed to have happened relatively recently, too.

Except there is no evidence to the big bang theory in fact in comparing the two something made us vs a spontanoues combustion the something made us sounds far more realistic than spawning out of pure utter nothingness and just randomly exploding which is about the sum of that theory and as far as beliefs on the universe go its about the most far fetched ill even take aliens planted us here over that at least theres some possible hope to that tunnel. And im also merely asking why exactly must the concept of God go against science why cant the two go hand and hand why is not plausible that perhaps science has stumbled onto rules of the universe like matter and 2+2=4 I would find it a weird notion that a god any god would try and convince 2+2 does not equal 4 so why cant a god any god be bound to a certain realm of rules or are we to just assume science must be independent of any notion of god because the two cant co exist. I guess more to the point why exactly does being a sciensist generally mean being atheist or evolutionist or big bang theory supporter what ever happened to a religious sciencist?

kayoticdreamz

There is plenty of evidence that supports the big bang, but you can ignore it if it conflicts with your view. I don't think of the big bang as spontaneous combustion, or spawning out of pure and utter nothingness. There are no problems showing that it did happen, but there are problems explaining why the big bang happened. They are problems we face, based on our rational understanding of the universe and the discoveries we've made because of it. Should we abandon research into discovery since the answers we get don't correspond with what we've been told, or that the discoveries we find open up new questions about our origins?

I don't know why science does not find the same answers proposed in the bible or other doctrine, which does give me good reason to doubt religions. Science posits the idea of a big bang for such compelling and obvious reasons and evidence from new research continues to underpin this understanding. I can't explain why God does not go hand in hand with science as it would seem that they should work together, if a Christian or theistic religion is true.

You've clarified the division between science and religion by asking why they can't co-exist, while at the same time denying cosmological evolution without rational justification. I think you've answered your own question there.

Exactly that's my point religion provides an answer to nearly all questions so why exactly do you as an atheist reject those answers and replace them with something else or even nothing? Im also just referring to a general generic god in this case for if there is a god then surely he must be rather powerful at least I would imagine just because of the very definition of the word if he is not then perhaps the term god isn't applicable? Take your pick merely getting at why you reject all religion and its answers and replace them with athiesim? I suppose what I really want to know is what lead you to your non belief in any kind of god and are you open to the idea of there being a god supposing someone told you how to find this god would you do it or are content in never knowing about any kind of god period?

Ya ive noticed I may read some old posts but im not going to guarantee it is a lot to read.

kayoticdreamz

Different religions provide different answers, so which one is true? None of them fit with what we understand of our world from first principles and no assumptions - i.e. the scientific method. They all compete in their doctrine and most have clauses against believing other faiths too. Interestingly, evidence from separate disciplines within scientific communities seems to coalesce and agree, while staying true the foundations of rational, justified, evidential discovery.

You now seem to reject the idea of a Judeo-Chiristian God, yet apply criteria like powerfulness to God. If God is so powerful, why do all the innocent children die and why do bad people seem to do very well for themselves in society? Why have so many wars been fought in the name of religion and why is there so much division of faith on Earth? Why is nature and the universe amoral? What is the point of worshipping a vengeful and un-caring God?

Atheism isn't an answer - its an acknowledgment that you currently reject religion, based on rationalism and naturalism. - Well, it is for me anyway. What led me to this belief is my huge interest in religions and "living" philosophy. I see the answers supplied by religion as incompatible with scientific discovery and physical law. I see atheism as the most valid way to live my life, since it always challenges me to research all about faiths, beliefs, discovery and knowledge. I feel it gives me a far more balanced world view, where I can know about various other beliefs, yet be able to identify areas of benefit or issue with them.

I don't mind re-stating stuff I've already said before, but this union is a great starting point for atheist links and views, especially via the stickied threads.

i suppose i am saying if there be a God then surely he must be some all powerful being simply because the whole idea and notion of God entales some super powerful being rather than a weaker mystical personifaction or the even weaker roman and greek gods. however i am not saying only to consider the bible kind of God but as far as definitions of God goes the bible God appears to fit a more beleivable all powerful being rather than many other interuptations of weaker gods that dont seem all that great. but this is again if your going to beleive in God i would think he has to be a rather kick*** being as far as power goes at least and im imagining patience to put up with us lol.kayoticdreamz

and ok so let me ask you this then what makes you for certain for fact that God does not exist? whether that is roman gods bible god or mystical experience personifcation god or something else all together?

kayoticdreamz

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

i suppose i am saying if there be a God then surely he must be some all powerful being simply because the whole idea and notion of God entales some super powerful being rather than a weaker mystical personifaction or the even weaker roman and greek gods. however i am not saying only to consider the bible kind of God but as far as definitions of God goes the bible God appears to fit a more beleivable all powerful being rather than many other interuptations of weaker gods that dont seem all that great. but this is again if your going to beleive in God i would think he has to be a rather kick*** being as far as power goes at least and im imagining patience to put up with us lol.foxhound_fox

and ok so let me ask you this then what makes you for certain for fact that God does not exist? whether that is roman gods bible god or mystical experience personifcation god or something else all together?

kayoticdreamz

i suppose nothing but just the definition of the word itsself as ive come to know it God = powerful.

and perhaps he is perfect perhaps he lets us have free reighn to do whatever clearly he does. but further more why cant we suffer it tends to make enjoyment better i mean largely speaking enjoyment is only known after knowing what suffering is or else how can i honestly tell the difference?

so a gnostic athiest doenst beleive in GOd but thinks there is an explanation otherwise for everything?

hmm though i do appreciate your explanation on how to came to be an athiest thanks! but i would ask one last thing the questions you pose that we have no answer to and lets face it theres still a hell of alot science doesnt get yet arent all those answers found in various forms amongst all religions? do these hold no weight to or do you just now soley rely on science and philosphy to gather your answers?

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

but why do athiest nit pick religious text to death especially the bible and to an even greater extent mormon text in the sense one phrase someone summarizes the entire book but yet when studying history books or science books they will read the entire book and judge it that way?dracula_16

Not all of us are like that. One should take the time to learn about Christianity's doctrines before critisizing it, so if you run into an atheist who likes to rip verses out of context while refusing to be corrected or reasoned with, that person is probably not worth your time.

furthermore while the assault on christian religions? or more specifically why is christianity the most hated and critized religion yet i dont see people calling Allah or gandi out as whack jobs yet moses is a whack job? well okay jews are probably the most hated but still my point is valid but speaking of that why all the jew hate?kayoticdreamz

Most of us are from the west, and because Christianity is by far the biggest religion in that area, it's a religion that most of us are familiar with.

furthermore in terms of christianity why do mormons receive the most scrunity? why exactly is the book of momron considerd even more unrealistic than the bible? and why are they unrealistic? even going so far as to call mormons non christian how is this possible both profess a beleif in Christ? ?kayoticdreamz

I wouldn't say that mormons recieve anywhere near the most scrutiny, but I guess that depends on where you're from. The Book of Mormon [and other LDS scripture] portrays Jesus in a way that only vaguely resembles the Bible's depiction of Jesus. If those scriptures are supposed to go alongside the Bible, we should see a consistent portrayal of Jesus throughout the Bible and LDS scripture-- but we don't see that. Instead, LDS scripture testifies of a Jesus who is a created being, is not God almighty and did not create all things.

why exactly is science dcotrine fact yet somehow its a total lie that God created the earth? why is not plausible that God merely assembled earth from old matter when science teaches us matter cannot be created nor destroyed so why is it so unreasonable that pershaps God and science should work hand and hand that perhaps science has discovered some rules that God established for the universe to maintain its balance and stepping out of those rules throws the entire system into a cluster bomb?kayoticdreamz

It's possible that God created the earth and has used things like evolution to interact with his creation, but I have seen no reason to believe that that's the way it happened.

i see fair enough it was just an observation ive had

so if budha was the biggest religion then you would critcize that one the most?

i guess i might say this then why are mormons often called non christian yet bapitist catholics and lutherans all different to an extent get to be called christian? i mean all mormons are doing is teaching about Christ yet a 4th different way? also dont mormons use the bible too? so how can it be in total conflict? and doesnt the bible say God Jesus and the Holy Spirit? 3 seperate beings? does the book of mormon vary from that or something? i mean how exactly does it say God or Jesus or both arent the all mighty beings?

ah i see so your open to the idea just dont beleive it fair enough.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

Here let me pitch a scenario. Take george Washington we know he lead the troops in the American revolution we know he sat in the room where the constitution was written yet you and I never saw this happen. Well take moses again he parted the red sea in both cases the story got written it got passed down as fact and probably both had witnesses yet you and I saw neither happen so why exactly is the story about Washington pure fact yet moses's story is pure fiction? And why exactly is this idea to ask this question considered laughable this all im getting at a certain weird questionable anaylisis of history when for all we know 10 years before I was born is when the US constitution was written and history was rewritten to match it. I have no clue I never witnessed these facts what makes on account more plausible than the other?

RationalAtheist

I don't know too much about George Washington as I assume you do. I live in England, so have heard of his achievements, but I'm pretty sure I don't feel in any way as connected with him or with Americanism or US culture as you do (assuming you are from the States). This is because we have different views and perspectives on history by virtue of us living in different places.

What I can say about history and about George Washington is that there was much independent physical evidence left behind as a result of his being and actions. Singular witness testimony is viewed far less favourably nowadays than it used to be (thanks to evidential standards and research in court actions). But the journals of many independent witnesses, who were aligned variously for Washington, ambivalent to him, or against him, told the same stories of his actions is powerful evidence of his existence. His actions were also enshrined by reasoned objective debate with others about what should be law for people. But despite all this, I'm still not absolutely certain that he did exist. It is more plausible that he did exist as history records because there is substantial objective evidence that suggests he did, against no evidence backing up your position that he was invented 10 years before you were born.

The difference between Washington and Moses is that Washington never claimed to do anything that was impossible or previously unachievable, whereas Moses parted a sea. (He also wrote about his own death in Deuteronomy!) With your logic, how can you have any clue about Jesus or God, unless you have seen them with your own eyes?

I don't recall jo smith being a convicted anything what besides cant a leader have screwed up at some point in the past a lot of the prophets in Christian belief made some big no-no's. Why exactly is the mormon story more fantasy than the rest of the bible seems to be about on par honestly and what is wrong with being a patriotic religion? Further more why do you separate mormon from Christian my understanding is both belief in Christ do they not? Both read the bible do they not? How exactly can you call mormons something other than Christian?

kayoticdreamz

Don't you recall it because you don't know, have not researched, or wouldn't care to remember? I hope there is another reason, since those three sound highly suspect from an adherent of Mormonism. You then seem to admit that he was a naughty man - I read he was imprisoned for pretending to find buried treasure using his seer stones. Didn't he have to move from Palmyra because he'd double-crossed his partners in his treasure-hunting company by taking the plates?

The fantasy element comes in the finding of the Golden scrolls, then placing them inside a hat, then Joseph pressing is face up to the hat, then translating the book of Mormon from "revised Egyptian" that's subsequently been alleged actually to translate part of the "Book of the Dead". What about his glasses with seer stones as lenses? This is all supposed to have happened relatively recently, too.

Except there is no evidence to the big bang theory in fact in comparing the two something made us vs a spontanoues combustion the something made us sounds far more realistic than spawning out of pure utter nothingness and just randomly exploding which is about the sum of that theory and as far as beliefs on the universe go its about the most far fetched ill even take aliens planted us here over that at least theres some possible hope to that tunnel. And im also merely asking why exactly must the concept of God go against science why cant the two go hand and hand why is not plausible that perhaps science has stumbled onto rules of the universe like matter and 2+2=4 I would find it a weird notion that a god any god would try and convince 2+2 does not equal 4 so why cant a god any god be bound to a certain realm of rules or are we to just assume science must be independent of any notion of god because the two cant co exist. I guess more to the point why exactly does being a sciensist generally mean being atheist or evolutionist or big bang theory supporter what ever happened to a religious sciencist?

kayoticdreamz

There is plenty of evidence that supports the big bang, but you can ignore it if it conflicts with your view. I don't think of the big bang as spontaneous combustion, or spawning out of pure and utter nothingness. There are no problems showing that it did happen, but there are problems explaining why the big bang happened. They are problems we face, based on our rational understanding of the universe and the discoveries we've made because of it. Should we abandon research into discovery since the answers we get don't correspond with what we've been told, or that the discoveries we find open up new questions about our origins?

I don't know why science does not find the same answers proposed in the bible or other doctrine, which does give me good reason to doubt religions. Science posits the idea of a big bang for such compelling and obvious reasons and evidence from new research continues to underpin this understanding. I can't explain why God does not go hand in hand with science as it would seem that they should work together, if a Christian or theistic religion is true.

You've clarified the division between science and religion by asking why they can't co-exist, while at the same time denying cosmological evolution without rational justification. I think you've answered your own question there.

Exactly that's my point religion provides an answer to nearly all questions so why exactly do you as an atheist reject those answers and replace them with something else or even nothing? Im also just referring to a general generic god in this case for if there is a god then surely he must be rather powerful at least I would imagine just because of the very definition of the word if he is not then perhaps the term god isn't applicable? Take your pick merely getting at why you reject all religion and its answers and replace them with athiesim? I suppose what I really want to know is what lead you to your non belief in any kind of god and are you open to the idea of there being a god supposing someone told you how to find this god would you do it or are content in never knowing about any kind of god period?

Ya ive noticed I may read some old posts but im not going to guarantee it is a lot to read.

kayoticdreamz

Different religions provide different answers, so which one is true? None of them fit with what we understand of our world from first principles and no assumptions - i.e. the scientific method. They all compete in their doctrine and most have clauses against believing other faiths too. Interestingly, evidence from separate disciplines within scientific communities seems to coalesce and agree, while staying true the foundations of rational, justified, evidential discovery.

You now seem to reject the idea of a Judeo-Chiristian God, yet apply criteria like powerfulness to God. If God is so powerful, why do all the innocent children die and why do bad people seem to do very well for themselves in society? Why have so many wars been fought in the name of religion and why is there so much division of faith on Earth? Why is nature and the universe amoral? What is the point of worshipping a vengeful and un-caring God?

Atheism isn't an answer - its an acknowledgment that you currently reject religion, based on rationalism and naturalism. - Well, it is for me anyway. What led me to this belief is my huge interest in religions and "living" philosophy. I see the answers supplied by religion as incompatible with scientific discovery and physical law. I see atheism as the most valid way to live my life, since it always challenges me to research all about faiths, beliefs, discovery and knowledge. I feel it gives me a far more balanced world view, where I can know about various other beliefs, yet be able to identify areas of benefit or issue with them.

I don't mind re-stating stuff I've already said before, but this union is a great starting point for atheist links and views, especially via the stickied threads.

but by the same token isnt that just what the bible is well just keep picking on moses to keep it more simple ok since either all the stories are true or false i dont think theres alot of roam for grey area but thats just me.

but isnt that what moses did i mean the story is he did his thing and had loads of witnesses but the thing is its in a time where writing isnt near as common and the average folk cant read or write but no doubt he must of had tons of witnesses to the event in the same fashion washington had witnesses the difference being washington lived when more people could read and write.

and supposing a person walked into this forum claimed to of seen Jesus or God would you beleive him? i mean for all intents in purpose the entire basis of christianity is a book or the mormons case even more than one book all claiming to of seen and talked to God and testifing to this fact? would it convince you say if i said ive seen Jesus anymore than the bible would?

and FYI while washington never did part a red sea to my knowledge he did for all intents and purposes defeat the most powerful army in the world at the time with a budget not much greater than peanuts and an untrained at times starving army. the entire story is about as close to a miracle as you can get without parting any seas.

actually i just dont know im not 100% familar with that time period since its either what the church has said or a bunch of angry ex mormons speaking. honestly ive just never cared enough to really research it since its rather hard to find a clear historical point of view on the matter. though i suppose i may look it up i am curious but we shall see.

why exactly is that more fantasy than again parting the red seas? at least in my mind its not even if it is more recent ive always found it hard to accept the bible just kind of stops at least i can understand the logic mormons attempt to continue the bible which i think makes more logical sense.

no merely wanted your take on the matter is all. im also simply saying i have problems with the big bang theory overall and as far as explanations go i rate that on the lower end of the spectrum.

im applying powerful to the term GOd because at least as i know God means powerful and not likely someone i can take in a fight and as far as Gods go the christian GOd packs the most punch so normally when i think of God i go something in the ballpark just because of the word God and its meaning in general as ive come to understand it.

i suppose you could say about why does God allow all that to happen well why not? do you suppose he should just come down every 2 seconds of the day and say hey you stop that? given the fact we have free will to do whatever we like at least until the law catches us it would seem if there be a God then he must live by a similar set of rules or else wed see every 2 seconds or less hey cut that out. and most descriptions of a heaven present a hell which clearly indicates there must be some kind of evil also everything has an opposite or so they say so if there is good or well say God why cant there be an opposing devil? i mean clearly theres good people and bad people so clearly theres influence of both kinds coming from various sources so i suppose why not i guess some unjustice is going to come down now and then based our indivual actions. regardless im also going to go with no one promised me life was fair or easy.

so with your conclusion on how to came to athiesm have you all together rejected the idea of God or Gods existing? and like the other guy brought up how to explain people seeing spirits or other mystical things? i guess is there any other reason or rational as to how to came to athiesm or did that basically sum it up?

but by the same token isnt that just what the bible is well just keep picking on moses to keep it more simple ok since either all the stories are true or false i dont think theres alot of roam for grey area but thats just me.

but isnt that what moses did i mean the story is he did his thing and had loads of witnesses but the thing is its in a time where writing isnt near as common and the average folk cant read or write but no doubt he must of had tons of witnesses to the event in the same fashion washington had witnesses the difference being washington lived when more people could read and write.

kayoticdreamz

You say "no doubt" - since you are convinced it did exist and thousands of people saw it all. But there is no independent evidence for Moses or the crowds, as there is for Washington. There is plenty of direct physical evidence, circumstantial evidence (movements of people, arms, manufacturing, etc) supporting the accounts from history. What positive evidence have you to back up your assertion that he was made up 10 years before you were born? Weighing up the evidences for each case would leave you with the most rational view over Washington's life. You only need faith for insisting the rational view is not correct.

and supposing a person walked into this forum claimed to of seen Jesus or God would you beleive him? i mean for all intents in purpose the entire basis of christianity is a book or the mormons case even more than one book all claiming to of seen and talked to God and testifing to this fact? would it convince you say if i said ive seen Jesus anymore than the bible would?

kayoticdreamz

I'd believe that they believed they'd seen something. I too have had hallucinations, so know the power of the human mind to play tricks. We've learned a tremendous amount in recent years about how and people think in certain ways. We've discovered that personal testimony is far less reliable than physical evidence, as we can see from our court systems. Most westernised legal systems rely more heavily on circumstantial and physical evidence than witness testimony for prosecution - for good and well researched reasons. So I'd ask you to ask Jesus to join the union and drop by for a chat (although I think the username is taken).

and FYI while washington never did part a red sea to my knowledge he did for all intents and purposes defeat the most powerful army in the world at the time with a budget not much greater than peanuts and an untrained at times starving army. the entire story is about as close to a miracle as you can get without parting any seas.

kayoticdreamz

That's where our historical perspectives differ. I don't share your biased American view, or think Washington was as big a hero as you, but I'm British, so why should I care about Washington or his deeds (having my own bias)? Other men have led their people to great victory, but there have been no believable recordings of humans performing truly, inexplicably, miraculous feats (like parting seas) I can think of in reality - i.e. outside of religion.

actually i just dont know im not 100% familar with that time period since its either what the church has said or a bunch of angry ex mormons speaking. honestly ive just never cared enough to really research it since its rather hard to find a clear historical point of view on the matter. though i suppose i may look it up i am curious but we shall see.

kayoticdreamz

I think you should do as much independent research - from as many sources - as possible.

why exactly is that more fantasy than again parting the red seas? at least in my mind its not even if it is more recent ive always found it hard to accept the bible just kind of stops at least i can understand the logic mormons attempt to continue the bible which i think makes more logical sense.

kayoticdreamz

I don't know about rating fantasies in order of fantasticalness. If the belief is in any way fantastic, I'd have trouble believing it. Are the Mormons trying to continue Christian doctrine, or have they just further split the Christian faith? It is founded on revelations that are most highly questionable. To believe it, you'd have to believe that Joseph Smith wasn't a fraudster and serial bigamist.

no merely wanted your take on the matter is all. im also simply saying i have problems with the big bang theory overall and as far as explanations go i rate that on the lower end of the spectrum.

kayoticdreamz

That you consider it as a possibility at all is a start!

im applying powerful to the term GOd because at least as i know God means powerful and not likely someone i can take in a fight and as far as Gods go the christian GOd packs the most punch so normally when i think of God i go something in the ballpark just because of the word God and its meaning in general as ive come to understand it.

i suppose you could say about why does God allow all that to happen well why not? do you suppose he should just come down every 2 seconds of the day and say hey you stop that? given the fact we have free will to do whatever we like at least until the law catches us it would seem if there be a God then he must live by a similar set of rules or else wed see every 2 seconds or less hey cut that out. and most descriptions of a heaven present a hell which clearly indicates there must be some kind of evil also everything has an opposite or so they say so if there is good or well say God why cant there be an opposing devil? i mean clearly theres good people and bad people so clearly theres influence of both kinds coming from various sources so i suppose why not i guess some unjustice is going to come down now and then based our indivual actions. regardless im also going to go with no one promised me life was fair or easy.

kayoticdreamz

According to you, God gave you this life, so if its not easy, then its up to God. Why shouldn't God let tidal waves and earthquakes happen and viruses that kill plenty of innocent babies? God shouldn't because your faith says God does not do those amoral and vengeful things. How can you be happy in heaven knowing about all the suffering in hell, or do you think you'll adopt the uncaring and vengeful side of God too?

so with your conclusion on how to came to athiesm have you all together rejected the idea of God or Gods existing? and like the other guy brought up how to explain people seeing spirits or other mystical things? i guess is there any other reason or rational as to how to came to athiesm or did that basically sum it up?

kayoticdreamz

I believe the mystical is a reflection of us. I see no personal spiritualism, although I do foolishly keep looking for it. The best reason for being rational is to see where being rational has got us.

i see fair enough it was just an observation ive had

so if budha was the biggest religion then you would critcize that one the most?

i guess i might say this then why are mormons often called non christian yet bapitist catholics and lutherans all different to an extent get to be called christian? i mean all mormons are doing is teaching about Christ yet a 4th different way? also dont mormons use the bible too? so how can it be in total conflict? and doesnt the bible say God Jesus and the Holy Spirit? 3 seperate beings? does the book of mormon vary from that or something? i mean how exactly does it say God or Jesus or both arent the all mighty beings?

ah i see so your open to the idea just dont beleive it fair enough.

kayoticdreamz

If Buddhism was the religion that I was most familiar with and I had beefs with it, then I would probably critisize it the most.

It seems like you ignored what I said about how far the mormon understanding of Jesus strays from the biblical understanding. There's no doubt that christian sects diverge on a few things, but the LDS church teaches of a totally different Jesus. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that they teach that Jesus was a created being, is not God almighty and did not create all things. All three of those things contradict the Bible's understanding of Jesus. Besides, Christianity teaches that Jesus is our god-- Mormonism teaches that Jesus is our elder spirit brother. That's quite a difference.

The LDS church and mormon missionaries will sometimes quote Bible verses, but it's usually to try to strengthen their faith in the LDS church's doctrines. They love to take James 2:20 out of context.

If Jesus and the Father are two seperate gods, that would contradict the many passages in the Old Testament which say that there is only one god. Once again we see where LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]i see fair enough it was just an observation ive had

so if budha was the biggest religion then you would critcize that one the most?

i guess i might say this then why are mormons often called non christian yet bapitist catholics and lutherans all different to an extent get to be called christian? i mean all mormons are doing is teaching about Christ yet a 4th different way? also dont mormons use the bible too? so how can it be in total conflict? and doesnt the bible say God Jesus and the Holy Spirit? 3 seperate beings? does the book of mormon vary from that or something? i mean how exactly does it say God or Jesus or both arent the all mighty beings?

ah i see so your open to the idea just dont beleive it fair enough.

dracula_16

If Buddhism was the religion that I was most familiar with and I had beefs with it, then I would probably critisize it the most.

It seems like you ignored what I said about how far the mormon understanding of Jesus strays from the biblical understanding. There's no doubt that christian sects diverge on a few things, but the LDS church teaches of a totally different Jesus. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that they teach that Jesus was a created being, is not God almighty and did not create all things. All three of those things contradict the Bible's understanding of Jesus. Besides, Christianity teaches that Jesus is our god-- Mormonism teaches that Jesus is our elder spirit brother. That's quite a difference.

The LDS church and mormon missionaries will sometimes quote Bible verses, but it's usually to try to strengthen their faith in the LDS church's doctrines. They love to take James 2:20 out of context.

If Jesus and the Father are two seperate gods, that would contradict the many passages in the Old Testament which say that there is only one god. Once again we see where LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible.

How do they take james 2:20 out of context? Seems fairly straight forward too me?

But does the bible say God Jesus and the holy spirit and reference them as three separate beings? Furthermore doesn't Jesus pray? If so wouldn't he pray to the father as praying to himself would be well silly and pointless? If so hardly a contradicition?

And how is he not our elder brother? I mean by the same token in the bible that we are all brothers and sisters because adam and eve are the first parents and Jesus therefore is born through that same line doesn't that technically make him our brother? Seems hardly a contradiction but I may be misunderstanding all that?

And aren't the three separate I mean look at

Matthew 28:19-20

Luke 3:22

Seems like there are three separate persons known as the Godhead which I guess like to speak as if they are the same but obviously there are points that they clearly distuingish themselves from one another. And doesn't genesis say make them in OUR image? Plural? So just wondering how that contradicts the God of the bible?

Hmm and fair enough I suppose there aren't a lot of Buddhist around.

sorry if i ignored what you said earlier i must of misunderstood or over looked it by mistake.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

but by the same token isnt that just what the bible is well just keep picking on moses to keep it more simple ok since either all the stories are true or false i dont think theres alot of roam for grey area but thats just me.

but isnt that what moses did i mean the story is he did his thing and had loads of witnesses but the thing is its in a time where writing isnt near as common and the average folk cant read or write but no doubt he must of had tons of witnesses to the event in the same fashion washington had witnesses the difference being washington lived when more people could read and write.

RationalAtheist

You say "no doubt" - since you are convinced it did exist and thousands of people saw it all. But there is no independent evidence for Moses or the crowds, as there is for Washington. There is plenty of direct physical evidence, circumstantial evidence (movements of people, arms, manufacturing, etc) supporting the accounts from history. What positive evidence have you to back up your assertion that he was made up 10 years before you were born? Weighing up the evidences for each case would leave you with the most rational view over Washington's life. You only need faith for insisting the rational view is not correct.

and supposing a person walked into this forum claimed to of seen Jesus or God would you beleive him? i mean for all intents in purpose the entire basis of christianity is a book or the mormons case even more than one book all claiming to of seen and talked to God and testifing to this fact? would it convince you say if i said ive seen Jesus anymore than the bible would?

kayoticdreamz

I'd believe that they believed they'd seen something. I too have had hallucinations, so know the power of the human mind to play tricks. We've learned a tremendous amount in recent years about how and people think in certain ways. We've discovered that personal testimony is far less reliable than physical evidence, as we can see from our court systems. Most westernised legal systems rely more heavily on circumstantial and physical evidence than witness testimony for prosecution - for good and well researched reasons. So I'd ask you to ask Jesus to join the union and drop by for a chat (although I think the username is taken).

and FYI while washington never did part a red sea to my knowledge he did for all intents and purposes defeat the most powerful army in the world at the time with a budget not much greater than peanuts and an untrained at times starving army. the entire story is about as close to a miracle as you can get without parting any seas.

kayoticdreamz

That's where our historical perspectives differ. I don't share your biased American view, or think Washington was as big a hero as you, but I'm British, so why should I care about Washington or his deeds (having my own bias)? Other men have led their people to great victory, but there have been no believable recordings of humans performing truly, inexplicably, miraculous feats (like parting seas) I can think of in reality - i.e. outside of religion.

actually i just dont know im not 100% familar with that time period since its either what the church has said or a bunch of angry ex mormons speaking. honestly ive just never cared enough to really research it since its rather hard to find a clear historical point of view on the matter. though i suppose i may look it up i am curious but we shall see.

kayoticdreamz

I think you should do as much independent research - from as many sources - as possible.

why exactly is that more fantasy than again parting the red seas? at least in my mind its not even if it is more recent ive always found it hard to accept the bible just kind of stops at least i can understand the logic mormons attempt to continue the bible which i think makes more logical sense.

kayoticdreamz

I don't know about rating fantasies in order of fantasticalness. If the belief is in any way fantastic, I'd have trouble believing it. Are the Mormons trying to continue Christian doctrine, or have they just further split the Christian faith? It is founded on revelations that are most highly questionable. To believe it, you'd have to believe that Joseph Smith wasn't a fraudster and serial bigamist.

no merely wanted your take on the matter is all. im also simply saying i have problems with the big bang theory overall and as far as explanations go i rate that on the lower end of the spectrum.

kayoticdreamz

That you consider it as a possibility at all is a start!

im applying powerful to the term GOd because at least as i know God means powerful and not likely someone i can take in a fight and as far as Gods go the christian GOd packs the most punch so normally when i think of God i go something in the ballpark just because of the word God and its meaning in general as ive come to understand it.

i suppose you could say about why does God allow all that to happen well why not? do you suppose he should just come down every 2 seconds of the day and say hey you stop that? given the fact we have free will to do whatever we like at least until the law catches us it would seem if there be a God then he must live by a similar set of rules or else wed see every 2 seconds or less hey cut that out. and most descriptions of a heaven present a hell which clearly indicates there must be some kind of evil also everything has an opposite or so they say so if there is good or well say God why cant there be an opposing devil? i mean clearly theres good people and bad people so clearly theres influence of both kinds coming from various sources so i suppose why not i guess some unjustice is going to come down now and then based our indivual actions. regardless im also going to go with no one promised me life was fair or easy.

kayoticdreamz

According to you, God gave you this life, so if its not easy, then its up to God. Why shouldn't God let tidal waves and earthquakes happen and viruses that kill plenty of innocent babies? God shouldn't because your faith says God does not do those amoral and vengeful things. How can you be happy in heaven knowing about all the suffering in hell, or do you think you'll adopt the uncaring and vengeful side of God too?

so with your conclusion on how to came to athiesm have you all together rejected the idea of God or Gods existing? and like the other guy brought up how to explain people seeing spirits or other mystical things? i guess is there any other reason or rational as to how to came to athiesm or did that basically sum it up?

kayoticdreamz

I believe the mystical is a reflection of us. I see no personal spiritualism, although I do foolishly keep looking for it. The best reason for being rational is to see where being rational has got us.

I have no evidence it was all made up before I was born 10 years prior. i am also simply pointing out a suggestion that moses had witnesses I mean the story does say there were witnesses. In both cases there is a left record of his accomplishments but in both cases ive never seen or have actual proof that either man was there and did what they did so I was suggesting how I can be sure one historical account is more accurate than the other as both are historical accounts of events that claim to of occurred.

To put this further into perspective the last American history text book I read in school ommited the bill of rights so I can hardly call these history books accurate or reliable so merely pointing out the what if possibility.

Honestly though would you believe Jesus if he joined gamespot? I sure wouldn't. and yes that is courtrooms we need physical evidence I agree but we aren't talking about that were talking about the possibility of God which has always required a certain degree of faith into the unknown at least ive yet to see a religion that didn't have this to some degree or another.

But suppose I am one of those vision Jesus seeing people how can you tell me I hallicunated? Im obviously going to say BS buddy granted I may not have another physically proof but I would know what I had seen especially if im sober. Also I would ask your opinion on the other proofs of the bible prophecies that come true as its no doubt the bible has predicted a few things over the years? Your take on that?

Well I was just using Washington and moses to keep it simple. and that's your opinion I suppose but if the evidence is true he was indeed a great man but see this further interesting point we both have two opposite view points on Washington the same as you and a Christian can have two opposite view points on the bible. Yet im sure im much more right about Washington than you see what I mean? How do we know who is correct?

Heres how unlikely I think the big bang theory is. Im more inclined to believe aliens are playing with us because we are really part of there game called the sims and any day now they are going to have a power outage lol. Also simply using the matter cannot be created nor destroyed sort of implies we were always around in some form or another.also its hard to belief the complexities of man evolved from single cell organisms just seems rather crazy.

Well I like to think those that make it to hell really pissed of the wrong guy and ended up deserving it by the same token im in favor of capital punishment for murderers its basically the same principle so no I wont care or feel bad seeing people like Hitler and stalin rotting in hell. And perhaps if God is fair as I like to hope he would be then perhaps babies aren't screwed and well its tidal waves and storms I mean no one lives forever we all die eventually. I mean honestly the world has a lot of ways to die and a lot of those are invented by man. So while its unfair sure what can you do about it? I mean life just isn't fair obviously whatever God there may be saw it fit to do this theres no sense and throwing a fit about storms killing people perhaps some of those people are evil and deserve perhaps some aren't whose to say perhaps it is just there time this all ventures into a territory that not even religion can explain outside of its just there time or just the way it is. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why a God would allow that?

I have no evidence it was all made up before I was born 10 years prior. i am also simply pointing out a suggestion that moses had witnesses I mean the story does say there were witnesses. In both cases there is a left record of his accomplishments but in both cases ive never seen or have actual proof that either man was there and did what they did so I was suggesting how I can be sure one historical account is more accurate than the other as both are historical accounts of events that claim to of occurred.

To put this further into perspective the last American history text book I read in school ommited the bill of rights so I can hardly call these history books accurate or reliable so merely pointing out the what if possibility.

kayoticdreamz

One is certainly more believable than the other, since one is more realistic, and doesn't involve physics-defying acts. There is also far more empirical evidence for one than the other. But you are right if you say that ancient history is far less reliable than modern history.

Sticking to just one book is also an issue, since no book is perfect and gives you everything you need to know. The best bet is independent research, where you can examine all points of view and see all sides of the argument before making your mind up.

Honestly though would you believe Jesus if he joined gamespot? I sure wouldn't. and yes that is courtrooms we need physical evidence I agree but we aren't talking about that were talking about the possibility of God which has always required a certain degree of faith into the unknown at least ive yet to see a religion that didn't have this to some degree or another.

kayoticdreamz

I don't know. I might depend what he said and did. If he could perform miracles that I couldn't explain, then I'd have to pay attention. I find it odd you say you wouldn't, given that yours would be a personal testimony (like you say Moses had), but in this case denying Jesus!

But suppose I am one of those vision Jesus seeing people how can you tell me I hallicunated? Im obviously going to say BS buddy granted I may not have another physically proof but I would know what I had seen especially if im sober. Also I would ask your opinion on the other proofs of the bible prophecies that come true as its no doubt the bible has predicted a few things over the years? Your take on that?

kayoticdreamz

I wouldn't - since I'd say I thought you'd believed you saw what you saw - as I said. The whole notion of your personal experience relies on more than witness testimony to make it useful as objective evidence. I say this because people claim to have personal experiences of all sorts of things, like alien abduction, astrology, chiripractic, etc. Please let me know where to begin on the biblical prophesy stuff. I thought far more prophesies hadn't turned out as planned. Does biblical prophesy mean you believe in Nostradamus too?

Well I was just using Washington and moses to keep it simple. and that's your opinion I suppose but if the evidence is true he was indeed a great man but see this further interesting point we both have two opposite view points on Washington the same as you and a Christian can have two opposite view points on the bible. Yet im sure im much more right about Washington than you see what I mean? How do we know who is correct?

kayoticdreamz

I didn't mean to insult George Washington at all. I'm saying I'm more familiar with British history than American history. Its far more exciting to me - and there's much more of it! You are raising the important issue of what is the quantum of proof is for history and I agree that history is merely a range of perspectives on stuff that happened. Some history is far more accurate that other history, based on the strength and weight of the associated evidence. When we find new evidence, our views about some of that less accurate history can change hugely. History where there is no good evidence becomes mythology or faith, especially when supernatural stuff happens in those versions.

Heres how unlikely I think the big bang theory is. Im more inclined to believe aliens are playing with us because we are really part of there game called the sims and any day now they are going to have a power outage lol. Also simply using the matter cannot be created nor destroyed sort of implies we were always around in some form or another.also its hard to belief the complexities of man evolved from single cell organisms just seems rather crazy.

kayoticdreamz

I wonder if that's because you've done more research into the sims than into the theory of the big bang. How else do you explain stellar red shift? Please try. Why would God have created the aliens? There were plenty of steps in the way from single cell to hairy ape and lots of time. The more you study it, I'm sure the less crazy it'll sound and the more sense it'll make. There is so much evidence that fits together.

Well I like to think those that make it to hell really pissed of the wrong guy and ended up deserving it by the same token im in favor of capital punishment for murderers its basically the same principle so no I wont care or feel bad seeing people like Hitler and stalin rotting in hell. And perhaps if God is fair as I like to hope he would be then perhaps babies aren't screwed and well its tidal waves and storms I mean no one lives forever we all die eventually. I mean honestly the world has a lot of ways to die and a lot of those are invented by man. So while its unfair sure what can you do about it? I mean life just isn't fair obviously whatever God there may be saw it fit to do this theres no sense and throwing a fit about storms killing people perhaps some of those people are evil and deserve perhaps some aren't whose to say perhaps it is just there time this all ventures into a territory that not even religion can explain outside of its just there time or just the way it is. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why a God would allow that?

kayoticdreamz

You are showing a mildly vengeful streak there! What happened to forgiveness? Speaking of which, if Stalin or Hitler had converted on their deathbeds and had really meant it (and if Christian faith is true), they'd both be joining you in heaven. Babies do die before they get a chance to really live and sin. No people are directly taught any lesson, since entire towns are destroyed, complete with infants and families by the amoral nature of nature. I can't see the point of worshipping an amoral God at all. I have absolutely no explanation for seeming random destruction and death at all, aside from the amoral nature of the universe, governed by physical law. This very much is territory for religion, since religion is supposed to answer these issues. The proclamations made about creation and loving Gods are plainly not borne out in reality.

How do they take james 2:20 out of context? Seems fairly straight forward too me?

But does the bible say God Jesus and the holy spirit and reference them as three separate beings? Furthermore doesn't Jesus pray? If so wouldn't he pray to the father as praying to himself would be well silly and pointless? If so hardly a contradicition?

And how is he not our elder brother? I mean by the same token in the bible that we are all brothers and sisters because adam and eve are the first parents and Jesus therefore is born through that same line doesn't that technically make him our brother? Seems hardly a contradiction but I may be misunderstanding all that?

And aren't the three separate I mean look at

Matthew 28:19-20

Luke 3:22

Seems like there are three separate persons known as the Godhead which I guess like to speak as if they are the same but obviously there are points that they clearly distuingish themselves from one another. And doesn't genesis say make them in OUR image? Plural? So just wondering how that contradicts the God of the bible?

Hmm and fair enough I suppose there aren't a lot of Buddhist around.

sorry if i ignored what you said earlier i must of misunderstood or over looked it by mistake.

kayoticdreamz

I often see mormons use James 2:20 to try to justify their belief that works are necessary for salvation. Ephesians 2:1-10 says that people are dead in sin and that the only way to be saved is by faith alone. Verses 8-10 assert that it is not of works that people are saved.

The phrase "faith without works is dead" means that where there is true faith in Christ, there is also a transformation of the heart. The Bible goes on to say that a person will naturally want to do things like loving his fellow man because God's seed abides in him [1John 3:9-10].

I do agree that the concept of God praying to himself and forsaking himself seems foolish-- it's one of the reasons I am not a christian. Regardless, the Bible does say that Jesus is God [2Peter 1:1].

In the verses where it says to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it doesn't necessarily prove that those three creatures are entirely seperate. I think it's trying to say that each member of the godhead has a distinct role, but the same purpose.

so a gnostic athiest doenst beleive in GOd but thinks there is an explanation otherwise for everything?kayoticdreamz

hmm though i do appreciate your explanation on how to came to be an athiest thanks! but i would ask one last thing the questions you pose that we have no answer to and lets face it theres still a hell of alot science doesnt get yet arent all those answers found in various forms amongst all religions? do these hold no weight to or do you just now soley rely on science and philosphy to gather your answers?

kayoticdreamz