Your Views on Atheism

[Abbazaba]

Originally Posted by Mickxey

1. Explain.

2. Wasn't directed at you specifically, but rather, SMK, who challenged my knowledge of other religions.

BTW, the only way to truly understand other religions is to be a part of them.

I would say the opposite. I understand Christianity more now than I had before, when I was Christian.

[Morning Twilight]

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

The Bible says a lot of things, what's your point? You choose to follow some verses, other Christian choose to follow others. You are Christian, and they are Christian (in their own way). The sooner you accept this simple fact of life, the happier you'll be.

Pheonix, you obviously don't know the story and havn't read enough. If you had you would know that those rules don't matter in the least bit anymore and that rule is for understanding, history, and just guidelines to how God ideally wants us to live. It's not a rule anymore, it's a piece of history mostly. Part of the story.

My earlier post was not at all defining Christianity as Pheonix so elegently twisted it to be, but it was just a reasoning to one logical reason to why I think people should have a religion. I wasn't going for Christianity as a direction on that one.

Smooth is right for the definition of Christians. Because the definition of a Christian is one who LOVES God and believes and loves in Jesus. Now there may be more criminals who are Christian, but then again there are more Christians than Athiests. Also, Christianity is a religion meant for criminals. So I'm not surprised in the least on that one.

I could say the same for God.

Don't give me that, if anyone in here could PROVE, seriously PROVE, that God didn't exist he or she'd probably be the richest person alive. Don't even give me that crap. You can give some reasons to why you think so, but no one can PROVE or DISPROVE that either exists. It's based on personal belief system, nothing more. There's equal evidence for and against from what I've seen.

[Samber]

Don't give me that, if anyone in here could PROVE, seriously PROVE, that God didn't exist he or she'd probably be the richest person alive. Don't even give me that crap. You can give some reasons to why you think so, but no one can PROVE or DISPROVE that either exists. It's based on personal belief system, nothing more. There's equal evidence for and against from what I've seen.

More like no evidence whatsoever.

But anyways thats exactly the reason why such discussions are meaningless because you will always hit a dead end and there will be no answer.
So if I go running around saying God isn't real, no one should get mad because no one can say i'm wrong or you're right, and plus, to each is own, no need to stress yourself over such petty things, there are more important things to worry about than contemplating whether or not God is real, you'll find out in the end anyways.

[Hollow Bastion]

Explain to me how one can prove the nonexistence of something.

Then,

Explain to me how one can prove the existence of something.


After you do so, explain where the burden of proof is in the argument of whether or not something exists.

[wii.red24]

i agee with morning twilight

[Phoenix]

Pheonix, you obviously don't know the story and havn't read enough. If you had you would know that those rules don't matter in the least bit anymore and that rule is for understanding, history, and just guidelines to how God ideally wants us to live. It's not a rule anymore, it's a piece of history mostly. Part of the story.

My earlier post was not at all defining Christianity as Pheonix so elegently twisted it to be, but it was just a reasoning to one logical reason to why I think people should have a religion. I wasn't going for Christianity as a direction on that one.

Smooth is right for the definition of Christians. Because the definition of a Christian is one who LOVES God and believes and loves in Jesus. Now there may be more criminals who are Christian, but then again there are more Christians than Athiests. Also, Christianity is a religion meant for criminals. So I'm not surprised in the least on that one.

Try to understand what I'm saying. I'm not claiming Christians should burn witches, I'm claiming that the definition of a Christian varies with the individual interpreting the Bible. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Don't give me that, if anyone in here could PROVE, seriously PROVE, that God didn't exist he or she'd probably be the richest person alive. Don't even give me that crap. You can give some reasons to why you think so, but no one can PROVE or DISPROVE that either exists. It's based on personal belief system, nothing more. There's equal evidence for and against from what I've seen.

Same as Santa Claus. That was my point: he could not claim that he has proof against Santa anymore that I can claim I have proof against God.

Seriously, are you angry today for a reason o_o?

[Abbazaba]

Originally Posted by Samber

More like no evidence whatsoever.

But anyways thats exactly the reason why such discussions are meaningless because you will always hit a dead end and there will be no answer.
So if I go running around saying God isn't real, no one should get mad because no one can say i'm wrong or you're right, and plus, to each is own, no need to stress yourself over such petty things, there are more important things to worry about than contemplating whether or not God is real, you'll find out in the end anyways.

The problem with that is, is that according to the bible you would have to accept God into your heart and follow his word to get into Heaven. If they spent their life NOT caring about whether or not God was real, then they wouldn't get to Heaven after they died. Assuming there is a Heaven, of course.

So to them, contemplating such things is important.

[Morning Twilight]

Try to understand what I'm saying. I'm not claiming Christians should burn witches, I'm claiming that the definition of a Christian varies with the individual interpreting the Bible. Not a hard concept to grasp.

That's the thing. The definition doesn't change. A Christian is a person who loves God, believes in Him, and Loves Jesus. Now a person can say that they love God and Jesus and really not, or believe and really not. That's the hard part. But as long as those are true (which are very hard to determine from the outside looking in) then that person is a Christian. Whether or not they do some other things, or follow some other rules in the Bible is different. That's that person's decision to do those things. It is not necessary. It even says that it's not necessary, but it should be done. Doesn't have to, but should. I think you're looking at it more close up than I am. There is 1 broad definition of a Christian, and anyone who does those 3 is one. But if you go more into detail of like dunking over sprinkling for baptism, then that's where you do get your differences. I can see your point, but it's not the definition of one.

Seriously, are you angry today for a reason o_o?

Ya, I was having a very bad day. Gf problems. Better today though.

But anyways thats exactly the reason why such discussions are meaningless because you will always hit a dead end and there will be no answer.
So if I go running around saying God isn't real, no one should get mad because no one can say i'm wrong or you're right, and plus, to each is own, no need to stress yourself over such petty things, there are more important things to worry about than contemplating whether or not God is real, you'll find out in the end anyways.

That's actually a big deal. At this point I don't have to contemplate, to me He's as real as this computer I'm using. But I used to, and that's a huge deal. In Romans Paul talks about how Israel is going to have a hard time being saved because, "how can they call on a God they don't believe in?" Belief is a big deal in Christianity.
Secondly, if you go saying that my God doesn't exist, I'm gunna get angry, because of love. I'm going to defend my God whom I love, because you are in a way insulting Him. But I'm not gunna fly off the handle, since it is an offense where I can say, "he knows not what he does." I'd get angry, but I probably wouldn't do much about it than maybe say a word or 2, and pray.

After you do so, explain where the burden of proof is in the argument of whether or not something exists.

Good point.

[Hollow Bastion]

Originally Posted by Morning Twilight

That's the thing. The definition doesn't change. A Christian is a person who loves God, believes in Him, and Loves Jesus. Now a person can say that they love God and Jesus and really not, or believe and really not. That's the hard part. But as long as those are true (which are very hard to determine from the outside looking in) then that person is a Christian. Whether or not they do some other things, or follow some other rules in the Bible is different. That's that person's decision to do those things. It is not necessary. It even says that it's not necessary, but it should be done. Doesn't have to, but should. I think you're looking at it more close up than I am. There is 1 broad definition of a Christian, and anyone who does those 3 is one. But if you go more into detail of like dunking over sprinkling for baptism, then that's where you do get your differences. I can see your point, but it's not the definition of one.

But to some people, as has already been shown, the definition of what is a Christian goes further than having faith in Jesus being God and the sacrifice made. To some, James 2:14-26 is important. It's the "faith without works is dead" group of scripture.

[Phoenix]

But to some people, as has already been shown, the definition of what is a Christian goes further than having faith in Jesus being God and the sacrifice made. To some, James 2:14-26 is important. It's the "faith without works is dead" group of scripture.

Which is why, even if the definition is set, you can't be trusted with having it because you could miss verses like this. Therefore, the definition is subjective because you can pick which verses you like and form the definition out of it.

[Abbazaba]

That's confusing. Why is it so confusing.

[Morning Twilight]

But to some people, as has already been shown, the definition of what is a Christian goes further than having faith in Jesus being God and the sacrifice made. To some, James 2:14-26 is important. It's the "faith without works is dead" group of scripture.

Actually what I said was "A Christian is a person who loves God, believes in Him, and Loves Jesus."
See the faith without works thing goes both under the love and believe in God. I said that "But as long as those are true (which are very hard to determine from the outside looking in) then that person is a Christian" I'm saying if it is real then that person is a Christian. You can say "I love you" to someone and not mean it. So the faith without works is dead thing means that if a person doesn't work with their faith, it's as if they don't believe, and the belief is not real. It also goes under John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." This is basically saying that the one who loves me will prove it. So the definition still stands, and stands perfectly.

Which is why, even if the definition is set, you can't be trusted with having it because you could miss verses like this. Therefore, the definition is subjective because you can pick which verses you like and form the definition out of it.

The definition isn't subjective. You have to know other verses that apply to that. You can't just pick one verse alone. It would be like taking one part of the Constitution and being like, "well if I have the freedom of speech, then I can say whatever I want, to whomever I want, whenever I want and the Government will protect me." We know this is false, you have to know the other parts to use it correctly. And if you read the verses correctly (which is actually a big problem) you don't. The definition is based on all of God's laws, most of the Old Testament, Jesus's 2 commandments, the Disciple's teachings....even Revelation. If you look just about anywhere in the Bible to anyone that was considered "favored by God" you will see that those 2 rules apply. Old Testament will be hard for the Jesus part, but you can't really do that one because this definition is for recent history (as in AD) and that would be anachronism. So it wouldn't work.

But long story short, the definition still works.

But this was a talk about Atheism, and not Christianity, so I propose that we stay on topic of Atheism.

[Phoenix]

Actually what I said was "A Christian is a person who loves God, believes in Him, and Loves Jesus."
See the faith without works thing goes both under the love and believe in God. I said that "But as long as those are true (which are very hard to determine from the outside looking in) then that person is a Christian" I'm saying if it is real then that person is a Christian. You can say "I love you" to someone and not mean it. So the faith without works is dead thing means that if a person doesn't work with their faith, it's as if they don't believe, and the belief is not real. It also goes under John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." This is basically saying that the one who loves me will prove it. So the definition still stands, and stands perfectly.

That's your interpretation, isn't it? You interpret that, by that phrase, good works are required. Subjective.

The definition isn't subjective. You have to know other verses that apply to that. You can't just pick one verse alone.

Or three. Or five. Or 50. If you can recite to me the entire Bible out of the top of your head, then you can be objective. If you can give me only 5 verses, your definition is subjective because you could be ignoring other verses.

It would be like taking one part of the Constitution and being like, "well if I have the freedom of speech, then I can say whatever I want, to whomever I want, whenever I want and the Government will protect me." We know this is false, you have to know the other parts to use it correctly. And if you read the verses correctly (which is actually a big problem) you don't. The definition is based on all of God's laws, most of the Old Testament, Jesus's 2 commandments, the Disciple's teachings....even Revelation. If you look just about anywhere in the Bible to anyone that was considered "favored by God" you will see that those 2 rules apply. Old Testament will be hard for the Jesus part, but you can't really do that one because this definition is for recent history (as in AD) and that would be anachronism. So it wouldn't work.

And that's your interpretation, and nobody's saying it's wrong. What I'm saying is that it's subjective. Someone else could take all of the Bible's laws on slavery and justify it with that, they could use all the laws on taking women from villages, and justify rape with that, and you're using some other verse to justify doing good works.

Which one is correct? I don't know, I haven't sat down and read the entire Bible, analyzing it verse by verse, but my point is, unless you have done just that, and can give me a definition of what a Christian is without saying "well, when he says x, he means y", then you can post the definition and claim it is objective. Not before.

[Forever Atlas]

I think a lot of people who dont believe in the Bible or other religions thats fine... everyone can do w/e they want lol.... 1 person changing their beliefs wont change the world.... but I also think that everyone should do their own research on everything IF they are genuinely interested in finding or searching out "truth".

Since I hold Christian beliefs i'll just use the Bible and say, instead of trying to find whats wrong with the Bible has anyone who doesnt believe in it try to really study it and then not just scrutinize it, but try prove it right?

Its easy to look for whats wrong in it. You can easily misinterpret or say one thing about a scriputre is wrong and this and that.... but thats just trying to find whats wrong, not really trying to find truths. If it is wrong it will stand out... LOOKING for wrong you will find it. But if you study and search and try prove it right... then you may just find that its right. Even if you dont at least you tried no?

Its easy to look for the bad in anything. Look at any person and you will find bad in them, its easy to just look at people and find bad in them. But what takes effort is to look at the good side in them. Even if you dont believe in the Bible, you cant say its a BAD book.

You can take any scripture and twist its words to fit your own meaning good or bad... but that doesnt mean its a bad book, its just you turn it into something bad. Now im not saying this for anyone who is on this thread because I dont really know you all and i dont know what you have done, im just throwing this out there.

[Dantez of Divinity]

Atheism is just another perception on the 'verse. I'm a faithful but I still take science seriously and think of myself as a scholar. I just see science as a tool given to humanity by God to discover how things work by ourselves instead of being born with the knowledge. Atheists see it as a tool and I see it as a gift. As long as you’re a good person with a good grasp on your own personal morals then I think you will go to heaven. Even if you look at the Bible from an Atheist point of view it still has a set of good guide lines to follow and a good read. You can still better yourself by reading a Holy book and taking its teachings to heart even if you don't believe in the divine part of it. I hope to go on a trip to the holy places of the world in a quest to gain spiritual enlightenment. I also plan on going to college and looking into history and science for intellectual enlightenment. That's how you become a better human in my mind. I don't see why anyone should treat an Atheist differently then a member of your faith. Same goes for Atheist views on religion.

It’s not like all the faithful give ''Because God wants it that way!'' as an answer to a complicated question. And you don't see Atheists in picket lines in front of churches and such shouting that faith is a lie. Yes I'm sure some people some where do those kinds of things but faithful and atheists don't all thrust their views on to people. The thing that sets off an argument is when someone misinterprets a person telling you how they think about a subject into ''My way is better so listen to me!''

I don't see how ''Does God exist?'' should be that big a deal. It’s not productive since it can't be answered and only helps form prejudice. Let the faithful prey in piece and let the atheists live their lives is what I say on the subject.