Jump to content


Photo

Why Are You Religous/agnostic/atheist?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#41 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 May 2009 - 11:38 PM

Just because God knows the future doesn’t mean He controls what we do, it just means He saw what we did, before we did it.

View Post



This is an extremely good response. Both logical and deep. I am impressed :lol:


The “Grandfather paradox” is a nice little si-fi piece. I think Ray Bradbury wrote the premise and story for this paradox. But it remains that, a nice little si-fi piece.

View Post


This is true. I really only mentioned the paradox for clarity. It is due to it's compromise of free will that I don't believe time travel is possible.

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart by continuing to send Moses and Aaron in his face (in front of his court), and because Pharaoh was a proud man, and because Moses and Aaron were challenging his status as a god-man in front of his court, Pharaoh’s actually hardened his own heart due to pride

View Post


This indeed makes more sense. It was the wording of the Bible that confused me. Perhaps it is something that was lost in translation.

Thank you for your input on this topic de_skudd. You have been genuine, logical and above all fun. I look forward to any other discussion we may have.

Regards,

Arch.

#42 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:33 AM

Please convince us of how you aren't trying to convince us of anything.  :lol:

View Post


Okay well...um...oh drat...

Arch, the moment you put your fingers to the keyboard you are trying to either convince someone of your ideas or your motive. It's unavoidable.

View Post


This is true. :P Everything we say is trying to convince as well as having a level of bias.
I understand some of the veterans around here are used to having to defend their position and faith from those that would take a completely atheistic/scientific approach to everything, but that is not my intent. I am certain there will be topics in the future that we will debate heatedly, but I did not wish this to be one of those times.

My hope with my last couple of responses was that I could convince CTD that although we may have extremely different outlooks on life, there is not reason we can't be hospitable and (dare I say it) even friendly. I still hope I can achieve this.

Thanks Adam, your words are extremely genuine, and not to worry, I have pretty thick skin ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 May 2009 - 01:39 AM

I think I now see where your problem lies. I was not trying to argue anything. I was posing an intellectual problem in the hopes someone would provide me with an intellectual answer. This was a question CTD, not a debate. Please take note of the "If" in that sentence.

View Post

Scrolling back up, I took note of another term.

God is meant to be omniscient. This means past, present and future are all viewed simultaneously, therefore God knows the future. God also created us, so he knows our past.

View Post

Meant to be?

"Meant to be" assumes what in this context? You people and your attempts to smuggle in assumptions... It just never stops.

IF one invents an imaginary god, it may be subject to clarifications about how it is defined. Nothing real can be defined by man. Nothing! Anything real must be described.

And even IF one invents imaginary things, it is the inventor's prerogative to choose definitions. IF you are inventing an imaginary god to question us about, I suggest you provide your own answers.

Finally, IF you were not questioning God's capacity to create creatures with free will, you need to learn to be careful and express yourself a lot better. I don't see any other potential interpretation available for the words posted.

Indeed, IF one can believe you meant anything else, they can probably believe you weren't questioning God's justness.

Sorry for the confusing writings, but hopefully you can see my point. If God is truly omniscient and all powerful, how can man be said to have free will? If we don't have free will then my fate was predetermined before I was born, including whether or not I would be one of the redeemed. It hardly seems just for a God to create a human knowing full well he would condemn them to hell at a later time.

It hardly seems just to read a lame, dusty, tired argument, and misinterpret it to be anything other than what it clearly is.

There are actually a few different versions. Mark Twain preferred the version that blames God for Eve's sin, and concludes the Serpent is mankind's friend. That's probably the most ancient of all. Dragons and serpents have been widely worshipped, and they're always associated with giving knowledge and/or with fruit and trees. That's just one more way God's enemies confirm the truth of Genesis, and it's all right there for anyone to see, plain as it can be.

I think I now see where your problem lies. I was not trying to argue anything. I was posing an intellectual problem in the hopes someone would provide me with an intellectual answer. This was a question CTD, not a debate. Please take note of the "If" in that sentence.

Your procedure is inconsistent with this claim. You introduced your story, and proceeded to construct an argument. You didn't stop with the question "Is God omniscient?" You didn't stop with "Do we have free will?" No. You didn't even stop with "Is there a coflict?" You kept cruising right along, and presented the conclusion that we cannot have free will, and then used that as the basis for your justice spiel.

Thus I conclude that with or without serpentine sponsorship, you have not outfoxed me this day. I suggest your optimism is unwarranted. Did you really expect Christians to blame God for their own sin? But that probably was not your goal.

Anyhow, it's time for a link.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1873

#44 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 May 2009 - 01:54 AM

Just for kicks, one may notice that if one wants to build the "God is unjust" argument, it is free will that has to go - not omniscience. This is a polywrong aspect.

If one takes the branch that concludes free will eliminates the possibility of omniscience, there is no way to continue on and slander God as being unjust. So that branch is never seriously considered.

Now in order to question omniscience in the first place, they always assume God does not exist. Why then bother trying to paint an imaginary entity as unjust? The argument should stop at nonexistence, y'see.

#45 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 May 2009 - 05:10 AM

""Meant to be" assumes what in this context? You people and your attempts to smuggle in assumptions... It just never stops."

"Meant to" in this context means I have heard Christians saying that God is omniscient. Considering God himself hasn't come down and told me personally, I am assuming I have been told the truth. I'm sorry if you think I am being devious.

"IF you are inventing an imaginary god to question us about, I suggest you provide your own answers."

I certainly wasn't trying to. I was hoping to question you about yours.

"Finally, IF you were not questioning God's capacity to create creatures with free will, you need to learn to be careful and express yourself a lot better. I don't see any other potential interpretation available for the words posted."

Strange CTD, everyone else seems to have understood where I was coming from and I've had some great discussions with them. We've even managed to find an answer! Perhaps you should ask de_skudd or Chip as to the interpretation of my words.

"Indeed, IF one can believe you meant anything else, they can probably believe you weren't questioning God's justness."

Judging by the positive responses I've received, this does seem to be the case.

"There are actually a few different versions. Mark Twain preferred the version that blames God for Eve's sins..."

Goodo for Mark Twain. Funny enough he's dead and not participating in this discussion. I am not Mark Twain.

"You introduced your story, and proceeded to construct an argument. You didn't stop with the question "Is God omniscient?" You didn't stop with "Do we have free will?" No. You didn't even stop with "Is there a coflict?" You kept cruising right along, and presented the conclusion that we cannot have free will, and then used that as the basis for your justice spiel."

This is absolutely correct. After all the above was done I then asked how other's felt about this, and whether they had a better explanation. I presented a problem and asked if people could solve it for me, as I had been unable to. Hence it was an intellectual question. For it to be an argument they had to offer me an explanation, then I had to disagree with it.
I'm not sure if you've noticed but de_skudd gave a great answer, which I agreed with. If we're not disagreeing I don't see how this is an argument.

"you have not outfoxed me this day"

I asked an intellectual question in the hope of getting an intellectual response. Instead of answering my question you have gone off on some tangent in an attempt to blame me for...well I'm not sure what. I had no intention of outfoxing anyone. It seems to me you are very close to outfoxing yourself.

"Did you really expect Christians to blame God for their own sin? But that probably was not your goal."

Of course not. I expected someone to offer me a logical explanation for how God can be omniscient AND we can still have free will. De_skudd has provided just such an answer, and I am satisfied. The only goal I had in mind has been met.

"Just for kicks, one may notice that if one wants to build the "God is unjust" argument, it is free will that has to go - not omniscience. This is a polywrong aspect.
If one takes the branch that concludes free will eliminates the possibility of omniscience, there is no way to continue on and slander God as being unjust. So that branch is never seriously considered."

If you want to discuss God's omniscience and humanity not having free will I'm open to that too. I was after all asking for your view on the matter. If you wished to present this view I would have listened.

"Now in order to question omniscience in the first place, they always assume God does not exist."

This statement doesn't make sense. God is meant to ('meant to' as in I've heard this put forward by Christians before), be the only one to have omniscience. If God doesn't exist then omniscience doesn't exist and we've got nothing to talk about. One must assume God DOES exist to discuss omniscience.

"Anyhow, it's time for a link."

Thank you for this. Although I have received a suitable answer from de_skudd I will take the time to read over this other forum.

Regards,

Arch.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:29 AM

This indeed makes more sense. It was the wording of the Bible that confused me. Perhaps it is something that was lost in translation.

View Post

When you look at the wording for how God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the language usage is much more ordinary than people realize, I believe.

Say for instance, that a person you don't like started trying to change their ways and mend a relationship with you. In the process of trying to make up to you, their kind actions made you more angry.

Now look carefully at my last sentence in the above paragraph and you'll see how plain and ordinary it is to say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and yet it be plain that God did not take Pharaoh's freewill away.

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 May 2009 - 06:35 AM

My hope with my last couple of responses was that I could convince CTD that although we may have extremely different outlooks on life, there is not reason we can't be hospitable and (dare I say it) even friendly. I still hope I can achieve this.

View Post


CTD is a pretty good friend of mine so let's see if we can calm him down...

CTD, cool your jets. Arch, is just trying to get to know us. :P

Thanks Adam, your words are extremely genuine, and not to worry, I have pretty thick skin  :lol:

View Post

That's cool. Just a fair warning... I am completely and totally intent on seeing you become a believer of Jesus Christ because I'm sold out that He is the way the truth and the life.

With that in mind, I promise to stay as open minded as possible to view things from your perspective, but I have this fishing net in my boat for catching people for Jesus. ;)

#48 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 May 2009 - 07:00 AM

Just a fair warning... I am completely and totally intent on seeing you become a believer of Jesus Christ because I'm sold out that He is the way the truth and the life.

With that in mind, I promise to stay as open minded as possible to view things from your perspective, but I have this fishing net in my boat for catching people for Jesus.  :lol:

View Post


Perfectly understandable Adam, and thank you for being upfront about it.

You may have some trouble turning me into a true believer, however I am already a believer in the historical and moral sense. Christ existed and to my mind he laid down a good foundation for a good way of life.

Regards,

Arch.

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 May 2009 - 07:12 AM

You may have some trouble turning me into a true believer...

View Post

I find this task impossible but that's not my job anyway. Only God's Spirit can convert the soul.

You said you are a believer in the historical and moral sense. What does this mean? I understand the historical sense but does this mean that you believe in the historicity of His miracles and resurrection? In the moral sense do you believe it was a good moral teaching for Jesus' followers to worship Him?

#50 chipwag64

chipwag64

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pennsylvania

Posted 28 May 2009 - 07:20 AM

Arch,

In your original post you mentioned moving from agnostic to atheist, is this correct?
It kinda seems from your posts that it may be the other way around?
Just a little confused.
Maybe you could explain to everyone the switch and why?

#51 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 May 2009 - 07:30 AM

Christ existed and to my mind he laid down a good foundation for a good way of life.

View Post


But, He also said HE is God.

#52 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 28 May 2009 - 02:08 PM

Perfectly understandable Adam, and thank you for being upfront about it.

You may have some trouble turning me into a true believer, however I am already a believer in the historical and moral sense. Christ existed and to my mind he laid down a good foundation for a good way of life.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Just reiterating what De-skudd has said. Jesus was not merely a teacher of good moral living. Jesus claimed Himself as God. Now, He could hardly be a good teacher and someone to rely upon and build ones faith in, if He as also a liar, a self deluded egotist or a complete nutter.

Either Jesus was indeed whom He said He was/is, or we have built our faith upon the deluded.

It is not just the fact we know historically that Christ existed. We also know that here was a man that was crucified for claiming Himself as God. Here was a man that had power of the elements, over sickness, over the demonic, over life and death, over the laws of nature itself etc. The witnesses are a testament to the power and authority of Christ over all these things. The prophets in the old testament also made incredible predictions about Jesus!

Up to this day, there have been miracles in the name of Jesus Christ. Defying medical/scientific explanation. I myself have been witness to a supernatural miracle overseas. I was not alone, but instead amongst thousands of people gathered in the name of Jesus Christ. I have not seen anything like it before, nor since.

So yes, miracles DO happen! But the greatest miracles to my mind are not so much that which dazzles the eyes, but the work that Christ can do inside a person. The incredible conversions and life changes! I recommend as one example you might like to view this:

(You will need windows Media Player).

http://www.muslimjou...mony_afshin.wmv

#53 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 May 2009 - 04:34 PM

CTD is a pretty good friend of mine so let's see if we can calm him down...

CTD, cool your jets. Arch, is just trying to get to know us. ;)
That's cool. Just a fair warning... I am completely and totally intent on seeing you become a believer of Jesus Christ because I'm sold out that He is the way the truth and the life.

View Post

Oh yeah, I'm just an angry nut rantin' on and on about this and that 'cause I hate everyone. Or whatever... Even for those who choose to think like that, what I've said is correct, so what difference would it make whether I was screaming at the computer screen when it typed it, or smiling and tossing flowers?

My apologies CTD, as I seem to have upset you somehow. Perhaps it is just getting lost in the internet dialogue, but your tone seems to carry a note of resentment.

View Post

I believe God knew how to give us free will.

'Omniscient' is a term used to describe God - not to define Him. Monkeying with the term won't change anything.

This is the case with plenty of objects. A rock might be round on one end and pointy on the other. Does it alter the rock if we quibble over 'pointy'? Obviously not. How then could quibbling over 'omniscient' alter God?

I'm sorry CTD, it seems I have unwittingly insulted you again as your tone carries a note of resentment. My question was of genuine interest, not an attempt to shut down anyone's faith.

View Post


My apologies for not being intimidated by attempts to portray me as upset, offended, etc. I don't think it matters if I'm upset. So what if I were?

I'm not a politician. I'm not here to appeal to emotions. Facts remain facts; sound reasoning is sound reasoning, and unsound reasoning is garbage. Dismissing what I've said on the basis of my alleged emotional state is fallacious. No intellectually honest person is terribly interested in ad hom sideshows.

So colour me indifferent. I'll post in whatever emotional condition is convenient. And if I'm going to be inevitably painted as upset, why should I care? I'll defend truth in any case. And I believe I'm competent to do so under many circumstances. Review the thread and show me where my reasoning is unsound, if you want to give me something to be concerned about. ( See, I know how to waste people's time too. :lol: )

Now back to business.

""Meant to be" assumes what in this context? You people and your attempts to smuggle in assumptions... It just never stops."

"Meant to" in this context means I have heard Christians saying that God is omniscient. Considering God himself hasn't come down and told me personally, I am assuming I have been told the truth. I'm sorry if you think I am being devious.

View Post

The attempted revision fails. 'Meant' is the past tense of 'mean'.

Was Mickey Mouse meant to have big ears? Was Mickey Rooney meant to be short? Was the square root of four meant to be two? Clearly saying God was "meant to be" omniscient means someone did the meaning. Who has the potential to do the meaning? If God is real, it's nonsense. Only if one is talking about something that was created does it make sense to say it was "meant to be" anything, for only the creator or a subsequent modifier has the potential to do the meaning.

When we read "God is meant to be omniscient," we must conclude the author is either calling God a creation (of imagination, one assumes), or composing an incoherent sentence. In the context of attempting to make out that God cannot exist(which is clearly what the rest of the text was about), the former interpretation is superior to the latter.

Had the author retracted 'meant', and substituted 'said', it would be a different matter. But the author chose to retain the term 'meant', and has not supplied any plausible entity to do the meaning.

Even the word 'mean' has meaning.

#54 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 May 2009 - 08:48 PM

CTD,

Commenting on your emotional state only seems to make things worse, so I will refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say the only reason it matters is because I give a d@mn. And if you have any objections to that, tough luck, its not going to change.

As to your objections to the words "meant to" I agree, they could be interpreted differently from my intended meaning. With your permission I would like to retract my previous wording and replace it with your "said to" version. It does indeed seem to be more accurate.

With this change is there anything additional you would like to add, or can we leave it at that?

Regards,

Arch.

#55 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:31 PM

Jesus claimed Himself as God.  Now, He could hardly be a good teacher and someone to rely upon and build ones faith in, if He as also a liar, a self deluded egotist or a complete nutter.

View Post


I don't really agree with this part Bex. I mean I do agree that building one's faith on a nutter might be a little risky, but should we ignore everything someone says if they have one or two little faults? Assume for a moment that Jesus wasn't actually the son of God and has fooled a huge number of people. Would that make his message any less important? Okay, maybe a little less, but the core of his teachings still holds true. "Love one another as I have loved you". (Favourite Biblical quote by the way).

I myself have been witness to a supernatural miracle overseas.  I was not alone, but instead amongst thousands of people gathered in the name of Jesus Christ. I have not seen anything like it before, nor since.

View Post


I'd be really interested in hearing about this experience, if you'd care to share.

Regards,

Arch.

#56 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 29 May 2009 - 06:28 PM

I don't really agree with this part Bex. I mean I do agree that building one's faith on a nutter might be a little risky, but should we ignore everything someone says if they have one or two little faults? Assume for a moment that Jesus wasn't actually the son of God and has fooled a huge number of people. Would that make his message any less important? Okay, maybe a little less, but the core of his teachings still holds true. "Love one another as I have loved you". (Favourite Biblical quote by the way).
I'd be really interested in hearing about this experience, if you'd care to share.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



There is a reason Jesus stands out from any other deliverer of good messages and morality. Why was Jesus so different? Because He was not merely a preacher/prophet, but He was the son of God Himself.

He demonstrated this power over illness/demonic/life/death/elements/nature as I have said earlier. Witnessed by many. Jesus healed. He healed spiritually AND physically. Displaying powers that could not have been possible had He been mere "man" and no more.

It is not just about Jesus' humanity, but it is about Jesus divinity! There is the key and that which makes all the difference in Him and His messages. His total authority over life and death!

The hope of the Christian is the good news of salvation and eternal life and because Jesus made that possible for each of us!

We believe He is the son of the living God. We believe He is whom He claimed to be. His witnesses testify to that fact. And as I said, miracles/healings continue to this day in Jesus' name. So no, He's not merely a good guy historical figure giving life skill seminars.

I would be happy to share with you my personal story relating to the miracle I was a witness too. But if you don't mind, would prefer at this time to do so over private message.

Cheers.

#57 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:31 PM

Arch,

In your original post you mentioned moving from agnostic to atheist, is this correct?
It kinda seems from your posts that it may be the other way around?
Just a little confused.
Maybe you could explain to everyone the switch and why?

View Post


Hi Chip,

I've had a few questions relating to this so I'll try and give an answer all in one.

I was raised in a loosely Christian family. It was assumed that God existed, but in the same way we assumed the sun would rise tomorrow. It was there, but kind of unimportant and never really spoken about that much. So although I was raised on Christian values, the belief system was never really pressed on me.

Then I had some bad things happen in my life and being young and not understanding I chose to blame it on God (hey, it had to be someones fault, right?) So I spent a few years in that "I don't believe in God but I hate him all the same" place that is completely paradoxical.

My parents elected to send me to a Catholic school (more for the better education than for the spiritual teachings) and I ran into a whole school full of people who were believers. The RE classes and the masses we were forced to attend were about as enlightening as watching the grass grow and I got sick of being force fed things I didn't believe and that no one could back up. I also noticed just how brainwashing these sessions were - despite never becoming a believer I can still recite most of the songs and hymns.

I also began to learn how ridiculous some things were. Such as the "Harry Potter is evil" scandal and that the church was teaching people that condoms didn't prevent AIDS.

But at the same time I was talking to other students about faith. It is them I have to thank. I came to realise how stupid it was to hate something I didn't believe in, and that I really wanted there to be a greater meaning to life. So although I felt that the church was far too corrupt and the Bible too scientifically inaccurate to be completely believable, I did feel that there was something more.

In my final year I elected to do 'Text and Traditions' classes (we had to do some form of religious education and this was the only one that actually contributed to my final grades). This was an historical study of the Bible, rather than the force feeding we had received so far. Discussions were open and things were actually explained rather than assumed.

My teacher for this class was amazing. He is the only teacher I have ever met that could take on the students. He always had an answer for everything, no matter how cheeky a student may have been. Likewise he also had an answer to any question regarding faith.

It was through him I learned that although there may be better explanations for Christ's miracles, he definitely existed and his message remains relevant.

Over the last few years I've done a lot of research into science. It seems the more I look into it, the smaller and less important mankind seems. It's really only since the beginning of the year I chose to give up my agnostic beliefs and see what it was like to be an atheist.

I found a peace in this that I had never felt before. I found that when you eliminate God from the equation, and accept that all we are is random space dust floating aimlessly about...all we really have is each other. I felt a connectedness to all life (not just people) that I had never known. That assumption that without God we would be unmoralistic animals is just bogus. I feel more connected to people after becoming atheist than I ever did as a believer or agnostic.

I also found that ever single belief I had ever had needed to be reevaluated. Until you make such a big change in your life you have no idea how many ideals are rooted in your beliefs. Once you remove that original belief system you realise you can't justify things anymore.

Which kind of brings me to why I'm here. At the moment I'm not sure what a lot of my beliefs are. I'm having to re-evaluate all of them and I figure a place like this is a good way to do it. So I'm open to being challenged. You may also find me flip-flopping a bit until I figure out where I stand.

"You said you are a believer in the historical and moral sense. What does this mean? I understand the historical sense but does this mean that you believe in the historicity of His miracles and resurrection? In the moral sense do you believe it was a good moral teaching for Jesus' followers to worship Him?" - Adam_777

I believe Christ did some pretty impressive things, but no I don't think he ever did anything that could not be explained logically.
I believe following His moral teachings is a good thing, but I think 'worship' is too strong a word.

"But, He also said HE is God." - de_skudd

I need to double check my Bible to be certain Christ said these, but I know the New Testament says that h*m*sexuals are evil and that woman are essentially second class citizens. There are a lot of things religion says. Since it's my belief that these words came from man and not God I feel happy to pick and choose which ones I follow.

So there it all is. Sorry about such a long post but I hope you find it enlightening.

Regards,

Arch.

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:15 PM

CTD,

Commenting on your emotional state only seems to make things worse, so I will refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say the only reason it matters is because I give a d@mn. And if you have any objections to that, tough luck, its not going to change.

As to your objections to the words "meant to" I agree, they could be interpreted differently from my intended meaning. With your permission I would like to retract my previous wording and replace it with your "said to" version. It does indeed seem to be more accurate.

With this change is there anything additional you would like to add, or can we leave it at that?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

I don't see a whole lot left that needs discussing right now.

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2009 - 05:12 AM

I don't really agree with this part Bex. I mean I do agree that building one's faith on a nutter might be a little risky, but should we ignore everything someone says if they have one or two little faults? Assume for a moment that Jesus wasn't actually the son of God and has fooled a huge number of people. Would that make his message any less important? Okay, maybe a little less, but the core of his teachings still holds true. "Love one another as I have loved you". (Favourite Biblical quote by the way).
I'd be really interested in hearing about this experience, if you'd care to share.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Firstly, these wouldn’t be one or two ‘little faults’, they would be monumental deceptions built upon more lies to put out a few frou-frou feel-good sayings. And that one could claim to be God when they are not would make them delusional in the best case scenario, or an out-and-out lunatic. And with so many witnesses to His wonders and words, attempting to explain them as lies and trickery would be extremely difficult to do.


Not only that, but what would this say about His disciples? They walked with Him throughout His entire ministry. They witnessed Him healing the sick, raising the dead, making the lame walk, the blind see and the dumb speak (not to mention listening to His words of wisdom). Then they saw Him crucified and die in a most horrific manner, and three days later, they saw Him alive again. They then took up His mantle and continued His mission. And, instead of recanting His miracles, message and life, they died deaths as horrific as His (Crucifixion, boiled in oil, sawn in half, thrown from a building and beaten to death, beheaded etc…). If they had not witnessed what they witnessed, and done the works they had done, would this make them any less insane?

No, those lies would have unraveled His entire ministry before it got started. And assuming Jesus was just fooling everyone (which would have been a miracle in itself) when He knew the type of death that was in store for Him, would have made Him an even greater fool and lunatic.

Also, you cannot have the second part of Luke 10:27 as your “favorite Bible quote” without including the first half of it. Otherwise you’d be living a lie as well.

#60 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 May 2009 - 07:07 AM

Also, you cannot have the second part of Luke 10:27 as your “favorite Bible quote” without including the first half of it. Otherwise you’d be living a lie as well.

View Post


Actually Ron my favourite quote would be John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,

Arch.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users